Evolution: What Real Scientists Have to Say

In consideration of the agenda of Medved, the originator of this thread, one can only hope that it goes nowhere . . .

iight.

Can somebody please summarize what Medved's point was? I stopped reading his post after his first half-sentence, which I have never seen any evidence for so have no reason to believe.


Contrary to urban legend, Columbus's opponents in 1491 did not believe the Earth was flat. They believed (correctly) that the Earth is a sphere; they estimated the size of that sphere and the size of Eurasia about correctly; and they concluded, correctly again, that the western route from Europe to Asia was much too long to be worth taking, thus killing the intended point of the excercise. Columbus believed (incorrectly) that the Earth was much smaller than it actually was, or that Eurasia was much larger than it actually was, or both. True, Columbus was lucky that there was a new continent between where he came from and where he wanted to go, so he could hardly avoid discovering it. But that doesn't make him any less of a miserable crank than his opponents thought he was.

So "abiogenesis" is a "problem" is not it?

O.K. where did the REGULATORS (laws if you wish)
come from? ORDER is the function of the laws. So why is there ORDER?

Trillions of years? "Cosmology" does not talk about that, mathemetics does. The probability of a living cell to "come together" by chance is :

I quote:"Probability of forming one DNA strand
of 148,800 nucleotides is 1 in 10^89,280."(Fred Struss)

Does anybody have some idea about the size of that number? And the problem does not end there.

Filthy evo gobbledygook is not the answer friends.

Enjoy you time: Gabor

In fact, Thomas, the spherical nature of the planet was assumed thousands of years ago, and a fairly accurate "guesstimate" was made of the dimension of the globe. Anaximander publicly stated his belief that we inhabit a spherical planet more than 2500 years ago.

I think you'll find, Thomas, as demonstrated in the post which succeeds yours, that it is necessary for those opposing simple scientific theories while contending that such are a part of some nefarious conspiracy, to willfully and significantly distort both the scientific record, and the historical record.

"It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth..."(Isaiah40:22-first part, emphasys added)

Think about descriptive geometry: the sphere is the
body which looks to be a circle looking at it from any angle.

The evolutionist strawman (one of many) is that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat.

Utter nonsense.

Applying the concept of order on a universal scale is a tricky endeavor. The universe only appears to be "ordered" because universal laws - or "regulators," if thats what you want to call them - exist in such a way that made it possible for human life to exist.

However, this should not be surprising because such laws are neccesary for our survival, and we wouldn't be able to posit such a question if they didn't exist, comprendo?

I don't know who Fred Struss is, but he isn't refuting anything any evolutionary biologists are claiming. They are claiming that cells, in your words, "came together" through natural selection. And natural selection is not random. Maybe you want to read the case for evolution by the people best qualified to do so. I recommend Richard Dawkins: "The Blind Watchmaker". This is assuming that you're interested in understanding what you're arguing against, which may or may not be naively optimistic of me.

First of all, evolution is a scientific theory, not a polemical ideology; therefore references to "evolutionists" is an exercise in the fantasies of those who cherish persecution complexes.

In the second place, the references here to a view of the world as flat come from the hilariously ludicrous thesis advanced by the originator of this thread, calling himself Medved, and since outted as a scam artist with an anit-evolution agenda . . .



You need to keep your paranoia in check; in fact, Medved and you are singing in the same choir, so your remarks refute about the only ally you'd likely have here in this debate.

Finally, no one here who accepts the evolution theory (remember, they are not "evolutionists," as it is not a political platform, and no one here is attempting to use this theory to advance a political agenda) has created any such strawman as you claim.

Some people should be paranoid, because there are people out to get them. Sadly, for you, this does not apply here. I know that fanatical christians cherish the notion of being persecuted for speaking the truth in the face of the Pharisees, but this does not happen to apply in this thread.

That looks to me suspiciously though as it's the probability of repeating an exact nucleotide sequence by pulling 148,800 bases out of a bag. If that really is the argument, I don't get what the point is even supposed to be. Are we supposed to believe that such a sequence is supposed to precede simple self-replicating molecules? Hell, there are sequences of about 1000 base pairs in E. coli that are capable of catalzying their own excision from the genome and their reinsertion elsewhere. You can inject DNA fragments into a cell and get spontaneous recombination. As thomas (edit) pointed out, when you're talking molecular biology you are not talking about randomness.

As i understand it, there is no missing link in amphibian evolution.

I’ll keep this short and sweet…

We’re here, therefore some how at some time we where created. The only solid evidence we have of anything is that we exist. There is no fossil evidence, therefore no evolutionary evidence. Mostly all animal species are different, even in gene, but we all consist of the same nutrients that are found in the soil of the earth.

Yes, that was short.

It doesnt matter what people believe...

Either way my parents had fun making me

Theres a man in the funny papers we all know (Alley Oop, oop, oop-oop)
He lived 'way back a long time ago (Alley Oop, oop, oop-oop)
He dont eat nothin' but a bear cat stew (Alley Oop, oop, oop-oop)
Well this cat's name is-a Alley Oop (Alley Oop, oop, oop-oop)

He got a chauffeur that's a genuwine dinosawruh (Alley Oop, oop, oop-oop)
And he can knuckle your head before you count to fawruh (Alley Oop, oop, oop-
oop)

He got a big ugly club and a head fulla hairuh (Alley Oop, oop, oop-oop)
Like great big lions and grizzly bearuhs (Alley Oop, oop, oop-oop)
(Alley Oop) He's the toughest man there is alive
(Alley Oop) Wearin' clothes from a wildcat's hide
(Alley Oop) He's the king of the jungle jive
(Look at that cave man go!!) (SCREAM)

He rides thru the jungle tearin' limbs offa trees (Alley Oop, oop, oop-oop)
Knockin' great big monstahs dead on their knees (Alley Oop, oop, oop-oop)
The cats don't bug him cuz they know bettah (Alley Oop, oop, oop-oop)
Cuz he's a mean motah scootah and a bad go-gettah (Alley Oop, oop, oop-oop)
(Alley Oop) He's the toughest man there is alive
(Alley Oop) Wearin' clothes from a wildcat's hide
(Alley Oop) He's the king of the jungle jive
(Look at that cave man go!!) (SCREAM)

Thair he goes, look at that cave man go
He sure is hip ain't he?
Like what's happening?
He's too much
Ride, Daddy, ride
Hi-yo dinosawruh
Ride, Daddy, ride
Get 'em, man
Like--hipsville

yoda, you are so full of balogna that youve got peppercorns in your eyes.
Gabor, As research progresses we begin to understand how biochem mechanisms work. The first interactions of organic molecules with their substrate began a process that , by hydration, layer collapse, charge transfer, layering etc. a series of molecules with self replecating properties occured. (Where SWTruss is all wet, he acts like every occurence is a "new" start of the chain)
Its been postulated that the world was initially an RNA world wherein germ transfer was more of a simple chemical messenger .

Watsons newest book "DNA" is a wonderful introduction to researchers in other fields, its approachable, it gives a great history of the processes of discovery, and by doing so, recreates the path by which we understand this elegant chemical.

The fact that an eel or some annelids have a bigger genome than humans means to some , that theyve been around for a longer time and have , in their evolution,captured other genomes in their larval stages. Your comment where does the order come from?? I can create any order in crystals by mere doping of the mixture. We can , at the micro level, do lots of order creation. Order is a base argument that, when ignorance is all youve got, you claim that the un iverse is "in perfect order" But it aint. We still have cancer, we still have unpredictable volcanic zones, planets get wailed by comets , stars explode, basically **** happens and there aint a damn thing you can do about it except try to understand its properties.

As set said, your on the same route as medved, who is, btw, a known commodity in the anti-evolution camp. Hes been trying to present fossil evidence of stuff thats not true, so , his credibility is low. Dont follow him cause all he does is post huge bookmark tracts of creationist eyewash. Stuff that hes posted has actually been refuted by the "real science community" that he tries to belittle.

ThomaS,I outed medved early in this thread , because he was part of a deception in Pa a number of years ago. He had a colleague that , together, they provided"fossil evidence" that human -like fossil remains were found in the Coal measures of Pa. A paleontologist from Calgary actually took the time to do a detailed exam of the specimens and found that it was a concretion , you could see the chemical 'bathtub rings" that are left when a salt evaporates in accordance to the varying solubility of the various compounds that make up the "salt soup" . Manytimes concretions form shell like structures which, to the amateur, can appear like bone or skull. The Pa Geol Survey went up to the field site area and found lots of these concretions and reconstructed the area as an ancient sediment basin that was exposed to perhaps, centuries of arid conditions with periodic torrential rains that wash out salts from the rock , and this collected in a huge basin that , as it dessicated, formed these concretions.
Neat, but not proof that humans were around in the Permian. Medved peeled out after that because he was trying to post his own web sites and I think he ran afoul of our TOS. Id like him to return because he just bolted with no bye-bye.

limbodog-There are a number of evolutionary sequences that are fairly complete, nautiloids, amphibians, brachiopods, whales, horses, elephants, and a whole bunch more. The creationists have to keep backing up their positions by claiming more and more incredulous circumstances. One of the klatest ones is the "Polonium Halo" in micas that are included in granite. Since the polonium alf life is short, its appearance in a granite indicates that the granite is "young" . the argument is convoluted and only of interest to a small group of mineralogists but , the halo is actually a photochemical"snapshot" of a point in time when the granite was melting. It has nothing to do with the age of the rock melt itself. The arguments are getting successively argane and, by doing that, the creationists are seeking scientific credibility by inserting actual phenomenological arguments into their usual "intelligent design" prattle. Its more a clever debating trick than science.
The Institute for Creation SCience and a few other similar organizations are well funded and have very good speakers. Many of whom have advanced and terminal degrees in sciences (although there are very few biologists, and geologists among em). many are retired physicians and chemists , physicists, with a deep religious conviction that makes them ignore the scientific method or how to evaluate evidence.

Yoda, I do not question your right to your beliefs but if you are going to argue against evolution, and human evolution in particular, you should at least be familiar with the logic and evidence of evolution. These three books cover the basics, and are by seminal individuals in their fields.

DNA: the secret of Life, James Watson and Andrew Berry, Knopf, 2003

What Evolution Is, Ernst Mayer, Basic Books. 2002

The Fossil Trail, Ian Tattersall, Oxford University Press, 1996

Actually, what we find is that we are remarkably similar in gene. For instance, all of life contains 70S ribosomes -- prokaryotes as their only ribosomes and eukaryotes in their mitochondria. Among the most distantly related organisms, the homology of the small subunit RNA of the 70S ribosome is at least 50%. An extremely important molecule, and the sequence of your mitochondrial 16S ssrRNA contains at least half the same bases as an Archaeon that lives in an oceanic volcanic vent or a Propionobacterium happily working the in final stages of a Swiss cheese.

yoda-you picked on the wrong group , aint nobody here buyin that line. And we can all back up our positions without breaking a sweat.