O'rly? 11 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Penguin_Unit

Uh-oh.

50 XP

8th May 2007

0 Uploads

6,077 Posts

0 Threads

#1 10 years ago

Before the mods try to lock it, let me state my reasoning here. This simply does not fit in religious discussion, and it will probably be like my other arguements and ignored if I post there. Please do not lock this! Okay, people. It seems like most people have made up their minds. They either believe we came from an intelligent Being, or that we came from chance. Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion. I will not force my beliefs upon anyone. However, I thought it necessary to at least post a few things I've been contemplating for a few days now. One thing I'd like to mention is that I am not going to point to endorse any particular deity or theory or anything like that in this post. Please do not take it as such. Thermodynamics I'm sure most of you have heard of this part of science. The first law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe is basically running down, like a clock. This is all fine and dandy, but stop and think about that. The big bang theory (basically, chance creation) would have to have resulted from there already being an existing bit of matter. Otherwise, it could not happen. That sounds feasible on its face, but there's a problem here. A proposed idea is that the universe has been going through a continual explode-and-implode-and-explode-again sort of process. However, my chief arguement is that this is not possible. Why is it not possible, you may ask? Simple. Where did the matter come from to begin with? Thermodynamics has been tested and proven many times. It's a fact you cannot generate a new glob of matter, and you can' make new light that was not already present. Therefore, this so called "Big Bang" theory is disproven by a well-established scientific law. Now onto the second law of thermodynamics. What does this have to do with anything? Another relatively simple point. Most, if not all of you reading this, know that light "weakens" over time, which is why red dwarf stars are seemingly invisible without equipment to assist one in viewing said stars. Even a strong light "dissipates" over a long distance. The beam is not constant, and it slowly fades to the point it is no longer visible. But what does that have to do with anything? Basically, it disproves the Big Bang. If this explode-implode process were continuing over a possibly infinite time period, the energy would essentially "die" at a certain point. If this has been going on forever, the existing energy would have extinguished long ago, and therefore the universe should, at this moment, be cold and dark. However, there is still light, and there is still heat. Magetism I'm no expert on this, but from the knowledge I've gained I think I may have spotted a possible arguement. Don't flame me on this one... We're all familiar with magnets and most of you should know how they operate. One may also "create" a magnet either through induction (such as placing a kind of iron inside the magnetic field) or through contact or electricity (striking an unmagnetized piece of iron against a magnet). What's that got to do with anything? If this so called Big Bang occurred, then there would be, quite simply, no magnets, and we would all be dead. Magnets are usually only created by another magnetic field or source that is capable of generating a magnetic field. But where did the first magnet come from? Surely it had to require something to generate that magnetism. And where'd that come from, my fine sir? I don't know about you, but those alone seem to point to a Designer. Now for the next set of points... Geologic Column and Fossils A popular thing among scientists today is circular reasoning. But how is this practiced? The Geologic column supposedly is a series of layers that "chronicle" the "history" of Earth. This column is said to have rock layers dating back many millions or billions of years, all the way to the earth's formation. Layers in the geologic column are assigned ages based on what scientists assume the dates of formation were. That's fine, but the fossils discovered in them? They are usually dated because of the rock layers in which they were discovered. Do you see a problem here? The fossils are dated by the layers which date the fossils...that's not right. And yet you people seem to often take this as "fact" when they don't have an accurate way to date their layers! The "Missing Links" Another thing we are always hearing about are supposed "missing links". Evolutionists are always pointing these "links" out, and every time they turn out to be human, or a combination of human parts and parts of animals which are alive currently. An example of a problem here were the Cro-Magnon men. After much studying, they were found to just be normal humans. (Need to find a decent, unbiased source...) The first remains of the "Neanderthal" man were found to have been those of an old man suffering from arthritis. A man name Rudolf Virchow once mentioned how the deformed shape of the skull was likely caused by rickets. The studies conducted on the children of these "men" have supported this. (Need to find a decent source...) Yet another example of a faux link was discovered, in 1890, but a Dutch Physician named Eugene Dubois. He discovered some bones and claimed they were about 500,000 years old. However, in the same rock layer, he also found a regular human skull...and he hid the fact for 30 years. The Piltdown man was essentially constructed from an orangutan's jaw, a human skull, and a chimpanzee's tooth. In short, completely false. The Nebraska man happened to have been theorized completely from an unearthed extinct pig's tooth. These are not exactly unknown discoveries, and the falsehoods behind them are well-known by now. Another interesting thing...tear enzyme chemistry shows that the chicken is "closer" in structure to humans than apes. I guess we once had wings to, then, Mr. Darwin? To date, not a single "missing link" has been found, even though by now one should have been discovered if there ever were transitional phases between ape and man. One last point to make before I go to bed for tonight... Spontaneous Generation Science has proven that spontaneous generation is impossible. In English, spontaneous generation is essentially the "spawning" or arising of life from non-life. The Evolutionary theory relies heavily on this idea. If truly everything did come from simply nothing, then life should not exist. Rocks colliding in deep space simply cannot generate a living creature. Evolutionary theory demands that a simple organism multiplied and "changed" to "correct" itself so that it was possible to live in that environment. Slowly, over time, it was supposed that this organism became an increasing larger creature, and those creatures multiplied and branched off into others, and so on until you come to present day. But, as I said, this is truly impossible, because random collision of non-living materials cannot generate a living organism, and certainly not anything of the complexity we are familiar with. I will go see if I can find some sources other than a text book or two later, but for now, you have this. Discuss it here... You can neg-rep me. You can flame me. You can lock my thread, and you can try to ban me too. You can call me a facist and a racist and a lunatic. Do as you will, but you will only look like an idiot in the process. All I'm doing is posting my findings...and if that offends you, well...I don't know what to say, except lighten up and learn to accept that others will not agree with you.




Quetron

USA

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,155 Posts

0 Threads

#2 10 years ago

Too much reading, but all I know is I don't have to "figure it out". Creation really makes the most logical sense, plus if eveolutuion was so logical, what will humans be like in 20,000 years from now, they should know with all that theoery.




Rich19

Italicised no more

50 XP

14th August 2004

0 Uploads

4,058 Posts

0 Threads

#3 10 years ago

Penguin_Unit;4344819Thermodynamics I'm sure most of you have heard of this part of science. The first law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe is basically running down, like a clock. This is all fine and dandy, but stop and think about that. The big bang theory (basically, chance creation) would have to have resulted from there already being an existing bit of matter. Otherwise, it could not happen. That sounds feasible on its face, but there's a problem here. A proposed idea is that the universe has been going through a continual explode-and-implode-and-explode-again sort of process. However, my chief arguement is that this is not possible. Why is it not possible, you may ask? Simple. Where did the matter come from to begin with? Thermodynamics has been tested and proven many times. It's a fact you cannot generate a new glob of matter, and you can' make new light that was not already present. Therefore, this so called "Big Bang" theory is disproven by a well-established scientific law.[/quote]

An old anecdote which dates back to the 1940s - It is a little known fact that a gravitational field has an associated negative energy field. The physicist George Gamow was once walking with Albert Einstein through Princeton, when he casually mentioned an idea thought up by another physicist, Pascual Jordan. Jordan had calculated that for any object, if the mass were to be concentrated to a point, the energy associated with the gravity field would be -mc^2, and therefore exactly counteract the positive energy associated with the mass of the star. In other words, the star might be created out of nothing at all. Einstein stopped in his tracks (Gamow also mentions that they were crossing a street at the time, and several cars had to swerve to avoid them).

Penguin_Unit;4344819 Now onto the second law of thermodynamics. What does this have to do with anything? Another relatively simple point. Most, if not all of you reading this, know that light "weakens" over time, which is why red dwarf stars are seemingly invisible without equipment to assist one in viewing said stars. Even a strong light "dissipates" over a long distance. The beam is not constant, and it slowly fades to the point it is no longer visible.[/quote]

The reason the light fades is simply because the photons that make it up gradually spread out. Suppose you had an object which emits 100 photons. If you draw a sphere around the object and evenly spread the photons out around the sphere, then there will be a lot more space between each photon if you draw the sphere with a radius of 100 light years than for a sphere of 100km. It follows that the object will appear brighter if you stand 100km away than if you stand 100 light years away.

Penguin_Unit;4344819 But what does that have to do with anything? Basically, it disproves the Big Bang. If this explode-implode process were continuing over a possibly infinite time period, the energy would essentially "die" at a certain point. If this has been going on forever, the existing energy would have extinguished long ago, and therefore the universe should, at this moment, be cold and dark. However, there is still light, and there is still heat.[/quote]

No, you cannot create or destroy energy. It would carry on existing.

Penguin_Unit;4344819Magetism I'm no expert on this, but from the knowledge I've gained I think I may have spotted a possible arguement. Don't flame me on this one... We're all familiar with magnets and most of you should know how they operate. One may also "create" a magnet either through induction (such as placing a kind of iron inside the magnetic field) or through contact or electricity (striking an unmagnetized piece of iron against a magnet). What's that got to do with anything? If this so called Big Bang occurred, then there would be, quite simply, no magnets, and we would all be dead. Magnets are usually only created by another magnetic field or source that is capable of generating a magnetic field. But where did the first magnet come from? Surely it had to require something to generate that magnetism. And where'd that come from, my fine sir?[/quote]

You can also create magnets through other means. An electromagnet is made by passing an electric current through a coil of wire wrapped around an (unmagnetised) core of metal, such as iron. This does not require any magnets at all. The Earth also has it's own magnetic field, caused by the convection currents in the outer core. Again, no magnets present.

Penguin_Unit;4344819Geologic Column and Fossils A popular thing among scientists today is circular reasoning. But how is this practiced? The Geologic column supposedly is a series of layers that "chronicle" the "history" of Earth. This column is said to have rock layers dating back many millions or billions of years, all the way to the earth's formation. Layers in the geologic column are assigned ages based on what scientists assume the dates of formation were. That's fine, but the fossils discovered in them? They are usually dated because of the rock layers in which they were discovered. Do you see a problem here? The fossils are dated by the layers which date the fossils...that's not right. And yet you people seem to often take this as "fact" when they don't have an accurate way to date their layers![/quote]

The layers can be dated using many means, such as the amount of carbon-14 present. The fossils can also be dated this way.

Also, there's nothing wrong with the sentence "The fossils are dated by the layers which date the fossils...". There is no circular reasoning in this sentence. :p But I knew what you were trying to say.

Penguin_Unit;4344819The "Missing Links" Another thing we are always hearing about are supposed "missing links". Evolutionists are always pointing these "links" out, and every time they turn out to be human, or a combination of human parts and parts of animals which are alive currently. An example of a problem here were the Cro-Magnon men. After much studying, they were found to just be normal humans. (Need to find a decent, unbiased source...) The first remains of the "Neanderthal" man were found to have been those of an old man suffering from arthritis. A man name Rudolf Virchow once mentioned how the deformed shape of the skull was likely caused by rickets. The studies conducted on the children of these "men" have supported this. (Need to find a decent source...) Yet another example of a faux link was discovered, in 1890, but a Dutch Physician named Eugene Dubois. He discovered some bones and claimed they were about 500,000 years old. However, in the same rock layer, he also found a regular human skull...and he hid the fact for 30 years. The Piltdown man was essentially constructed from an orangutan's jaw, a human skull, and a chimpanzee's tooth. In short, completely false. The Nebraska man happened to have been theorized completely from an unearthed extinct pig's tooth. These are not exactly unknown discoveries, and the falsehoods behind them are well-known by now.

Are you talking specifically about the evolution of man, or evolution as a whole?

You've given about three examples up there. Fair enough, but that does not disprove the entire fossil record. There most definitely is a well documented record of the evolution of man, and of other creatures. [quote=Penguin_Unit;4344819] Another interesting thing...tear enzyme chemistry shows that the chicken is "closer" in structure to humans than apes. I guess we once had wings to, then, Mr. Darwin?

I'm sorry, what? Enzymes found in tears? Enzymes have pretty much nothing to do with DNA structure, and therefore nothing to do with the genetic makeup of anything. Evolution involves the passing on of genes most suited to the environment. Enzymes are simply biological catalysts, which speed up reactions inside a creature. Could I see a source for your information? [quote=Penguin_Unit;4344819] To date, not a single "missing link" has been found, even though by now one should have been discovered if there ever were transitional phases between ape and man.

Bullshit. [quote=Penguin_Unit;4344819]Spontaneous Generation Science has proven that spontaneous generation is impossible. In English, spontaneous generation is essentially the "spawning" or arising of life from non-life.

I'm not so sure that it has. Anyone proposing such a theory would be laughed out of any publisher's office. [quote=Penguin_Unit;4344819] The Evolutionary theory relies heavily on this idea.

No it doesn't. How do you propose that it does?

[quote=Penguin_Unit;4344819]You can neg-rep me. You can flame me. You can lock my thread, and you can try to ban me too. You can call me a facist and a racist and a lunatic. Do as you will, but you will only look like an idiot in the process. All I'm doing is posting my findings...and if that offends you, well...I don't know what to say, except lighten up and learn to accept that others will not agree with you.

You really don't have a high opinion of anyone who dares to believe in evolution/the big bang, do you? What on earth makes you think you would be called a fascist or racist?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#4 10 years ago

Video of Ken Miller presenting the work of others. Ken Miller is a theist, who believes firmly in evolution.

It's funny that you apply principles of physics, to make your case Penguin Unit, but disavowal them afterwards by defacto. By claiming that supernatural beings intervene in the world, in any way, directly opposes the scientific principle of natural laws operating uniformly and unvaryingly.

Your entire thread amounted to a mishmash of "I don't know enough about ect..." so it must be a "designer" behind it all. Very, very predictable.

Ken Miller, being a theist, maintains control over his beliefs in the light of hard evidence. To bad others can not.




Penguin_Unit

Uh-oh.

50 XP

8th May 2007

0 Uploads

6,077 Posts

0 Threads

#5 10 years ago
Rich19;4344950An old anecdote which dates back to the 1940s - It is a little known fact that a gravitational field has an associated negative energy field. The physicist George Gamow was once walking with Albert Einstein through Princeton, when he casually mentioned an idea thought up by another physicist, Pascual Jordan. Jordan had calculated that for any object, if the mass were to be concentrated to a point, the energy associated with the gravity field would be -mc^2, and therefore exactly counteract the positive energy associated with the mass of the star. In other words, the star might be created out of nothing at all. Einstein stopped in his tracks (Gamow also mentions that they were crossing a street at the time, and several cars had to swerve to avoid them).[/quote] Have they done that successfully? If they can't prove it works that way, then it isn't a fact. It's still a theory.
Rich19;4344950The reason the light fades is simply because the photons that make it up gradually spread out. Suppose you had an object which emits 100 photons. If you draw a sphere around the object and evenly spread the photons out around the sphere, then there will be a lot more space between each photon if you draw the sphere with a radius of 100 light years than for a sphere of 100km. It follows that the object will appear brighter if you stand 100km away than if you stand 100 light years away.[/quote] Indeed, but can the light be restored after spreading out?
Rich19;4344950No, you cannot create or destroy energy. It would carry on existing.[/quote] Even without your light argument, no matter how true it might be, you cannot account for the other energy present. Eventually, that energy is going to wear out, and then what? It can't renew itself.
Rich19;4344950You can also create magnets through other means. An electromagnet is made by passing an electric current through a coil of wire wrapped around an (unmagnetised) core of metal, such as iron. This does not require any magnets at all. The Earth also has it's own magnetic field, caused by the convection currents in the outer core. Again, no magnets present.[/quote] That is quite true. But again, it brings up my previous argument. Where did your energy come from, fine sir? It should be "worn out" if this process has been going on indefinitely.
Rich19;4344950The layers can be dated using many means, such as the amount of carbon-14 present. The fossils can also be dated this way.[/quote] Carbon-14 dating is notorious for being horribly inaccurate. If you try to contradict this...well, there's no hope for you. Do I REALLY need a source for that one?
Rich19;4344950Also, there's nothing wrong with the sentence "The fossils are dated by the layers which date the fossils...". There is no circular reasoning in this sentence. :p But I knew what you were trying to say.[/quote] <.<
Rich19;4344950Are you talking specifically about the evolution of man, or evolution as a whole?
Man, of course. I was not concerning anything else. [quote=Rich19;4344950]You've given about three examples up there. Fair enough, but that does not disprove the entire fossil record. There most definitely is a well documented record of the evolution of man, and of other creatures.
Oh yes, that record that resembles the one of the horse evolving from having a lot of ribs and then losing a few and whimsically regaining a few lost ribs down the line...that record? I didn't say it disproved the whole record. However, it shows that some of the often brought up "links" are really not links at all. [quote=Rich19;4344950]I'm sorry, what? Enzymes found in tears? Enzymes have pretty much nothing to do with DNA structure, and therefore nothing to do with the genetic makeup of anything. Evolution involves the passing on of genes most suited to the environment. Enzymes are simply biological catalysts, which speed up reactions inside a creature. Could I see a source for your information?
Yes, but what I'm saying is that if we came from apes, logically that enzyme should most likely be in the apes as well. However, it's in a chicken. How'd a chicken get a human part if it's not even remotely related? The chances of it gaining an exact copy of an enzyme that was also present in a completely different animal are slim at best. Basically, that shouldn't happen. I'll go see if I can find a non-book source... [quote=Rich19;4344950]Bullshit.
I'd like some links to some decent sources, too. [quote=Rich19;4344950]I'm not so sure that it has. Anyone proposing such a theory would be laughed out of any publisher's office.
Yes, it has. I think it was Blaise Pascal who did that one? [quote=Rich19;4344950]No it doesn't. How do you propose that it does?
Where did your life come from, then? Evolution had to start somehow. [quote=Rich19;4344950]You really don't have a high opinion of anyone who dares to believe in evolution/the big bang, do you? What on earth makes you think you would be called a fascist or racist?

No, because I think it is preposterous and really just a work of fiction. I said that because people accuse me all the time of ridiculous things.




Dragonelf68

&#3232;_&#3232;

220,771 XP

24th September 2007

0 Uploads

19,359 Posts

0 Threads

#6 10 years ago

Those are some good points. But there is one thing that should be taken into consideration. Science is only the best guess at the time. You can't prove anything. The only way to prove anything would be to either prove the existant of paranormal activity and find a way to communicate to communicate with them. And yes I know I just contradicted my self there, or find a way to travel through time and be able to see what really happened. There are my points.


kYuedqC.png



Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago

The big bang and evolution are two separate theories covering two completely different things. The fact your chosen scripture covers them in one chapter does not mean you can say theory 2 is silly because theory 1 is shaky.

"Spontaneous generation" has little to do with the theory of evolution, so little even it can be ignored when discussing the mechanics of evolution itself since they revolve around: "In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.".

Less reputable creationists love to connect "the big bang theory" and "evolutionary theory" because "the big bang" is poorly understood by most people and is haunted by the paradoxical "but where did that matter come from" question and the "but what was there before this?" question. It is however a sad attempt at undermining arguments concerning evolution.

Stick to one theory and we can play ball.




LIGHTNING [NL]

FH2 Developer

50 XP

30th May 2003

0 Uploads

9,811 Posts

0 Threads

#8 10 years ago
Penguin_Unit;4344819Before the mods try to lock it, let me state my reasoning here. This simply does not fit in religious discussion, and it will probably be like my other arguements and ignored if I post there. Please do not lock this![/QUOTE] I actually agree with you, the religious discussion thread is a bit of a mess, but anyway, I see no mention of religion in your post, so I see no reason to change it.

Penguin_Unit;4344819Thermodynamics I'm sure most of you have heard of this part of science. The first law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe is basically running down, like a clock.[/QUOTE] To be precise: 1st law: "The internal energy of an isolated system is constant." 2nd law: "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." or "The entropy of an isolated system increases in the course of a spontaneous change."

Penguin_Unit;4344819This is all fine and dandy, but stop and think about that. The big bang theory (basically, chance creation) would have to have resulted from there already being an existing bit of matter. Otherwise, it could not happen.

That sounds feasible on its face, but there's a problem here. A proposed idea is that the universe has been going through a continual explode-and-implode-and-explode-again sort of process. However, my chief arguement is that this is not possible. Why is it not possible, you may ask? Simple. Where did the matter come from to begin with? Thermodynamics has been tested and proven many times. It's a fact you cannot generate a new glob of matter, and you can' make new light that was not already present. Therefore, this so called "Big Bang" theory is disproven by a well-established scientific law.[/QUOTE] Ok, first off, the "big crunch" theory you are proposing is an old and outdated theory. We have measured that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which means a big crunch is out of the question. Second, you must realise that although energy and matter cannot be created they can be converted. You can make energy from matter and matter from energy.

Now, the interpretation of Big Bang in relation to Einstein's extended theory of general relativity is that before the Big Bang there was nothing. The Big Bang created spacetime. Before that, energy and matter did not exist. How this is possible is still somewhat of a mystery, but we have good evidence to support the Big Bang theory (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, proportional redshift to the distances of other galaxies, the relative proportions of elements, etc...). So although there are gaps in this theory, it does fit the known facts better than any other theory and indeed, newly found facts support this theory.

Penguin_Unit;4344819Now onto the second law of thermodynamics. What does this have to do with anything? Another relatively simple point. Most, if not all of you reading this, know that light "weakens" over time, which is why red dwarf stars are seemingly invisible without equipment to assist one in viewing said stars. Even a strong light "dissipates" over a long distance. The beam is not constant, and it slowly fades to the point it is no longer visible.[/QUOTE] I have to interrupt you here. This statement that light loses energy is in direct violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Light seems weaker because part of its photons bump into dust (the universe is full of dust). And of course, red dwarfs are very small. The reason you cannot see them without special equipment is mainly because the light from other stars blocks their light. (Try looking for stars near the full moon, you'll hardly see any.)

Penguin_Unit;4344819But what does that have to do with anything? Basically, it disproves the Big Bang. If this explode-implode process were continuing over a possibly infinite time period, the energy would essentially "die" at a certain point. If this has been going on forever, the existing energy would have extinguished long ago, and therefore the universe should, at this moment, be cold and dark. However, there is still light, and there is still heat.[/QUOTE] Again, energy doesn't "die". The reason the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to the universe though, is that the universe isn't an isolated system.
Penguin_Unit;4344819Magetism

I think Rich covered this point very well. Understand, magnetism isn't just a randomly occuring phenomena, it is one of the basic forces of nature.

[QUOTE=Penguin_Unit;4344819]Spontaneous Generation Science has proven that spontaneous generation is impossible.

Really? I'd like to see the article that made this claim. [QUOTE=Penguin_Unit;4344819]The Evolutionary theory relies heavily on this idea. If truly everything did come from simply nothing, then life should not exist. Rocks colliding in deep space simply cannot generate a living creature.
Life was created on Earth, not in deep space. I know of no theories that make such a claim. [QUOTE=Penguin_Unit;4344819]Evolutionary theory demands that a simple organism multiplied and "changed" to "correct" itself so that it was possible to live in that environment. Slowly, over time, it was supposed that this organism became an increasing larger creature, and those creatures multiplied and branched off into others, and so on until you come to present day. But, as I said, this is truly impossible, because random collision of non-living materials cannot generate a living organism, and certainly not anything of the complexity we are familiar with.

Why is this impossible? Please explain.

[QUOTE=Penguin_Unit;4344819]You can neg-rep me. You can flame me. You can lock my thread, and you can try to ban me too. You can call me a facist and a racist and a lunatic. Do as you will, but you will only look like an idiot in the process. All I'm doing is posting my findings...and if that offends you, well...I don't know what to say, except lighten up and learn to accept that others will not agree with you.

I hope you don't really think that's how this forum works, or I'm not doing a good job here...

[QUOTE=Rich19;4344950]I'm sorry, what? Enzymes found in tears? Enzymes have pretty much nothing to do with DNA structure, and therefore nothing to do with the genetic makeup of anything. Evolution involves the passing on of genes most suited to the environment. Enzymes are simply biological catalysts, which speed up reactions inside a creature. Could I see a source for your information?

Brwahabrwa? What? Enzymes are directly linked to DNA. DNA is transscipted to RNA and RNA is translated into proteins. Enzymes are types of proteins. Sorry, but what you just said there is nonsense.

However, just because one single human enzyme is more like that of a chicken than that of an ape, doesn't mean humans suddenly evolved from chicken-ape hybrids.




Rich19

Italicised no more

50 XP

14th August 2004

0 Uploads

4,058 Posts

0 Threads

#9 10 years ago

Penguin_Unit;4345125Have they done that successfully? If they can't prove it works that way, then it isn't a fact. It's still a theory.[/quote]

Of course they haven't done that. It's simply a mathematical derivation of the basic laws of gravity and energy. Which have been tested.

Penguin_Unit;4345125 Indeed, but can the light be restored after spreading out?[/quote]

What? I'm not sure what you mean, but as I'm fairly sure this was a rhetorical question, I'm going to let you explain what you mean before comment.

Penguin_Unit;4345125 Even without your light argument, no matter how true it might be, you cannot account for the other energy present. Eventually, that energy is going to wear out, and then what? It can't renew itself.[/quote]

You don't understand the laws of thermodynamics, then. Energy cannot be "worn out". It can only be converted into other forms of energy, or lost to the surroundings.

Penguin_Unit;4345125 That is quite true. But again, it brings up my previous argument. Where did your energy come from, fine sir? It should be "worn out" if this process has been going on indefinitely.[/quote]

See above.

Penguin_Unit;4345125Carbon-14 dating is notorious for being horribly inaccurate. If you try to contradict this...well, there's no hope for you. Do I REALLY need a source for that one?[/quote]

Inaccuracy is relative. Carbon-14 dating is indeed inaccurate once a lot of the carbon-14 is gone. The standard time for which this occurs is 40,000 years.

There are other techniques, though. For rocks older than 100,000 years old, potassium-argon dating can be used.

To quote paleontologist Niles Eldredge:

A few million years sounds like a huge error, but a couple of million years one way or the other is a small error compared with the huge age calculated. Saying '380 million years plus or minus two million' is like thinking back to April from December and saying you can't remember whether something happened on the 19th, 20th, or 21st.

Penguin_Unit;4345125 Man, of course. I was not concerning anything else.[/quote] Righto. Here's a few, then:

Top 10 Missing Links | LiveScience [quote=Penguin_Unit;4345125] Oh yes, that record that resembles the one of the horse evolving from having a lot of ribs and then losing a few and whimsically regaining a few lost ribs down the line...that record?

What? The horse's leg is a textbook example I was thinking of. [quote=Penguin_Unit;4345125] I didn't say it disproved the whole record. However, it shows that some of the often brought up "links" are really not links at all.

But not all of them, by any means. [quote=Penguin_Unit;4345125] Yes, but what I'm saying is that if we came from apes, logically that enzyme should most likely be in the apes as well. However, it's in a chicken. How'd a chicken get a human part if it's not even remotely related? The chances of it gaining an exact copy of an enzyme that was also present in a completely different animal are slim at best. Basically, that shouldn't happen.

I still don't know what you mean or where you are getting this information. A bit of background info would be appreciated here. [quote=Penguin_Unit;4345125] I'd like some links to some decent sources, too.

Resource Guide to Paleoanthropology Evolution Figures: Chapter 25

I'll find some more later.

[quote=Penguin_Unit;4345125] Yes, it has. I think it was Blaise Pascal who did that one?

Are you sure? I'd like to see a source for that. [quote=Penguin_Unit;4345125] No, because I think it is preposterous and really just a work of fiction. I said that because people accuse me all the time of ridiculous things.

Such as...

EDIT -

Brwahabrwa? What? Enzymes are directly linked to DNA. DNA is transscipted to RNA and RNA is translated into proteins. Enzymes are types of proteins. Sorry, but what you just said there is nonsense.

Fair enough, but tear enzyme chemistry?




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#10 10 years ago

Okay...I haven't read through all the stuff, so this may all be repeated, but I'd just like to post my two cents:

Thermodynamics. This is all well and good, but the fact is that because the Big Bang was infinitely hot, and the matter inside was infinitely dense, the laws of physics don't actually apply. Not even quantum physics says that fundamental fermions can exist with the same quantum state, which is inevitable in a volume of space of infinitely small dimensions. Therefore, before, and up to at least one Planck time after the Big Bang, we cannot predict the state of the universe. Which means that matter could actually have appeared from nowhere.

Magnetism Wrong: a magnetic field can be generated by a fluctuating electric field. Which you can get just by moving electrons around.

Geology Radioisotopes usually give a fair indication of age. Since adding a neutron here or there doesn't actually change an atom's chemical properties, The radioactive stuff if only being depleted by radioactive decay. This can be measured, by the half-life. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.28 billion years, which is actually quite a good half-life duration for geological dating. So no, there is little, if any, circular reasoning going on here.

Missing Links There is really no such thing as a transitional organism. But if you want to go into this, then it's thought that man split off from the chimpanzee and gorilla families about 4-8 million years ago, and from then on a number of fossils over 11 'species' of homo genus up to about 2mya, where we get the likes of homo habilis, homo erectus, and so on.

And as for the tear enzyme chemistry, I am not all that surprised. Bacteria flagella all bear exactly the same mechanism, there is no 98 or 99% about it: most of them are exactly the same, regardless of species. All that tells you is that humans and chickens evolved from a common ancestor sometime in the distant past (and you can't even tell when it was). I would also like to point out that you are looking at two or three enzymes in an extremely small subset of the organism. How about hitting above the belt next time and compare the whole organism?

Spontaneous Generation I normally hate analogies, but I'll indulge just this once. I don't understand how a computer can have a memory from a bunch of transistors soldered together. Yet it happens. This can be applied to micro-organisms too. So: look up the Miller/Urey experiment. The results of the experiment are promising: if they had more time, and had better understanding of the Earth's primordial conditions, then it is very likely even more complex organic matter would have formed. Going with my analogy, these are just the 'transistors' of the human body. And I dare you to claim that over a period of a few billion years that van der waals, dipole, nucleophilic, and electrophilic forces could not have grouped together a large chunk of such organic molecules in a way that could perform extremely simple autonomous actions.




  • 1
  • 2