Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I said before, watch the video I posted above on the development of DNA as it explains this leading theories on this process far better than I could ever hope to myself.
Unfortunately the leading theories provide no proof of anything, no mention of ATP synthase and associated functions that provide the energy required for RNA and DNA processes, no evidence that Ribozymes could sustain themselves or replicate, no proof of early protocells or their ability to function or replicate or sustain themselves. As proteins and amino acids and ribozymes in the environment naturally degrade with time and disintergrate, real proof is needed that the opposite can happen in a sustainable way with a structure that can selfreplicate. No proof of any of that is offered. There is no proof that simpler structure forms can exist and sustain themselves and replicate and increase in complexity over a period of time. Until that evidence exists an act of creation is the most likely cuase for life.
 
Trev :thumbsup: for actually trying to meet the thread's goal.

Do you have any linkage (preferably not from Creation.com kind of sites, but if there's nothing else that would have to do) so I can read it later? I'd like to see the actual data these conclusions you posted are based on.
 
Unfortunately the leading theories provide no proof of anything, no mention of ATP synthase and associated functions that provide the energy required for RNA and DNA processes, no evidence that Ribozymes could sustain themselves or replicate, no proof of early protocells or their ability to function or replicate or sustain themselves. As proteins and amino acids and ribozymes in the environment naturally degrade with time and disintergrate, real proof is needed that the opposite can happen in a sustainable way with a structure that can selfreplicate. No proof of any of that is offered. There is no proof that simpler structure forms can exist and sustain themselves and replicate and increase in complexity over a period of time. Until that evidence exists an act of creation is the most likely cuase for life.

Is your arguement basically "you can't prove yours so mines obviously right"?

Cause that sorta logic is wrong.
 
Is your arguement basically "you can't prove yours so mines obviously right"?

Cause that sorta logic is wrong.
No. My argument stands on its own feet and is based on the standard rules of logic. If 3 things are fully interdependent, can only function in its complete state, too complex to have just happened, then the logical conclusion is that it was designed and built. Any argument against it must show that those things are NOT fully interdependent, that all 3 can function in a less complex state (here you may be able to argue that DNA and RNA can be less complex than we see today) and that chance combinations of atoms or molecules or amino acids or proteins can form these structures without them disintergrating ( which is what we see in nature today when they are separated) and that they have functionality apart from each other as noone can seriously show all three necessities of life could have happened in an instant by chance and then functioned and replicated.
 
Aren't you talking about abiogenesis here?

I'm admitting ignorance to the very early stages and whether Evolutions deals with life after cells are formed. Since Evolution deals with species.

edit: which is why I requested links. :)
 
Trev for actually trying to meet the thread's goal.

Do you have any linkage (preferably not from Creation.com kind of sites, but if there's nothing else that would have to do) so I can read it later? I'd like to see the actual data these conclusions you posted are based on.
I appreciate your post. I cannot provide linkages to non biased sites, but rational people can separate bias from facts and I believe you to be rational, so I will provide a number of linkages and a few quotes for your benefit and that of other readers.
http://creation.com/atp-synthase
Some quotes from it
Life depends on an incredible enzyme called ATP synthase, the world’s tiniest rotary motor.1 This tiny protein complex makes an energy-rich compound, ATP (adenosine triphosphate). Each of the human body’s 14 trillion cells performs this reaction about a million times per minute. Over half a body weight of ATP is made and consumed every day!

All living things need to make ATP, often called the “energy currency of life”. ATP is a small molecule with a big job: to provide immediately usable energy for cellular machines. ATP-driven protein machines power almost everything that goes on inside living cells, including manufacturing DNA, RNA, and proteins, clean-up of debris, and transporting chemicals into, out of, and within cells.
We might also consider that ATP synthase is made by processes that all need ATP—such as the unwinding of the DNA helix with helicase to allow transcription and then translation of the coded information into the proteins that make up ATP synthase. And manufacture of the 100 enzymes/machines needed to achieve this needs ATP! And making the membranes in which ATP synthase sits needs ATP, but without the membranes it would not work.
http://creation.com/immunoglobulin-and-gene-duplication
http://creation.com/facilitated-variation-paradigm-emerges
http://creation.com/mechanisms-of-gene-regulation
http://creation.com/junk-dna-slow-death
A series of links demonstrating the complexity of DNA, RNA and their functions and therefore the improbability that chance designed the first cells.
My initial argument was not based on one link or article, but rather logically combining the data contained within multiple articles, a selection of which I have supplied here.
To Ziggy - took time to find and collate what you asked for
 
12 pages in two days. And nothing but anti-evolution hearsay, opinion and no evidence.

Simply, if you believe in God and he can do anything. *Poof* - now life exists. *Poof* - now life exists everywhere diversified. It reminds me of the story of a Genie and the 3 wishes.

But if you do not believe in God, none of this is possible, in scientific terms.

So really the debate should be about "Proving God Exists" and not "Creation", which is simply a by-product of God existing.

There is absolutely no evidence of how life first formed on the planet. All current theories are not supported by any evidence. Dumb chemicals have far too many hurdles to over come.

Even the simplest form of life extremely complex. There has not been one successful attempt at showing, because there is a problem of homochirality.
One of the major hurdles is the origin of homochirality, that is, all the vital biomolecules of life having the same handedness (see diagram showing chirality in amino acids, right) and Origin of life: the chirality problem), e.g. proteins comprise almost entirely ‘left-handed’ amino acids, while nucleic acids, starch, glycogen etc. contain sugars that are all ‘right handed’. Homochirality is necessary to produce the precise shapes of enzymes and the DNA’s double helix. But ordinary chemistry always produces a 50/50 mixture of left and right handed forms (enantiomers)—such a mix is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Chemists normally require pre-existing homochirality, usually from a biological source, to synthesize homochiral compounds. But this illustrates the problem of the origin of biological homochirality in the first place.
http://creation.com/origin-of-life-and-the-homochirality-problem-is-magnetochiral-dichroism-the-solution

I don't understand why attacking Evolution is not that same as supporting Creationism, since that is tactics used by Evolutionists, to say that if God would not have done things that way, If I were to quote Dawkins as he said in a radio interview. Rather contradictory wouldn't you say?
‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening.’

So you want some evidence, then look here. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5297382&postcount=79
 
That's all very well, but if there's no evidence of any of this scientific stuff actually taking place, why are you (i.e. creationists) so eager to baffle us with scientific stuff that allegedly proves your case? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
 
http://creation.com/atp-synthase
Some quotes from it
http://creation.com/immunoglobulin-and-gene-duplication
http://creation.com/facilitated-variation-paradigm-emerges
http://creation.com/mechanisms-of-gene-regulation
http://creation.com/junk-dna-slow-death
A series of links demonstrating the complexity of DNA, RNA and their functions and therefore the improbability that chance designed the first cells.
My initial argument was not based on one link or article, but rather logically combining the data contained within multiple articles, a selection of which I have supplied here.
To Ziggy - took time to find and collate what you asked for

Thanks for the effort, but can you maybe pick one which you think demonstrates your case best? I have a day job and so don't have hours reading them all.
 
95% of fossil record is marine life which would be evidence of a deluge.
http://books.google.com/books?id=E0F7zhnx1cgC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=95%25+of+fossil+record+is+invertebrates&source=bl&ots=8GQAHKdBCq&sig=7CjP8pjLVDOwgFSKZsmLWyXtesA&hl=en&ei=T08ATc3ZNcWAlAfajLWICQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=95%25%20of%20fossil%20record%20is%20invertebrates&f=false
we barely have any fossils of vertebrates(various non creation sources say the same thing) that are more than just a couple of bones. how can you prove a "smooth" transition with this state of the fossil record. macro-evolution is a belief not something based on scientific evidence.

animals fossilized in very strange positions like a fish(Ichthyosaur) giving live birth.
ichthyosaur_live_birth.jpg


seashells found on the top mountains "please don't say it was buried in place and a mountain grew under it"

soft tissue has been found in dinosaurs bones that are supposed to be 65 million years old. others types of tissues in other organism have been found but people only care about dinosaurs.

fish need to be buried quickly to be fossilized or they will decay and rot. a fish lying on the ocean floor would be unrecognizable after a few days because of decay.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2427003

Irreducible Complexity of the flagella. the bacteria will no longer be "fit" to survive in the wild and the tail by itself is useless both must be created in place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4
ken miller never answered how it could evolve over millions of years with scientific evidence he points to a "similar" structure with only a few parts of a flagella it says it "might" have evolved from that.
then he uses a straw man argument of a 2-D structure perfectly lining up by chance from other parts of the organism.(wont the organism need the other parts) unfortunately flagella is 3-D structure with about 40 different distinct parts

by his line of reasoning a tornado can come through a junk yard and by chance take all the good parts from broken cars and form a working car out of it. even if you have spare parts laying around it wont combine in perfect order through blind,random chance.

the impossible evolution of a giraffe. i tried looking for answers but here is what i got.
http://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/giraffe.htm (the best explanation for evolution)
but this is not the only problem for a giraffe.
girart.gif

how could it drink water when it would have died through hemorrhaging.
 
The Giraffe one I've read before, so I can answer that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB325.html

Darwin answered this claim in 1868 (206). The claim assumes that "gradually" must mean "one at a time." Not so. The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth.
 
Remind me again why the Bible counts as evidence of creation when there were pre-biblical societies who had other beliefs?

Judaism was not the first religion by a long shot.

Why is creation in the Bible being seriously considered as evidence when there are previous, and thus more historically "accurate" (if you consider creation myths accurate) creation myths? Because they happened closer to the supposed event, wouldn't their anecdotal evidence count as superior to the Bible's?

This is pretty much the reason why I at a very young age stopped taking any religion seriously and continue to do so to this day.
 
A series of links demonstrating the complexity of DNA, RNA and their functions and therefore the improbability that chance designed the first cells.
My initial argument was not based on one link or article, but rather logically combining the data contained within multiple articles, a selection of which I have supplied here.
To Ziggy - took time to find and collate what you asked for

I disagree; I'm no biologist but I'll give it the ole go.

Like I said before I wouldn't consider it pure chance; billions of years leaves a long time to fix the kinks.

whoses to remark on the evolution of one-celled organisms, what type of fossils do they leave (if any) and how would this effect the evolution of more advanced animals?

Science has come along way, we cant be blamed if we don't know all the answers.

But we know what we know and that is there is evidence for evolution.
 
Trev still hoping you'll nominate one link.

Got a little time for this one.
animals fossilized in very strange positions like a fish(Ichthyosaur) giving live birth.
ichthyosaur_live_birth.jpg
Dinosaurs can't die giving birth?

What is your problem with this?
seashells found on the top mountains "please don't say it was buried in place and a mountain grew under it"
As a creationist you don't believe in the mechanism of plate tectonics?
Irreducible Complexity of the flagella. the bacteria will no longer be "fit" to survive in the wild and the tail by itself is useless both must be created in place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4
ken miller never answered how it could evolve over millions of years with scientific evidence he points to a "similar" structure with only a few parts of a flagella it says it "might" have evolved from that.

1. This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):

1. A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.

2. The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).

3. The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).

4. An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.

5. The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.

6. Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.

The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum. It probably originated as an outgrowth of the mitotic spindle in a primitive eukaryote (both structures make use of sliding microtubules and dyneins). Cavalier-Smith (1987; 2002) has discussed the origin of these systems on several occasions.

2. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999).

Eukaryotic cilia are made by more than 200 distinct proteins, but even here irreducibility is illusive. Behe (1996) implied and Denton (1986, 108) claimed explicitly that the common 9+2 tubulin structure of cilia could not be substantially simplified. Yet functional 3+0 cilia, lacking many microtubules as well as some of the dynein linkers, are known to exist (Miller 2003, 2004).

3. Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.
 
There is absolutely no evidence of how life first formed on the planet. All current theories are not supported by any evidence. Dumb chemicals have far too many hurdles to over come.
This is outside the scope of Evolution. As you've been told a million times before.

I don't understand why attacking Evolution is not that same as supporting Creationism, since that is tactics used by Evolutionists, to say that if God would not have done things that way, If I were to quote Dawkins as he said in a radio interview. Rather contradictory wouldn't you say?
Jeebus Cripes, you couldn't be more wrong or more dishonest. Evolution is supported by physical evidence, not by the narrative "God would not have done things that way". Darwin didn't reason like that, no biologist I read reasons like that.

Attacking Evolution is not providing evidence for Creationism. Finding evidence the world was created in 6 days for instance would be. But lets say you debunk the hell out of a certain part in the ToE. How can you be sure that this isn't because Evolution does happen, just not in the way we currently think it does?
("could have" and "almost" certainly would have.) why does the author shy away from saying that it did happen.
Because unlike Creationists scientist don't deal in absolutes nor should they fear to show they lack knowledge. If they deal with implications they should say so. Being ignorant is the driving force of science. It's what makes us want to discover. being certain is the biggest demotivator of the desire for discovery.

What he does do is debunk the myth that a giraffe could not have evolved because of brain hemorrhaging. Which was your claim.
 
if you can quote talkorgins.com i can quote trueorgins.com only fair right since both are managed by PHD scientists who have "small" disagreements.


It is strange that the TTSS system is so commonly promoted as the most likely starting point by many evolutionists since the TTSS system is supposed to have evolved hundreds of millions of years after flagellar evolution. That's right! Several scientists have suggested in fairly recent literature that there is good evidence to believe that the TTSS starting point arose from the fully formed flagellum and not the other way round.2-7 Consider that the bacterial flagellum is found in mesophilic, thermophilic, gram-positive, gram-negative, and spirochete bacteria while TTSS systems are restricted to a few gram-negative bacteria. Not only are TTSS systems restricted to gram-negative bacteria, but also to pathogenic gram-negative bacteria that specifically attack animals and plants . . . which supposedly evolved billions of years after rotary bacterial flagellar motility had already evolved! Beyond this, when TTSS genes are found in the chromosomes of bacteria, their GC (guanine/cytosine) content is typically lower than the GC content of the surrounding genome. Given the fact that TTSS genes are commonly found on large virulence plasmids (which can be easily passed around between different bacteria), this is good evidence for horizontal transfer to explain TTSS gene distribution. Flagellar genes, on the other hand, are usually split into 14 or so operons, they are not found on plasmids, and their GC content is the same as the surrounding genome suggesting that the code for the flagellum has not been spread around by horizontal transfer. So, if anything, it seems like the TTSS system would have evolved from the flagellum (which does in fact contain TTSS system-like subparts, such as a basal body that secretes various non-flagellar proteins - including virulence factors), and not vice versa.

Additional evidence for this comes from the fact that the TTSS system shows little homology with any other bacterial transport system (at least 4 major ones). Yet, evolution is supposed to build upon what already exists. Since the TTSS system is the most complex of the bunch, why didn't it evolve from one of these less complex systems and therefore maintain some higher degree of homology with at least one of them? This evidence suggests that the TTSS system did not exist, nor anything homologous, in the "pre-flagellar era". It must therefore have arisen from the fully formed flagellum via the removal of pre-existing parts - and not the other way around. In fact, several scientists have actually started promoting this idea in recent literature

http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Evolving%20Highly%20Complex%20Functions
 
Because unlike Creationists scientist don't deal in absolutes nor should they fear to show they lack knowledge. If they deal with implications they should say so. Being ignorant is the driving force of science. It's what makes us want to discover. being certain is the biggest demotivator of the desire for discovery.
if there are no absolutes. why should there be only one "theory" of life origins in the classroom since neither of them can be proven to be a fact. we should let the students decide on which theory best fits the evidence better.
 
Sure. Trev has been using Creation.com so the bottomline for linkage is already spectacularly low :)

I know there are a couple of posters who are much more knowledgeable in that area, so excuse me if I don't reply to the content, others will do a much better job than I could.

I still am curious, are you as a Creationist skeptical towards plate tectonics? And what is the issue with a fossilized dinosaur which died giving birth?

And lastly, are you satisfied with the explanation how a giraffe could have evolved?
if there are no absolutes. why cant we teach more than one "theory" of life origins in the classroom since neither of them can be proven to be a fact.
Because only one has evidence. Only one has followed the scientific method.

The Theory of Evolution does not require the entire evolution of every species to be documented in fossilized record. If you prove the concept using a couple of species and see the same method returning for others, you have your evidence. And there have been lots of species with such a record. Including humans by the way.

edit: Mind you: Evolution is fact, the Theory of Evolution is the best model up to date to describe the process of Evolution.

edit 2: edit edit edit :D Do you believe the Theory of Gravity is absolute? Well, it isn't. Shouldn't intelligent falling also be taught in the classroom?
 
as long as the "theory of evolution" is taught as a blind,random,and chance guided process and with admittance that the evidence is not "absolute" for the theory of evolution.
then Im fine with it being the only one being taught in the classroom. its when we lie or mislead in the classroom that i have a problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom