Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[SuperJay]

Chukchi, you need to evolve a spine. You would be amazed at how many people will back off when you stop taking their crap.

I would agree, if I thought his posts were genuine and sincere.

EDIT: Heck, maybe they are. Who knows.

 

[Trev]

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

These quotes were taken from here http://creation.com/atp-synthase other bits and pieces I have written are logical conclusions drawn from this and other information.
I prefer to make my own arguments and come to my own opinions and therefore cannot always reference back to someone else.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So I googled Jerry Bergman. One of the first things I found was: "Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust"

And I googled a bit more, and since creation wiki (really?) was used, here's anohte rlink for you not to read. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bergman.html

And before you ask, did you look at any of my links? I'll answer, no. I found my own. Since that's what you've been doing throughout the thread. Abandon any discussion where you run out of arguments and start a new one.

Before you go into people who blame Evolution for Causing the holocaust, why not handle one topic at the time, and when you're links or claims are disproven, why not admit; right, I as wrong about that one. Nope, you just jump to the next try. You remind me of the blind man trying to solve the rubik's cube in UHF the Vidiot. "Is this it?", "No." ... "Is this it?", "No." ... "Is this it?", "No."

edit:

Link to video.


If I'm totally completely am wrong here, why do you jump from one case to the next? Why not pick one which you feel most strong about and debate that in depth?

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Here is a scientific prediction:

Every single thing you will ever read about Noah's Ark will be proven to be a myth or a hoax or an exaggeration, because the supposed event never happened.

And this is scientific, because it can be disproved. As soon as you prove Noah's Ark is a real thing which could have happened.

The day they find the "real" Noah's ark and every kind of testing is done on it to prove its authenticity comes back positive, and they prove where the flood waters came from and where they went, and they logically prove that so many animals could have been cared for and fit in the ark properly, all of my objections to the story are proven to be solvable, then guess what, my scientific prediction about Noah's Ark being a fairy tale will be proved wrong.

Thus, it is a valid scientific prediction.

I remember reading in one book I had about mythology that every society had a flood story, but it's origin may have came from a large but local flood in Mesopotamia. There was one documentary I saw on TV about when the French went to Egypt and began to uncover the old civilization there, the scientists working there found that the buildings and other things actually predated the accepted date of the Flood.

If they say the Noah's Ark was real, that would mean that every person on Earth would be descended from them. One thing they like to say a lot is that everyone is different, and that people from different areas have different features. Would that mean, for them to believe that story, from the few people on the Ark some changes must have happened in later changes as their descendants adapted to living in new areas, and so at least the mechanics of evolution must be true? Once I did use the example of dog breeds, and how every dog on Earth are descended from wolves, enough for dogs to be considered a sub species of wolf, and yet some breeds look almost completely different, but they dismissed it as being man made and doesn't show that evolution happens. They later dismissed the man part and said God made dogs that way.

I am capable of supporting this prediction because I have observed the lengths religious wackos go to in order to falsify data to prove their faith is real, which is absurd. No one should be more interested in disproving these hoaxes than religious people, because if they CAN'T DO IT, then they might have just proven the existence of a real thing from their holy book, and that will add a lot of credibility to their arguments. But many of them don't want to subject these "discoveries" to rigorous testing which might disprove their claims, because they know it is a hoax, and it isn't real, and if another hoax regarding their mythology becomes news, more people might flock from the church

Is that why they dismiss anything that has an explanation as "too complicated" and that the simple explanation, which they say is the Bible, is the right answer? And is it the reason why they believe that being educated and being an intellectual is evil? (They use examples like Robert Mugabe and Josef Mengele as educated people.)

because it is engaging in the evil act of lying to people for money (tithes).

The chapel I go to is more of a family run thing and the only money I know is what they volunteer to give to an orphanage in Kenya. They don't like the Anglican way of doing things or the Catholic way (which is why I guess they enjoy watching Father Ted).

Origin of Species is a good starting point, but the theories of evolution and natural selection have evolved, pardon the pun, since then.

I suppose if I did read it, it would be more than what they have done. I found some copies for sale on Amazon from different publishers (and one of them is illustrated). Would it matter which one I get or would they be all the same?

I think even if I had the knowledge to show at least on a scientific level the Bible can be wrong they may just say I'm wrong again. I think I said before that they believe things like homeopathy works better than real medicine, even when they are shown it's false, but I suppose at least I would have the knowledge to know what is the most likely explanation, and if I told them I'm not secretly holding onto something.

 

[Trev]

Therefore, DNA and RNA can exist inside these natural bubbles of fat and water.

Therefore, the only thing left is ATP, which also, conveniently, can exist inside these bubbles.

There is no proof they can exist inside natural bubbles of fat and water. However this argument even if true says nothing about ATP synthase forming from 100 amino acids/machines out of basically nothing. Until you can show a genuinely feasible way for that to happen without DNA/RNA as they cannot function without ATP synthase then you have shown nothing.
My argument still stands.

 

[magicfan101]

askthepizzaguy you didnt even read the post.
you are deliberately avoiding irrefutable evidence for creation

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

excerpts from creation scientist to refute the best examples of good mutations

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
refuting Antibiotic resistance in bacteria as a "good" mutation

A.many microbes already possess the resistance in their genomes. The resistance does not arise by itself, nor does it arise in response to the antibiotic

Thats not a refutation of what scientists say about this. That's exactly what we were arguing.

• The mutations which allows for the resistance is IN THEIR GENOMES. The fact that they can use the resistance to outlive those who do not have it is the point.

No one is saying they always must develop the resistance as a response to the threat.

B.bacteria can transfer resistance, already present in their genomes, to other bacteria by injecting a tiny loop of DNA, called a plasmid, into other bacteria

How is this in any way proof that good mutations don't exist?

C.bacteria can acquire resistance to certain antibiotics through mutations (mistakes in the copying of genetic information). However, all such mutations are degenerative (information-losing) changes. For example, the loss of a control gene may actually enhance bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

• Prove that "ALL SUCH MUTATIONS ARE INFORMATION-LOSING."

It seems more like information-changing or information-adding to me.

A.The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.

• What specific mechanism was that?

• How does that disprove that random mutations and natural selection is a mechanism of evolution?

Hint: it does not.

none of this "good" mutations can show frog to prince mutations

Who is saying that mutations happen in terms of "frog to prince"?

I'm saying mutations happen in terms of "frog with gene that produces a protein that would be good against a certain type of infection" versus "frog without that gene", over time, causing that type of gene to become dominant.

Or "giraffe with gene for slightly longer neck is able to reach higher, and thus reach a food source more easily than their counterparts".

• Could you respond to my points now?

 

[Arakhor]

Once I did use the example of dog breeds, and how every dog on Earth are descended from wolves, enough for dogs to be considered a sub species of wolf, and yet some breeds look almost completely different, but they dismissed it as being man made and doesn't show that evolution happens. They later dismissed the man part and said God made dogs that way.

Whomever is telling you this is a colossal moron. Ignore them - you are right.

There is no proof they can exist inside natural bubbles of fat and water. However this argument even if true says nothing about ATP synthase forming from 100 amino acids/machines out of basically nothing. Until you can show a genuinely feasible way for that to happen without DNA/RNA as they cannot function without ATP synthase then you have shown nothing.

Would you even recognise such an argument? If not, what you're asking for is a waste of time.


While we're here, mutations don't always destroy information and thermodynamics does not prove creationism.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

These quotes were taken from here http://creation.com/atp-synthase other bits and pieces I have written are logical conclusions drawn from this and other information.
I prefer to make my own arguments and come to my own opinions and therefore cannot always reference back to someone else.

So respond to my refutation, then. I demonstrated why your argument was bogus.

askthepizzaguy you didnt even read the post.
you are deliberately avoiding irrefutable evidence for creation

I did read the post.

You've offered ZERO irrefutable evidence for creation.

You've posted evidence, but it does not lead to the conclusions you draw.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So respond to my refutation, then. I demonstrated why your argument was bogus.

Indeed.

I'll give you guys one thing, you're making an effort to come up with evidence for creationism. Hats off.

But, it does get a little tiresome to refute an argument and wonder what counter arguments there will be, but instead your argument is ignored and a new link and a new irrefutable evidence for creation pops up. takes two to tango.

This is shotgun arguing. Try to wedge in as many as possible without daring to go the distance. Pick a battleground and stick with it.

 

[magicfan101]

So respond to my refutation, then. I demonstrated why your argument was bogus.



I did read the post.

You've offered ZERO irrefutable evidence for creation.

You've posted evidence, but it does not lead to the conclusions you draw.

your argument it is give it a billion years and anything can happen. im sorry but mutations dont work that way

Indeed.

I'll give you guys one thing, you're making an effort to come up with evidence for creationism. Hats off.

But, it does get a little tiresome to refute an argument and wonder what counter arguments there will be, but instead your argument is ignored and a new link and a new irrefutable evidence for creation pops up. takes two to tango.

This is shotgun arguing. Try to wedge in as many as possible without daring to go the distance. Pick a battleground and stick with it.

clearly you are avoiding the truth. jerry bergman puts a solid case of discrimination against anyone who critiques Darwin.

 

[Arakhor]

Based on what evidence, Magicfan? At the risk of sounding catty, you have even less idea of how biology works than I do!

Discrimination, really? Do you even know what that word means?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

clearly you are avoiding the truth. jerry bergman puts a solid case of discrimination against anyone who critiques Darwin.

Did you read my post?

Do you have an opinion about the content?

Would you be so kind to share that opinion?

edit: it even has a compliment in it! Go on, read it

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

There is no proof they can exist inside natural bubbles of fat and water.

Same source as before, read it next time.

STUDYING FATTY ACID VESICLES IN THE LAB

The Szostak lab at Massachusetts General Hospital has conducted numerous studies to examine how fatty acid vesicles may form, grow and divide.

At relatively low concentrations, fatty acids will form micelles, which can be thought of as tiny spheres of fatty acids, organized such that the tails of the fatty acid point towards the center of the sphere. Research in the Szostak lab has shown that at higher concentrations and under the appropriate pH conditions, fatty acids micelles can form vesicles. The process by which this is thought to occur is shown in the animation on the left.

The Szostak lab has also shown that vesicle formation may also be catalyzed by the clay montmorillonite, which has also been found to catalyze the formation of strands of RNA from single nucleotides (illustrated in the nucleic acids section). Clays such as montmorillonite may very well have been the key to the formation of the first protocells.

Once formed, fatty acid vesicles are highly stable, and appear outwardly unchanging over the course of days or even months. At a molecular level, however, fatty acids are extremely dynamic, and are constantly entering and exiting the vesicle bilayer, as well as flipping between the inner and outer leaflet of the membrane. Phospholipids, on the other hand, do not typically undergo flipping. The dynamic qualities of fatty acids are illustrated in the animation to the left.

Fatty acid flipping may play an important role in the ability for some small molecules, such as RNA nucleotides, to enter the vesicle. This process is illustrated in the animation on the left. If the nucleotides are incorporated into a strand of RNA, they become trapped inside the vesicle, since long polymers of RNA are unlikely to be able to use the same mechanism to pass through the fatty acid membrane.

Phospholipid bilayers, on the other hand, are relatively impermeable to molecules such as nucleotides, and require special transporters to allow their passage through the membrane.

How do fatty acid vesicles grow? Research in the Szostak lab has shown that when fatty acid micelles are added to a solution of pre-formed vesicles, the vesicles grow rapidly. A molecular model of this observation is shown on the left. Vesicle growth is thought occur first through the formation of a micelle shell around a vesicle. Individual fatty acids are transferred from the micelles to the outer leaflet of the vesicle membrane. Fatty acids may then flip from the outer leaflet to the inner leaflet (as illustrated in a previous animation on fatty acid dynamics), which allows the membrane bilayer to grow evenly.

I really grow weary of you not reading what I have to say, and then accusing me of the same.

However this argument even if true says nothing about ATP synthase forming from 100 amino acids/machines out of basically nothing.

No, I only responded to 3 out of 4 of your assertions which are all proven false in a single stroke of a simple GOOGLE search.

• If I were able to show ATP forming spontaneously from other, smaller molecules, would you finally admit you were wrong?

My guess is no. Even if I demonstrated the "impossible" to you, it would still be wrong in your mind.

Until you can show a genuinely feasible way for that to happen without DNA/RNA as they cannot function without ATP synthase then you have shown nothing.
My argument still stands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase

Shame I have to resort to wikipedia, but I can't find a good neutral source on this. Most of the google searches come up Christian science crap.

The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to be an example of modular evolution, where two subunits with their own functions have become associated and gained new functionality.[7][8] This coupling must have occurred early in the evolution of life as evidenced by essentially the same structure and processes of ATP synthase enzymes conserved in all kingdoms of life.[7] The F-ATP synthase shows large amounts of similarity both functionally and mechanically to the V-ATPase.[9] However whilst the F-ATP synthase generates ATP by utilising a proton gradient the V-ATPase is responsible for generating a proton gradient at the expense of ATP, generating pH values as low as 1. The F1 particle also shows significant similarity to hexameric DNA helicases and the FO particle shows some similarity to H+ powered flagellar motor complexes.[9] The α3β3 hexamer of the F1 particle shows significant structural similarity to hexameric DNA helicases; both form a ring with 3 fold rotational symmetry with a central pore. Both also have roles dependent on the relative rotation of a macromolecule within the pore; the DNA helicases use the helical shape of DNA to drive their motion along the DNA molecule and to detect supercoiling whilst the α3β3 hexamer uses the conformational changes due rotation of the γ subunit to drive an enzymatic reaction.[10]

The H+ motor of the FO particle shows great functional similarity to the H+ motors seen in flagellar motors.[9] Both feature a ring of many small alpha helical proteins which rotate relative to nearby stationary proteins using a H+ potential gradient as an energy source. This is, however, a fairly tenuous link - the overall structure of flagellar motors is far more complex than the FO particle and the ring of rotating proteins is far larger, with around 30 compared to the 10, 11 or 14 known in the FO complex.

The modular evolution theory for the origin of ATP synthase suggests that two subunits with independent function, a DNA helicase with ATPase activity and a H+ motor, were able to bind, and the rotation of the motor drive the ATPase activity of the helicase in reverse.[7][10] This would then evolve to become more efficient, and eventually develop into the complex ATP synthases seen today. Alternatively the DNA helicase/H+ motor complex may have had H+ pump activity, the ATPase activity of the helicase driving the H+ motor in reverse.[7] This could later evolve to carry out the reverse reaction and act as an ATP synthase.[8]

Scientists will be able to explain it better than I can. You're getting into very technical aspects of the shape of molecules and how they interact.

But frankly, even if I got a scientist to sit down and explain to you everything there is to know about molecular biology, abiogenesis, and the theory of evolution and natural selection, you'd still run off and quote some scientist who thinks the theory isn't complete and therefore MUST BE invalid, and claim you've won the debate.

You're impossible to reason with.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Some of the things I write on these sites I qualify because I am not absolutely certain they are correct. But when I am convinced I am right I will make an absolute statement. That is not foolishness, it is stating the truth, truth that needs to be told. Some arguments for irreducible complexity have been difficult to prove and I stay away from them. But the argument I make for ATP synthase, DNA,RNA,Cellular Walls is very strong and I will always stand by them.

Wrong! It is stating what you believe to be the truth. No wonder you keep ignoring every refutation of what you are posting, you are close-minded and do not want to experience any differences of opinion.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

your argument it is give it a billion years and anything can happen. im sorry but mutations dont work that way

Oh that's easy: YES THEY DO.

• Now, you have to demonstrate WHY they don't work that way.

I grow weary of pointing this out, too.


"I'm sorry that you're wrong" = NOT A REBUTTAL.

 

[magicfan101]

So I googled Jerry Bergman. One of the first things I found was: "Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust"

And I googled a bit more, and since creation wiki (really?) was used, here's anohte rlink for you not to read. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bergman.html

And before you ask, did you look at any of my links? I'll answer, no. I found my own. Since that's what you've been doing throughout the thread. Abandon any discussion where you run out of arguments and start a new one.

Before you go into people who blame Evolution for Causing the holocaust, why not handle one topic at the time, and when you're links or claims are disproven, why not admit; right, I as wrong about that one. Nope, you just jump to the next try. You remind me of the blind man trying to solve the rubik's cube in UHF the Vidiot. "Is this it?", "No." ... "Is this it?", "No." ... "Is this it?", "No."

stop avoiding the subject. this was about scientist not be allowed to voiced their opinion about darwian evolution.

 

[carlosMM]

magicfan, give it up. All you do is
- copy and paste from creationist websites
- refuse anything that people answer you
- make bold claims without any support, usually as one-liners

basically, what you try to do here is steal people's time. You should be ashamed. Please go and educate yourself (we will gladly supply sources), then we can argue. The way you "debate" shows very clearly that you do not wish to inform yourself, it is the CFC equivalent of stopping your ears and yelling "I can't hear you, you#re all wrong, I can't here you..."

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Dude, do you want me to count the number of posts from PizzaGuy you avoided?

That's what I'm talking about. Why not put your money where your mouth is and not jump to another subject when running out of arguments.

Don't make me quote all the posts you avoided in say, the last 5 pages. That is why I requested to pick a particular topic.

Or to put it another way;
I'll give you guys one thing, you're making an effort to come up with evidence for creationism. Hats off.

But, it does get a little tiresome to refute an argument and wonder what counter arguments there will be, but instead your argument is ignored and a new link and a new irrefutable evidence for creation pops up. takes two to tango.

This is shotgun arguing. Try to wedge in as many as possible without daring to go the distance. Pick a battleground and stick with it.

Now, if you decide Jerry Bergman is going to be your spearhead for evidence of creation, that's fine. Odd, but fine. Just one thing.

You'd have to a. Explain how the perceived discrimination is scientific evidence for Creation. And b. you're not going to jump on some other article you quote from creation.com when you run out of arguments.

edit: And you have some nerve to say I'm avoiding.

im sorry but mutations dont work that way

Tell us why magic. Tell us why, and then criticize me for avoiding the subject.

 

[Trev]

The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to be an example of modular evolution, where two subunits with their own functions have become associated and gained new functionality.[7][8] This coupling must have occurred early in the evolution of life as evidenced by essentially the same structure and processes of ATP synthase enzymes conserved in all kingdoms of life.[7] The F-ATP synthase shows large amounts of similarity both functionally and mechanically to the V-ATPase.[9] However whilst the F-ATP synthase generates ATP by utilising a proton gradient the V-ATPase is responsible for generating a proton gradient at the expense of ATP, generating pH values as low as 1. The F1 particle also shows significant similarity to hexameric DNA helicases and the FO particle shows some similarity to H+ powered flagellar motor complexes.[9] The α3β3 hexamer of the F1 particle shows significant structural similarity to hexameric DNA helicases; both form a ring with 3 fold rotational symmetry with a central pore. Both also have roles dependent on the relative rotation of a macromolecule within the pore; the DNA helicases use the helical shape of DNA to drive their motion along the DNA molecule and to detect supercoiling whilst the α3β3 hexamer uses the conformational changes due rotation of the γ subunit to drive an enzymatic reaction.[10]

The H+ motor of the FO particle shows great functional similarity to the H+ motors seen in flagellar motors.[9] Both feature a ring of many small alpha helical proteins which rotate relative to nearby stationary proteins using a H+ potential gradient as an energy source. This is, however, a fairly tenuous link - the overall structure of flagellar motors is far more complex than the FO particle and the ring of rotating proteins is far larger, with around 30 compared to the 10, 11 or 14 known in the FO complex.

The modular evolution theory for the origin of ATP synthase suggests that two subunits with independent function, a DNA helicase with ATPase activity and a H+ motor, were able to bind, and the rotation of the motor drive the ATPase activity of the helicase in reverse.[7][10] This would then evolve to become more efficient, and eventually develop into the complex ATP synthases seen today. Alternatively the DNA helicase/H+ motor complex may have had H+ pump activity, the ATPase activity of the helicase driving the H+ motor in reverse.[7] This could later evolve to carry out the reverse reaction and act as an ATP synthase.[8]

The quote here does not attempt to answer what was used for cellular energy prior to ATP synthase, although it does recognize its role in all kingdoms of life. Until answers are given to the energy needs of cells prior to ATP synthase, then all explanations fall flat.
It will be at least 24 hours before I can respond further, a simple matter such as a daughters wedding now intrudes.