Level of Proof for Evolution

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by BenTheMan, Mar 23, 2007.

  1. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Our planet is just one data point. It doesn't tell you if life is probable or not.

    Also, you made the mistake, again, of assuming the first life, or self-replicating molecule was instead a complete single celled organism.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    I don't make the mistake. It's only logical to assume things are not created complex.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    But then slowly develop to be complex.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    But that's not what you said. You said "in one off chance, to create a single celled life". The chance event was simpler than that, the meeting of two or more organic molecules in such a way that they formed a self-catalyzing reaction. It's not more complex than ordinary chemistry.
     
  8. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    There was certainly an off-chance it even happened. Even with the correct chemicals, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon, even we have not been able to recreate life, whether is be a multicelluar, or singular cellular life.

    Why is that do you think? If is happens so easily...?
     
  9. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    A lab is different than an entire ocean. In every cubic millimeter of seawater (or wet crevice in a rock) every second of every day, there was a tiny but present chance of this event happening. The likelyhood of this occurring once in a million years need only be around 10%, In 10 million years, the probability approaches 100%.
     
  10. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    The chance of it happening shouldn't be vanishingly small. Let me look for these experiments right now.
     
  11. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    ''The one thing that makes evolution such a neat theory, is that it expalins how organized complexity can arise from simplicity,'' as said by Richard Dawkins.

    So this highlights my main point, that the simlicity of life, should happen frequently under a telescope, but it doesn't. Not when we want to observe the most simplistic of life, to evolve into a eukaryote.

    My notes explain, that Darwinian supporters wanted to hype the early experimenst of Miller and Urey. In 1952-53, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey passed a 60,000 volt electricity through a generated spark into a bottled mixture of water, nitrogen, methane, ammonia, carbon monoxide and dioxide gasses, as suspected by the original goo.

    The repeated this experiment over and over again, for a period of several days. After their experiment, they found there containment only held a sludge, and the sludge contained a number of different organic molecules, the kind associated with living things.

    Among them, was amino acids, the same building blocks of genetic materials, or DNA. Since then, it has led people to believe that these materials, the amino acids thought to bring life about, but to every scientists surprise, has never been observed. For the theory to work, it required that simple dead molecules are brought into life living, mobile matter. For such a thing to be correct, proteins themselves generated by the DNA of a cell* in a complex order of processes. This process leads to an enzyme.

    But no evidence has been provided from these experiments that could create a single enzyme. If life is so abundant, and no chance really calculatable, then such life would be observed frequently, but it hasn't. So then, how could the enzymes form from amino acids if not by chance? I ask you to reconsider your statement that chance has nothing to do with it.

    * and therego, DNA is not about being progressive. Even the first single-celled life needed to have DNA, and the factor i gave as a statistic still holds.
     
  12. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    That is incorrect. Scientists propose that DNA evolved from other types of systems. In any case, scientists lack the millions of years it seemed to take for simple chemical systems to evolve into more complex life. As it is, it took about 15 years to observe evolution leading to my original example of a bacteria evolving the ability to digest citrate. Small steps took thousands and millions of years within the environment of the early Earth. But, it's been billions of years, so it all seems wonderous to us.
     
  13. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    It's not incorrect from my sources. Maybe you are talking about an alternative method? That doesn't make it wrong.
     
  14. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    But if life was so 100% going to happen as you proclaim, that 100% should predict it happening without any restriction... and this is not what is observed.
     
  15. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    You assume the first self-replicating entity formed all at once. By comparison, how difficult is it to roll 10 sixes all at once? It's unlikely, isn't it? Then, try rolling one dice at a time until you roll a six, then go to the next one in the sequence of 10. This is the difference between sequential and simultaneous events. Evolution is sequential. Every slight improvement (the equivalent to rolling a six), is retained, every non six roll is tossed.

    http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Page03.xhtml
     
  16. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    I said, the simplest form of life that needed to appear, was a prokaryote. This much is universally accepted, and has not even been observed yet to spontaneously arise. Nor have we seen one evolve.
     
  17. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
  18. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Tell me what an RNA is first... please.
     
  19. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    I have just came across something of importance. Spider you mentioned the age of something required like life to appear is essential -- Well, Dr Wolf, a mathematician and physicist explains:

    ''Given 4.5 billion years instead of a few days and an ocean instead of a lab bottle, there would be enough time and space to ensure the appearance of life... but this is patent nonesense as any good mathematical analysis would tell us.''
     
  20. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    A long chain molecule that can encode information.
     
  21. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238

    But i wasn't talking about a molecule, which is far more complex than the known single celled life.

    Forgive me, but you say life started from a molecule, so a molecule would need to drastically change its complex structure into the simplest known single celled life, something proven to exist. It seems very backward.
     
  22. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    What?!!

    A molecule is more complex than single celled life? Just how do you work that one out Reiku? Don't leave your brain in the biscuit tin next time you post.
     
  23. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    I assumed he was talking about a system that was more complex than a single-celled life. I know a single celled life is made of many systems, quantum mechanically speaking. I could have said this more clearly.

    But he is talking about a system more complex than a single celled life. Because everytime i mention a prokaryote, he denies this is the way of evolution, when i claim everything must have began at the most simplest strain.
     

Share This Page