Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2007 21:31:00 GMT -5
quote - "Evolution doesn't recognize a creator designer"
Las, you didn't answer my previous questions.Meteorology doesn't recognize the Rain-Giver, does it?
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Jun 29, 2007 0:14:57 GMT -5
"In addition, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller–Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life.31,32" While it is true that a mixture of amino acids were produced, there is a high probability that life at one time consisted of life forms that were composed of D and L amino acids. Today there are examples of D amino acids found in bacteria throughout the world. The simple fact is that a 50/50 distribution of D and L life forms would have been unstable and at some point as either type increased it would have been easier for the dominate form to continue on. It has also been found that the amino acids that fall to earth are also mostly L. What is stated is true of life forms today but the experiment was designed to show that organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors. A misleading statement. The compounds were toxic to what? There were no life forms. While it is true that cyanides are toxic to man it is not true that they are toxic to all life forms. It is even produced by some bacteria, fungi, and algae, and is found in a number of foods and plants. Break the bark of a black cherry and you can smell the cyanide. Trees thrive on carbon monoxide. It wasn't a problem with the experiment but given that the atmosphere that existed before is open debate, one can easily argue that the one selected by the researchers was not the correct one. Of course, it very well might have been spot on. Life does not require any specific number of amino acids. It seems that the majority of the arguments you have presented are using human life as the only example of life. That is how theories are born!
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 29, 2007 9:59:33 GMT -5
quote - "Evolution doesn't recognize a creator designer" Las, you didn't answer my previous questions.Meteorology doesn't recognize the Rain-Giver, does it?
Seems to me I asked you Bert do you believe Adam was placed on the earth by God?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2007 10:19:27 GMT -5
Part of an article today in New York Times In the corner of a laboratory at Michigan State University, one of the longest-running experiments in evolution is quietly unfolding. A dozen flasks of sugary broth swirl on a gently rocking table. Each is home to hundreds of millions of Escherichia coli, the common gut microbe. These 12 lines of bacteria have been reproducing since 1989… In that time, the bacteria have changed significantly. For one thing, they are bigger — twice as big on average as their common ancestor. They are also far better at reproducing in these flasks, dividing 70 percent faster than their ancestor. These changes have emerged through spontaneous mutations and natural selection… When Dr. Lenski began his experiment 18 years ago, only a few scientists believed they could observe evolution so closely. Today evolutionary experiments on microbes are under way in many laboratories. And thanks to the falling price of genome-sequencing technology, scientists can now zero in on the precise genetic changes that unfold during evolution, a power previous generations of researchers only dreamed of. “It’s fun for us, because we can watch the game of life at the molecular level,” said Bernhard Palsson of the University of California, San Diego. “Many features of evolutionary theory are showing up in these experiments, and that’s why people are so excited... continued at www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=science&pagewanted=print
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Jun 29, 2007 15:09:51 GMT -5
Part of an article today in New York Times In the corner of a laboratory at Michigan State University, one of the longest-running experiments in evolution is quietly unfolding. A dozen flasks of sugary broth swirl on a gently rocking table. Each is home to hundreds of millions of Escherichia coli, the common gut microbe. These 12 lines of bacteria have been reproducing since 1989… <snip> But Bart - did any of these bacteria turn into a cat? Or even a frog? How can you call this evolution? There are still bacteria in the flasks. This is just an example of living organisms changing and some of the changes prove beneficial. But where are the transitional forms? The bacterial fossils? Just because there are changes in the DNA I still don't see any new animals. (thanks for the link - some of the published articles reveal even more interesting developments)
|
|
|
Post by freeagent on Jun 29, 2007 19:53:45 GMT -5
No, the point being is that many of the results from the Miller-Urey experiment are barriers to the search for explanations about how life could have spontaneously occurred. Organic compounds don't equal life. Even the simplest life forms are made up of more than an amino acid or two. The simplest life forms are more like the fine tuned working of a complex machine that has many necessary functioning parts that all are necessary in order for the whole to work together.
Your concern about the atmosphere is valid. Oxygen would tend to destroy the organic compounds needed for life, but if oxygen were absent, the atmosphere would lack an ozone layer to shield the compounds from ultraviolet rays—a Catch-22 for evolutionists. Miller excluded oxygen from his experiment, though today the evidence points to the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere throughout earth’s history. Starting in water is also a problem since water tends to break the bonds of some amino acids and prevents them from forming chains. Miller isolated the products in order to avoid this destructive reaction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2007 6:15:04 GMT -5
quote - But Bart - did any of these bacteria turn into a cat? Or even a frog? No. No-one claimed that they would. You need a huge amount of time to do that.
quote - How can you call this evolution? There are still bacteria in the flasks. Evolution means "change" and these bacteria changed. If an animal changes to the extent that it cannot interbreed with its ancestral stock, it is called a new species. There have been a few cases of new species generated since Jesus' time.
quote - This is just an example of living organisms changing and some of the changes prove beneficial. And that is how Homo sapien got where he is - a slew of beneficial changes.
quote - But where are the transitional forms? The bacterial fossils? Bacteria don't fossilize too well.
quote - Just because there are changes in the DNA I still don't see any new animals. The Australian rabbit is a larger, grayer animal than the European rabbit. But they are still one and the same bunny. Give a million years or less, our giant bunny is going to need a new species name.
quote - (thanks for the link - some of the published articles reveal even more interesting developments) I have a friend who "does evolution" in the field. I must give him these links, too.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jul 1, 2007 9:37:14 GMT -5
I will never believe in Evolution It doesn't hold water Bert fact
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2007 9:49:43 GMT -5
So can you now understand how we feel when you speak of the "facts" about Irvine? Facts are one thing, conclusions are another.
|
|
|
Post by Following Along on Jul 1, 2007 11:45:13 GMT -5
Seems to me I asked you Bert do you believe Adam was placed on the earth by God?
|
|
|
Post by Humm on Jul 1, 2007 12:25:36 GMT -5
Lets see now. A Wholly Mammoth was found in Sibera frozen with undigested food still in its belly. Studies have proven this critter to be 20,000 years old. Hum did not Neanderthal man live during that time too?
So then: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Was Adam a neanderthal man? Who gave names to the Dino's?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2007 19:03:41 GMT -5
Neanderthals, alas, died out about 25,000 years ago, if I recall (last ones in Spain.) Neanderthals are not our ancestors, but distant cousins. Dinosaur names are usually given by those who first describe them. These days a lot of them bear Chinese names because paleontology is starting to open up in that country now.
As for Adam. We are told that God created Adam, but it doesn't tell us he was the only man at that time.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Jul 1, 2007 19:43:41 GMT -5
No, the point being is that many of the results from the Miller-Urey experiment are barriers to the search for explanations about how life could have spontaneously occurred. Organic compounds don't equal life. How does that work? The point of the experiment was to see if organic material could be produced on the early earth. Remember, for a long time it was thought that organic compounds could only be produced by living organisms. The experiment determined that organic material was produced and would have been available on the early life. How did the experiment present barriers? This is well known. But now that it has been shown that the basic building blocks could be created on early life the next step is to show how they can react to create more complex building blocks. The experiment has been repeated many times with different starting atmospheres. Also - regarding your statement that implied that the ultraviolet radiation was somehow harmful to life - ultraviolet radiation, while harmful to some lifeforms, actually could provide the energy to the system that produced the organic material. Some of the objections raised by creationists make sense only if we are considering life as we know it today. Again, in regards the origin of life O 2 is a highly toxic molecule whereas HCN, H 2S, CO, and HCHO are life promoting. I believe you are in error about this. Looking at the apparatus that Miller used: You can see that the water was not removed at all. There is the top round bottom flask connected directly to the bottom round bottom flask by what appears to be a Liebig, or perhaps Allihn, condenser. On the right hand side there is a heated glass tube to carry the steam generated in the bottom flask up to the top flask. Surrounding the top flask is what appears to be 4 common handheld Tesla induction coils of the type used to detect leaks in glass apparatus. The water goes round and round. Instead of reading about what the press and others made out of it you should read the original submission to Science: www.issol.org/miller/miller1953.pdfAlso, instead of basing all of your thinking on an experiment that took place over 50 years ago, look at the updated version, repeated using additional data that has been learned, and completed in March of this year. sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=9952573C-E7F2-99DF-32F2928046329479
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2007 19:58:04 GMT -5
Life, like many other terms in the bible, has dual meanings.
Physical life can be seen as this: there are molecules which replicate. If the replication process is not perfect, that is to say, there are variations in the daughter molecules, you have what is termed evolution.
|
|
|
Post by tobert on Jul 1, 2007 20:06:03 GMT -5
Neanderthals are not our descendants, but distant cousins. This could be true or false. We do not know what our descendants will be yet. Maybe in another 250,000 they might be our descendants.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2007 20:16:01 GMT -5
Sorry, I meant ancestors! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D And fairly soon, ie two years, we will have a very good idea of our relationship to Neanderthal because we will have his genome. Imagine that. We may one day create baby Neanderthals.
|
|
|
Post by freeagent on Jul 3, 2007 13:07:46 GMT -5
Looking at the apparatus that Miller used: Nice photo! Reminds me of earth, what it looked like and how it functioned in the early days of life!!! Ha, ha, ha. When I look at this, I see an intelligent being, who designed a system with the hope of creating an outcome. When I look at the earth, and it's solar system, I also see an intelligent being who designed a system to create an outcome. The Miller-Urey set-up doesn't convince me at all that this proves that life was "spontaneously" generated from non-organic material into organic material. Then there's the problem with where the non-organic material came from in the first place. And if you look at the probability of the chances that the right parameters would happen at just the right time to create just the right numbers and types of amino acids that would then combine in the right order to create the most simplest of organism, the chances are nill to nothing. And then there's the issue of genes needed to create amino acids and amino acids are needed for the function of the genes. One's needed for the other and vice-versa. Then the probability of genes and amino acids being "spontaneously generated" concurrently is again further from belief. I'm just more convinced that there is intelligent design behind this giant scientific lab that we all live in called the earth and it's universe! To be fair to you, I'll read the articles you've referenced, but it will take me awhile to read and get back to you.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Jul 3, 2007 14:49:57 GMT -5
When I look at this, I see an intelligent being, who designed a system with the hope of creating an outcome. When I look at the earth, and it's solar system, I also see an intelligent being who designed a system to create an outcome. The Miller-Urey set-up doesn't convince me at all that this proves that life was "spontaneously" generated from non-organic material into organic material. That is OK. That was not the point of the experiment. The point of the experiment, once again, was only to demonstrate that organic material could have been created on early earth from the materials and engeries available. The fact that the original materials (carbon, hydrogen, etc) came into being as materials orbiting forming stars formed planets is well known. (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/betapic.html) This is one of the problems with probabilities. If you are going for a target the chances are very small. Consider the number below: 6366272883798750029347861849274859 If it was the target the chances that I would have typed it are indeed nil. But I just did type it. When the amino acids and proteins formed they did so not with a goal in mind but rather, as I typed the number, because they were available. Thanks for taking the time. The original Miller submission is less than 2 pages long. It was a simple experiment with a simple outcome. Easy to duplicate.
|
|
|
Post by to Bert on Jul 9, 2007 9:34:11 GMT -5
Yes, I know. But we don't use carbon dating for anything other than recent events. And the carbon in the atmosphere fluctuates too much. There are all sorts of ways you can date things. Even sunshine on grains of sand can trigger internal clock mechanisms within the silicon. The common one is Uranium - it decays to lead at a set rate. Without looking it up I think Uranium is half lead in about four and a half billion years - so there's a handy clock there. How does ''gravity'' affect the carbon dating process? How old is gravity? Is gravity older than ''time''? According to evolution, gravity never had a beginning, but time does. ?? Just wondering...................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2007 9:42:52 GMT -5
Without trawling through all the posts I am mystified as to what gravity has to do with evolution. Gravity is a constant that life simply has to deal with. Life can't change it as it can change atmospheric or water chemistry, for instance.
Maybe, if gravity is found to vary, it may be used as a way of measuring time.
Gravity is simply one of physics most baffling mysteries. Some suggest its extremely weak nature may point to other unseen dimensions.
Gravity is as old as time, I suppose. Both were created at the same moment. Gravity has nothing to do with carbon dating - but a lot to do with the initial creation of carbon.
And remember, there are two aspects of evolution - the first is the history of evolution (ie my hominid figure shown above) and the other is the theory. Almost all who reject the quite robust theory also reject the history (like our friend las!)
|
|
|
Post by gravity on Jul 9, 2007 9:54:42 GMT -5
Without trawling through all the posts I am mystified as to what gravity has to do with evolution. Gravity is a constant that life simply has to deal with. Life can't change it as it can change atmospheric or water chemistry, for instance. Maybe, if gravity is found to vary, it may be used as a way of measuring time. Gravity is simply one of physics most baffling mysteries. Some suggest its extremely weak nature may point to other unseen dimensions. Gravity is as old as time, I suppose. Both were created at the same moment. Gravity has nothing to do with carbon dating - but a lot to do with the initial creation of carbon. And remember, there are two aspects of evolution - the first is the history of evolution (ie my hominid figure shown above) and the other is the theory. Almost all who reject the quite robust theory also reject the history (like our friend las!) Do you believe gravity was created?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2007 10:01:11 GMT -5
The universe was created. Gravity is simply another part of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by big bang on Jul 9, 2007 10:05:07 GMT -5
The universe was created. Gravity is simply another part of the universe. Yes, but gravitational singularity [aka: big bang], says that gravity existed before the universe was created?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2007 10:09:13 GMT -5
The word "universe" has changed, just as the word "world" changed over the long period of the bible. Once "universe" meant "everything there is." We use the word "universe" these days to mean our own local area. The Big Bang didn't start everything, it only started our own neck of the woods. There had to be something (now called M-theory or brane theory) to create that bang.
|
|
|
Post by our world on Jul 9, 2007 10:33:33 GMT -5
The word "universe" has changed, just as the word "world" changed over the long period of the bible. Once "universe" meant "everything there is." We use the word "universe" these days to mean our own local area. The Big Bang didn't start everything, it only started our own neck of the woods. There had to be something (now called M-theory or brane theory) to create that bang. english is a corruptible language and thus the meanings of words seem to change with time, .....but the name of our ''world'' has remained the same as it always was, although I would be interested in knowing more about the original language. earth is still the name of the world we live in , do you know that the ''(ear)th'' is designed to hear and respond to ''natures'' ''voice'' ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2007 10:38:46 GMT -5
IMO the term "world" or "earth" changed from Sumerian times (ie Noah and the flood) to Jesus' time when "all the world was taxed" (ie Roman empire.) People simply had no idea of what it was they were standing upon, but with the passage of time it got bigger and bigger. It only starting shrinking in July 2007 when scientists shaved a few millimeters off it!
quote - "do you know that the ''(ear)th'' is designed to hear and respond to ''natures'' ''voice'"
I don't understand what this means.
|
|
|
Post by voice and the ear on Jul 9, 2007 10:48:57 GMT -5
IMO the term "world" or "earth" changed from Sumerian times (ie Noah and the flood) to Jesus' time when "all the world was taxed" (ie Roman empire.) People simply had no idea of what it was they were standing upon, but with the passage of time it got bigger and bigger. It only starting shrinking in July 2007 when scientists shaved a few millimeters off it! quote - "do you know that the ''(ear)th'' is designed to hear and respond to ''natures'' ''voice'"I don't understand what this means. ''wisdom'' and nature are the voices of the whole universe, the '(ear)th /earth is the receptor/ ( or ear) this name was given to this planet from antiquity.....interesting name, not at all a random name, but a name [earth] with deep meaning.
|
|
|
Post by bumm on Jul 11, 2007 12:21:03 GMT -5
IMO the term "world" or "earth" changed from Sumerian times (ie Noah and the flood) to Jesus' time when "all the world was taxed" (ie Roman empire.) People simply had no idea of what it was they were standing upon, but with the passage of time it got bigger and bigger. It only starting shrinking in July 2007 when scientists shaved a few millimeters off it! quote - "do you know that the ''(ear)th'' is designed to hear and respond to ''natures'' ''voice'"I don't understand what this means. ''wisdom'' and nature are the voices of the whole universe, the '(ear)th /earth is the receptor/ ( or ear) this name was given to this planet from antiquity.....interesting name, not at all a random name, but a name [earth] with deep meaning. what say?
|
|