Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ethelred
*snip*
How about you and Bagggins and Zack start up a thread entitled

Noah's Big Assed Boat

That would be a more appropriate thread.

(Thread title freely stolen from a thread on the Maximum PC forums.)

Only if Draco aka Se7eN joins in...

Its no fun if creationists don't use the spelling 'fossle'

[loinburger]

Lincoln:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
In the event that you answer no, to save another redundant post ... if no, explain

Realize that if you answer "no" again, you'll be saying that your posts have no meaning.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You assume that life is just random atoms that somehow through "permutations" formed themselves into an information based biological machine. You are suggesting that anything is possible period. Are you not?

He's not saying that atoms are allowed to violate the laws of physics, so no, he's not saying that anything is possible period.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You are not considering that life is now based on DNA. You have to get there somehow regardless of "proteins floating around a warm pond".

Since when did DNA become the sole possible carrier of information? Proteins carry quite a bit of information too; in fact, it was first theorized that proteins were the carriers of our genetic information (DNA was thought of as too simple of a molecule to be able to carry genetic information).

Entire "life forms" (actually proto-life forms since they are not capable of independent reproduction) called prions are nothing but protein fragments. IIRC, Mad Cow Disease is caused by prions, protein fragments that are not capable of self-replication but which are capable of propogation in the correct environment (inside a body). Given that prions are capable of propogation in an environment rich with organic molecules, it isn't so far a leap to conclude that ancient protein fragments in a rich primordial soup would be similarly equipped.

That is circular reasoning. The question under descussion is the evolution or design of life.

This is why the analogy fails. Cars don't mutate, and they don't reproduce. They're engineered from scratch. Since you were not engineered from scratch, but were instead born, and since your offspring will not be engineered from scratch, but will instead be a result of your success at reproduction, the car analogy is thus flawed.

Genetic algorithms, on the other hand, are a fair approximation of the mutation and reproduction that takes place in organisms; at the very least, they're a far cry better as an analogy than a car or watch.

[Ethelred]

Part One of Two

This thing is too long. Not suprising considering how long Lincolns post was. So I am breaking it into two posts.

Originally posted by Lincoln
Jack, that was a nice try but you are only proving my point about it being largely speculation and fraud.

Naghty naught. Still mixing ONE fraud with your bogus word speculation and pretending it is reality.

"I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there’s a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments..." (3)
Evolutionsist Dr. Greg Kirby Senior Lecturer in Population Biology

Which is false. Lucy for instance is not a fragment of jaw or head. So all you have done is the usual use of out of context quotes. Typical creationist manuever.

Dr. Tim White was about to debunk another ape-man "missing link". This time the bone in question was not properly curved. And a tiny opening in the bone (called the nutrient foramen) did not open the correct way.
Tim White was quoted as saying:
"The problem with a lot of Anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominoid (ape-man), that any scrap of bone becomes a hominoid bone."

That happens sometime. Lucy howerever is clearly a australopithicene. People work with the evidence they have. When have little they try to extract what information they can but no one is depending these fragmentary finds. Sometime people find a lot like White and Johnson did with Lucy.

Where is the fraud there?

A few other scattered bone fragments were also thought to belong to a primitive ape-man. A clavicle once thought to belong to an ape-man was later determined to be nothing more than an alligator femur and a horse toe.

So what? Someone made a mistake. Someone else pointed it out. Lucy is real and is not at all a mistake.

Herbert Wray also had this to say:
"According to John Hopkins University anthropologist Alan Walker, there is a long tradition of misinterpreting various bones as human clavicles; in the past, he says, skilled anthropologists have erroneously described an alligator femur and the toe of a three-toed horse as clavicles…." (6)

Very nice. There aren't many clavicles though. The most importand evidence comes from skull and even skeltons like Lucy or the 90% complete young Homo Erectus that was found in Africa.

If you ask World famous Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould if there is ANY fossil Evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution here is what he would say:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability even in our imagination to construct functional intermediates in so many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradulistic accounts of evolution" (7)

He said that when pushing his punctuated equilibrium theory. Its a good theory. Why did you take it out of context? Could it be becuase you copied it from a creationist that took it out of context to misuse it? Just like you just misused it.

A single skull was found near the village of Orce in Spain. Based on this one bone some over eager scientists again took artistic freedom and reconstructed an entire man from this single bone. (1) The name given to this "man" was "Orce man". Orce man was said to represent the oldest human fossil ever discovered in Europe. (1)
Later, to the embarrassment of many the bone was correctly identified as being a skull cap belonging to a six month old donkey.

Funny how you started out claiming it was skull. Why did you starte with a fraudulent claim like that? Was it to make it look as if they mistook a whole skull? I see fraud here an you are the source.

Well I now see you got conned by Gish. Gish is notorious for fraudulent claims about evolution. Gish is a creationist and a really bad source for truth. No one created a whole skeleton from a fragment except in the foggy mind of Dr. Gish.

Link to the truth about the skull fragment that only Gish called Orce Man. Fraud thy name is Dr. Gish.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_orce.html

The fact is it may be be a fragment of an anscestor of modern donkeys. It may also be a fragment of an anscestor of modern man. Obviously it is a very small fragment and it isn't from a spot that would be clearly one species or the other.

(1) So clearly, if man evolved from
apes, then the Jackass must be the missing link!
Set back, and slightly embarrassed, those who believed in Evolution were not willing to give up, and the search continues for a missing link.

So clearly you don't know a creationist fraud from an anthropologists fraud. You should be embarrased in lack of followup on Gishes fraud to see who was actually defrauding who.

Anthropologists by the way are NOT looking for a missing link. They are looking for the last common ancestor. We allready have some very good links between us and that that common ancestor with the Chimpanzees.

Would this search continue to embarrass those who believe in Evolution? Or would the search yield fossils that would support the Theory of Evolution?

Every single fossil ever found and there are millions of them support evolution.

Recently a "collar bone" was found that many believed belonged to a primitive ape-man. To many, this was the fossil evidence they had been looking for.
The fossil was found by Noel Boaz in the Libyan Desert at the Sahabi site in 1979. Boaz claimed this ape man lived 5 million years ago.

This date did not come from carbon dating, but was based on the estimated age of some fossil marine plankton at the site.

Anything that old can't be C14 dated. Only a few of the Neanderthals that have been found can be C14 dated anything much older is too old.

The Sahabi fossil was the oldest known fossil "ape man" in the world. Boaz claimed this ape man walked upright based on the backward "S" shape of the clavicle. This claim should have been enough to draw up some red flags, as the Sahabi clavicle did not even exhibit the "backwards "S" Boaz claimed it had. In fact the top portion of the clavicle was not even there. The actual shape of the bone was more of a backwards "C" shape, than an "S". Another fine example of a Scientist seeing what he wanted to see in a fossil.

Like Gish inventing what HE wanted to see in "Orce Man" eh?

Boaz is a Forensic Anthropologist. Worked on mass graves in Bosnia.

His home page

http://www.ieway.com/nboaz/

Please note that it was an anthropologist that pointed out Boaz's error and there is no fraud involved so quit pretending that you are pointing out fraud. You post contains the miralcle ingredient Frauduline allright but you and other creationists are the source.

But there's more. In 1983, Donald Johanson's "Institute for Human Origins" held its first Scientific conference. Both Johanson and Dr. Tim White (an Anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley) were to speak on hominid locomotion.
Johanson believed his 3 million year old "Lucy" skeleton was bipedal.

Lucy was bipedal. The hip joint shows that. Have you ever even looked at the fosssil?

[IMG]http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/images/lucy_small.jpg
[/IMG]

So what you have done is to show that people can make mistakes. Where is the fraud you promised? Oh yes yuo posted one from Gish. Very good but he is a creationist.

Unveiled in October 1999, National Geographic magazine hailed the specimen, dubbed Archaeoraptor, as "a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds." Months later, the magazine said the fossil was a fraud after a Chinese paleontologist, Xing Xu, said he thought the fossil was a composite of different animals.
Now Xu and colleagues report in this week's journal Nature that X-ray computer scans show Archaeoraptor was artfully created from 88 fragments of rock and fossil in three layers.

We were talking about fraud in Anthopology not in the entirety of paleontology. Note that again it was scientists that pointed out the problem. That is what happens in science. Fraud like Gish's is NEVER pointed out by creationists. Indeed they keep repeating the fraud even when it has been exposed. Like you are doing.

A Piece of Work

Nothing scientific there now was it. Nor was it anthropology as you claimed you would show. Indeed its a comercial fraud not a scientific one and it is scientists that have pointed out the comercial fraud.

The Coelocanthus, the Intermediate Fossil That Never Was

Of course it was and is.

Unfortunately, at this point in 1938 off east London on the African coast some fishermen caught a Coelocanth.

Fortunatly. More evidence is always fortunate for real science. Evidence is only a problem for fake science which is why the ICR spends all its time attacking evidence and none on finding any to support its fake hypothesis.

Examination of this real specimen, demonstrated the academic reconstructions of the intermediate limbs to have been, as usual, just wishful thinking by evolutionists. Its fins were not substantially more intermediate than those of pet goldfishes.

Lie. Out and out lie. Coeolocanths fins are substantialy different form other fish that exist today. They have a much more substantial bone structure and the muscles are more closely tied to the spine. This makes the fins more cabable of evolving into real legs. The Coelocanth is still considered to be the closest living descendent of the fish that lead to amphibians.

The habitat of the Coelocanth is also 200 metres plus in the ocean. Which means when brought up to the surface it explodes due to decompression.

Lie. Why except the rest after such a blatant lie? Many have been caught. None have exploded.

Another good reason why this could not be the intermediate creature that was the father of all terrestrial life. Furthermore, 1986 camera tracking of the Coelocanth by Hans Fricke of the Max Planck Institute for Animal behaviour, revealed the Coelocanth does not even stroll along the sea bed with its fins as supposed, but swims like any other fish.

Its a decendent of the ancient fossil not the ancient fish. It has evolved to fit its PRESENT enviroment.

So remember, had not a living Coelocanth been caught, even today we would probably be taught this was a critical intermediate fossil that proves evolution.

Guess what? We still are taught that because there is nothing to show otherwise in the modern Coelocanth. Creationist just LOVE to make up nonsense like this.

You are good at showing Creationist fraud Lincoln. Where is the Anthropological you claimed?

One wonders what other statements made by evolutionists today would turn out to be erroneous if we had live specimens to examine....

Since it wasn't found to erroneous there is cause for the remark. It sure would be nice though to have more. More evidence is always good. Except for Gish and his ilk.

However, the latest studies of Archæopteryx fossils indicate that this creature is absolutely not a transitional form, but a bird species bearing some characteristics distinct from today’s birds.

LIE. The latest studies still show it to have

No wishbone

No beak

It still has

Jaw

Teeth

Claws on its wings

The thesis that Archæopteryx was a "half-bird" that could not fly perfectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago.

Still is except among creationists.

The absence of a sternum, that is the chest bone, in this creature, or at least its not being the way it is in flying birds, was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly.

Oh good that fits the predictions of some. Wish I had seen it. Got a link?

(The chest bone is a bone found under the thorax on which the muscles required for flight are fastened. In our day, this chest bone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats-a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.)

However, the seventh Archæopteryx fossil found in 1992 caused great astonishment among evolutionists. The reason was that in this recently found Archæopteryx fossil, the chest bone that was assumed to be long missing by the evolutionists actually existed. This recently-found fossil was described in Nature magazine as follows:

The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a partial rectangular sternum long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles. This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the claims that Archæopteryx was a half-bird that could not fly properly.
On the other hand, the structure of the bird’s feathers became one of the most important pieces of evidence verifying that Archæopteryx was a flying bird in the real sense. The asymmetric feather structure of Archæopteryx is indistinguishable from modern birds indicated that the animal could fly perfectly. As the famous paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states, "because of its feathers Archæopteryx is distinctly to be classed as a bird"
Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archæopteryx’s feathers was the bird’s warm-blooded metabolism. As it is known, reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals that are affected by environmental temperatures rather than regulating their body heat independently. A very important function of the feathers in a bird is the maintenance of the animal’s body heat. The fact that Archæopteryx had feathers showed that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to maintain its body heat in contrast to the dinosaurs.

Feather have been found on dinosaurs they are not exclusive to birds.

It is true that Archæopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its mouth, but these traits do not imply that this living creature bears any kind of relationship with reptiles.

It does show it is related to dinosaur however.

Besides, two bird species living today, Taouraco and Hoatzin both have claws to hold onto branches. These creatures are fully birds with no reptilian characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless to assert that Archæopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on its wings.

Which no one does. Except this fraud. Archeopteryx has teeth and its skeleton is a close match to the raptors that have been found with feathers and no sign of wings.

Neither do the teeth in Archæopteryx’s beak imply that it is a transitional form.

Of course it does.

Evolutionists make a purposeful trickery by saying that these teeth are characteristic of reptiles.

Dinosaurs not reptiles.

However, teeth are not a typical characteristic of reptiles.

They are typical not universal. They are typical of dinosaurs and raptors in particular. Especially the raptors that appear ancestral to Archeopteryx.

Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not. Moreover, Archæopteryx is not the only bird species that has teeth.

It not really a bird though. Its a transition between bird and dinosaur not reptile. Dinosaurs last comman ancestor with reptile is a crocodilian. Crocs by the way can walk with their legs beneath them unlike other reptiles. They normaly don't walk that way but they are capable of it.

It is true that birds with teeth do not exist today, but when we look at the fossil record, we see that both in the same age as Archæopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct bird genus existed that could be categorised as "birds with teeth".

Good. More evidence that birds had dinosaur ancestors.

The most important point is that the teeth structure of Archæopteryx and other birds with teeth are totally different from that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs.

Nonsense. Untill someone noticed the feathers the first Archeopteryx fossil was classified as a dinosuar. It still isn't classed as a bird.

Except by this con artist.

The famous ornithologists Martin, Steward, and Whetstone observed that Archæopteryx and other birds with teeth have teeth with flat top surfaces and large roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, are protuberant like a saw and have narrow roots.(40)

So the teath evolved. Its a transitional species and they still are teath in a jaw not a beak.

The researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archæopteryx and their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them.(41)

Others disagree with them.

The studies of anatomists like Tarsitano, Hecht, and A.D. Walker revealed that some "similarities" asserted to have existed between this creature and dinosaurs as put forward by John Ostrom, a prominent authority who claims that Archæopteryx evolved from dinosaurs, were in reality misinterpretations.

Disagreement is nothing new. Nor is a sign that Archeopteryx is not a transitional species. It clearly is. The only question is how long had it been transitioning away from dinosaurs.

(42) All these findings indicate that Archæopteryx was not a transitional link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called "birds with teeth".

Which is a transitional stage between dinosaurs and modern birds. Either way its evidence of evolution. Macro evolution. Its just a question of how far along in the transition it was.

To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I’d be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.

Thats OK you are an embarassment to creationism anyway.

(49) To sum up, the scenario of the "evolution of birds" erected solely on the basis of Archæopteryx, is nothing more than a product of the prejudices and wishful thinking of evolutionists.

To sum this putz is trying real hard to obfuscate the truth. Archeopteryx is a specieas that is in transition between dinosaurs and birds. The only question is how far along it is.

I am afraid there are a very large number of scientists who desperately want this species to be an intermediate fossil, and willfully ignore all evidence to the contrary. What can one do?

Well you can do what you source did. Obfuscate obfuscate obfuscate and never make full in context quotes or mention the fact that its evidence of evolution no matter what the specific point along the path it is.

Even if I had a live specimen cheerfully flapping around in front of me, I think most evolutionists would still insist it was an intermediate (between what of course, this is never stated!) to their dying day.

Nice lie there. It is stated. Between dinosaurs specificly raptors and birds. Sure would be nice to have the living animal then we could test its DNA. I sure this creationist would insist it was not evidence even then.

Break Point

[Ethelred]

Part Two of Two

The Infamous Horse Evolution Digram
In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn't changed.

It has changed. There is more detail. Which is not say that the original diagram wouldn't still be published.

It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in "the evolution" of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes.

Which wouldn't fit modern theory or evidence.

This is what generations of kids have seen in school textbooks and encyclopaedias.

What kids? Its not in school books. Not in US books anyway and this is a US source. Encylopedias are bad sources which is why they are a favorite with creationists. Lots of obsolete stuff they can pretend is modern.

However, as usual, we find a detailed examination of how this proof of evolution was derived proves rather interesting. For starters, fossil remains of modern horses have been found next to the earlier species they were alleged to have evoloved from.

If so I don't see a problem. It fits punctuated equilibrium quite nicely. I am sure Stephen J. Gould would be proud.

And secondly there there is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen.

This is a problem? Nonsense. Its hard to find anything in an unbroken succesion in a single place including geologic strata.

There are sites by the way with an unbroken succesion of strata going back the Pre-Cambrian. Not fit for digging though since the sites are straight down instead of laid out. They were found by oil drillers and the results being of comercial importance were not published in science journals.

Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption.

False. The geologic strata gives the dating.

That sort of approach to 'proof,' will get you fail marks every time on any reasonably advanced mathematical course.

This sort of lie about how the dating was done will get you an F anywhere but in creationism.

And the fossil sequence is not quite as complete as the diagram suggests. One can also suggest that the genetic distance between the earliest horse and modern horses is not so great, since modern horses someties give birth to offspring with some of the alleged primitive feature such as 3 toes. i.e.

Which is evidence that horse had ancestors with three toes. Very good you have shown evolution.

its just microevoution / population genetics.

It nothing of the sort. The earliest equine was about one foot tall. It ALWAYS had three toes. This is just evidence that a creationist will aways claim even the most clear cases are not evidence.

And finally, lets assume for a moment the diagram is genuine.

Yes lets assume a 140 year old diagram is the same as used by modern paleontolgists. How about we don't do something so stupid?

If if takes several generations for horses to show not much devlopment apart from size, surely this sequence proves there is something very wrong indeed with the fossil record with all the huge gaping holes in it?

No. Surely you like to prevaricate. Especially since you chosen to use a diagram that is 140 years out of date. What a bogus manuever.

Surely it proves we should have dozens or even hundreds of intermediate in the fossil record to mark the transition between species.

We have dozens. Thats why he wants to use an obsolete diagram so he can ignore the newer evidence.

Either way you chose to see it, genuine or fraud, I do not think horse evolution is particularly good news for evolutionists.

No it isn't good. Its GREAT. Very clear evidence of evolution that made thy squirm and twist and ignore all the facts.

Notice how this time there was not link to Talk.origins so here we go.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

Kinda shows why that site was ignored this time. Horses are very good evidence for evolution. Which is why that guy tried to muddy up the truth with a 140 diagram.

Neanderthal Man
Human origins is a murky subject where personal opinions are routinely and aggressively presented as scientific ‘facts.’

Especially when a creationist tries to hide the facts with creationist oppinions.

Neanderthal man (discovered 1856) is widely considered to be our closest ancestor, at least by the general public, but despite the prevalence of Neanderthal skeletons, the transition from Neanderthal man to modern man is sudden and abrupt without any intermediate forms.

Meaning that we haven't found any and that is widely know too. There are lot of Neanderthal skeletons because at some point in their history they started burying each other. Its likely that came later in their history as Homo Erectus were never buried.

Today not even the ‘experts,’ seriously entertain the idea that modern man descended from Neanderthal man. Homo Heidelbergensis ( also called Archaic Homo Sapiens and Homo antecessor ) seems to be the best current guess for human origins.

No it isn't. It may be ancestral to Neanderthal or modern man or even both. Neanderthal is bit more likely though.

Homo Heidelbergensis
The thinking is both modern man and Neanderthal man evolved from this common ancestor, although what Heidelbergensis itself evolved from seems to be uncertain. It should be noted that these expert opinions seem to change from one decade to the next, as the ‘facts,’ keep changing (i.e. everyone used to know for a fact we evolved from Neanderthal man / Piltdown man / etc).

No where near everyone. Mostly Britts that desperatly wanted a fossil man in England. It never fit the rest of the evidence which is why it was finally C14 tested.

That the models change to fit new evidence is in no way a weakness. Its a weakness that creationists never change to deal with new evidence.

If you want my personal opinion on human evolution, the fossil fragments point to a biological field <http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Ramp...alt-evolu.html> with an intelligent hominoid form in mind, trying to execute on its design properly and repeatedly not quite getting it right (it was an extremely tough engineering design brief, after all). I do not think there is a direct relationship as such between any of the hominoids, except that they are the product of the same field.

Well the evidence it extremely strong that there is a direct relationship with fossil men and modern men. So what is the unlettered oppinion of one creationist versus tons of evidence? Not much.

Of course this could all be a huge right wing conspiracy by evil creationists.

Or it could be a huge left wing conspiracy by creationists. Its still a lot of crap either way.

You said you would show fraud. You did. Gish defrauded you. That it though. I am waiting to see the fraud in anthropology that you claimed. The is still only Piltdown Man and as usual it was scienitists that found it.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Only if Draco aka Se7eN joins in...

Its no fun if creationists don't use the spelling 'fossle'

I never harp on anyone's spelling unless I simply can't decipher it at all. It makes it look like you can't come up with something to rebutt with.

I have a canned response to anyone that should be so foolish as to attack me for my excreable spelling. No one likes getting it so its pretty effective. I have never had to use twice on one person.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
He's been working on that a *long* time. One of his co-authors, Steve Hawkins does not share his absolute view.

Neither does Murry Gell-Mann apparently. He was on Screen Savers last week and he said he doesn't like the term Theory of Everything. He is intrigued by the possibility of unifying Quantum theory and the General Theory of Relativity though. I think its more the term that he doesn't like.

I heard about twisters before I ever heard of string theory. Penrose has been working on that a VERY long time.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I was addressing Etheired's claim that there was " EXACTLY one case of fraud". I do not dispute real evidence.

Please don't truncate the sentence. You clearly have not taken the whole quote to heart.

Full sentence quote

There is EXACTLY one case of fraud in all of anthropology.

Note the term ANTHROPOLOGY. Not all science nor does creationist fraud count either.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Neither does Murry Gell-Mann apparently. He was on Screen Savers last week and he said he doesn't like the term Theory of Everything. He is intrigued by the possibility of unifying Quantum theory and the General Theory of Relativity though. I think its more the term that he doesn't like.

I heard about twisters before I ever heard of string theory. Penrose has been working on that a VERY long time.

Everyone likes

a) Einstein
b) his most demostratable Theory. E=mc^2 & nukes ... 'nuff said.

What do you do when you have two incompatible yet undeniable phenomena? You can expand and/or contract one and/or the other theory, add additional complexity (which will most likely happen on the relativity side... quantum theory has quite enough complexity already, thank you very much ) or formulate an additional theory.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln

And yes "information" of the Shannon variety can be produced by mutations and selection. But that variety of information cannot contribute to macro evolution because it is generated randomly. All you can get with more random "information" is more complexity with more confusion -- not evolution into a higher form.

You mention selection then you chose to ignore it. The random information is NON-randomly selected by the enviroment. That is where the information actually comes from.

Kind of like clay shaped by a sculptor. The random DNA changes are the clay and the environment does the sculpting.

[MrBaggins]

A note regarding the probability of DNA formation. (Ignoring the fact that the mere presence of subsequent DNA proves its initial self-formation, for a moment)

Arguing probabilities of the sponaneous organization of DNA is ridiculous.

No one can come up with a viable probability due to the uncertainty of the environment, and the duration involved.

On one side you have an insanely large complexity in arrangement of the structure, on the other side you have an insanely long time period for the arrangement to take place (what tiny fraction of a second would the atomic bonds take to be formed), and an insanely large number of discrete locations that the arrangement could have been taking place.

Simple probabilities are woefully inadequate; we cannot measure a probability without knowing the timing, and the precise ecologic history of the Earth.

I cannot forsee any scientist being able to generate any probability for any event having so many variables.

Shame on any 'scientist' for presenting such groundless 'science'

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ethelred


You mention selection then you chose to ignore it. The random information is NON-randomly selected by the enviroment. That is where the information actually comes from.

*snip*

bullseye!!

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln


That is circular reasoning. The question under descussion is the evolution or design of life.

We have allready established that evolution occurs. So there is nothing circular to say the evolution might do any particular thing.

The only real question about evolution is how bullheaded you will be about accepting the effects of evolution.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln

A few quick questions PH,

How does “autocatalysis” and a random order of RNA produce a code along with a translation process?

Secificly we don't know. Generaly the answer is evolution. Once an imperfectly self reproducing molecule exists evolution not only can occur but it MUST occur.

How did the “the translation mechanism” come into existence?

Same answer.

You suggesting the self organization of tRNA. How did about 20 of them form themselves to match both the coded instructions in DNA and the appropriate units of the ribosomes?

From the previous versions of similar things. One possible way is that a RNA copying enzyme copied another instead of itself. If they were somehow linked this could allow for specialization of one to store the information and the other to do the copying. By concatenating the two different molecules into one there would be a copy of the information for the copier and a copy of the information of for the data itself.

How are the triplets discerned initially?

The triplets came later. Those came after the RNA code dropped the minor difference between it and DNA to become actual DNA. The coding is more efficient than just getting lucky.

What selective advantage is there for one sequence of RNA or DNA over another if the code or the translation mechanism is unknown?

It matters not whether the code is know or unknown the answer is the same. Survival. One that doesn't survive is gone one that does survive, well it survives and reproduces.

Yes thats speculation. Without evidence that is all there is. That it is speculation does not make it invalid. Its more than you have since you cannot even do this much to explain where the hypothetical creator came from.

You insisted on an answer. Since we have made it very clear the answer is not known don't complain about this being speculation. You were the one that insisted.