This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I'm calling you out, Marioguy5. Let's debate evolution and creationism

#101ThuggernautzPosted 11/14/2012 2:59:57 PM(edited)
Marioguy5 posted...


This is all assuming that the theory of evolution IS true. This link explains it well.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/six_days_of_creation.html


This link does absolutely nothing to explain the incorrect ordering of biblical creation compared to the scientific timeline as demonstrated through evidence from many different fields. Nor does it explain God's mysterious deception by placing contradictory evidence all over the place to find, and leaving out very important details from the creation myth. It also shows that even within your religion, people can't agree on interpretations; hence why this person has 3 seperate headings discussing various interpretations of Genesis.

More importantly, a lot of this has nothing to do with evolution (geology, formation of land/stars/earth cosmology etc). But focussing purely on that which is relevant, plants did not appear before other life, birds did not appear before land animals, and humans and other land animals appear in the fossil record hundreds of millions of years apart.

EDIT: Neglecting just evidence for evolution, do you have any evidence for the order of creation as supported in the Biblical model? Where is your evidence for the alternative?


Extremophiles do exist TODAY, but did they always? They're highly suitable for extreme conditions, but a simple-as-possible life form forming spontaneously....Could that be extremely suited to an extreme environment?


Well, they had to. The early Earth undoubtedly was an extreme environment; we have tonnes of supporting chemical and geological evidence of that, much as we have many, many fossils of very early life that was alive in the very hostile conditions at those times (look at stromatolites).

As for the links of amino acids, and proteins, we are now almost in abiogenesis territory. As I've stated many times before, the solid steps from chemicals to replicating life are still mostly unknown. I will say, however, that even in the presence of water amino acids easily form. Icy meteorites filled with amino acids are proof of that, Urey-Miller's experiments are proof of that. It is the proteins themselves which need to be catalyzed. Further, water didn't cover the entire earth so the concentration wasn't so high that there's no chance for amino acids to form proteins.

Now, this is beyond the scope of evolution. Evolution does not deal with the abiogenes and chemical synthesis hypotheses of which I am about to speak, so it's potentially off topic. Nevertheless, it's true that proteins and peptide bonds can be broken through amide hydrolysis and heat. What protects cells from that is a membrane. One of the most common features of abiogenesis hypotheses are the formation of protective 'bubbles' or layers for organic chemistry to occur in relatively undisturbed. Basically, prototype cell membranes. This includes self-assembling phospholipids into lipid bilayers, and other methods of compartmentalization.

For example, in the hydrothermal vent hypothesis:

Mike Russel demonstrated that alkaline vents created an abiogenic proton-motive force chemiosmotic gradient, in which conditions are ideal for an abiogenic hatchery for life. Their microscopic compartments "provide a natural means of concentrating organic molecules", composed of iron-sulfur minerals such as mackinawite, endowed these mineral cells with the catalytic properties envisaged by Günter Wächtershäuser.


I must re-iterate that the direction you've headed is beyond the scope of evolution. Evolution deals with the changes in allele frequency after whatever occurred at the genesis of life.
#102Fingerpuppet(Topic Creator)Posted 11/14/2012 2:50:14 PM
ave1 posted...
Fingerpuppet, evolution of early life would necessarily require oxygen if there were organisms like algae near the surface of the water (as postulated by leading Evolutionists), because without it the radiation would damage things very quickly.

I suppose one might claim that life started evolving in the deep sea away from harmful cosmic radiation, but then you have thhe problem of no sunlight... and that leads to even more questions.


Alright, I'll bring out a paper for you.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h82m88372g515lhg/

All of your questions and concerns are addressed in this paper. The professionals can explain it better than I can.
---
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/214-paranormal-conspiracy/63352960#16
The greatest shut down ever.
#103mikmalotPosted 11/14/2012 4:18:01 PM
This is painful to watch.
---
Descartes is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he wants another. "I think not," he says and vanishes in a puff of logic.
#104Moorish_IdolPosted 11/14/2012 5:03:27 PM
I'm not satisfied with the answer given to why randomness in mutation is inherently bad. Actually, I don't see much answer at all. I don't mean to sound condescending, Mario, but could you address this more specifically for me? Maybe I'm just not seeing your point.
---
Ezekiel 23:20
#105Wandering__HeroPosted 11/14/2012 5:26:15 PM
http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/7/71/Internet_argument.jpg
---
This site gives 1.1 cups of food for each click a day. Please click it
http://www.thehungersite.com
#106ave1Posted 11/19/2012 9:58:27 AM
There's evidence that the Earth has always had free oxygen- and amino acids come about when there's no oxygen.

Check out a quote from March 1982 Geology magazine:


"Geologic evidence often presented in favor of an early anoxic atmosphere is both contentious and ambiguous.... Recent biological and interplanetary studies seem to favor an early oxidized atmosphere rich in carbon dioxide and possibly containing free molecular oxygen. ... It is suggested that from the time of the earliest dated rocks at 3.7 b.y. ago, earth had an oxygenic atmosphere"

Scientific American in April of 1984 discussed an international conference of the Precambrian Paleobiology Research Group that assessed evidence of preCambrian oxygen levels. They reported low levels of oxygen present- "It was not, however, oxygen free; the bands [oxidized iron] represent a large sink for the reactive oxygen." It said that oxidized iron bands appear at about the same time as the first bacterial cells. Also, at about the same time that the first life appeared, carbon dioxide was present, perhaps even abundant. Actually, the report said that the earliest rusted iron bands were 3.8 billion years old and the oldest fossils of cells were 3.5 billion years old. So, according to this group of Precambrian specialists, there is evidence of free oxygen at least 300 million years before there were living cells. (credit goes to creationism.org for the accurate info)

According to John Gribbin, "All we have to do now is rewrite all those textbooks and ensure that 'every schoolchild knows' what the best theory of the evolution of the earth's atmosphere and the origins of life is today."
---
If a tree falls in a forest and you hear it, but your eyes are closed, how do you know it's not just fifty porcupines sliding down a hill?
#107ave1Posted 11/19/2012 10:00:38 AM
So if amino acids couldn't form due to oxygen being around, there would be no life forming on the ocean floor. Life requires the amino acids building blocks. . .
---
If a tree falls in a forest and you hear it, but your eyes are closed, how do you know it's not just fifty porcupines sliding down a hill?
#108ThuggernautzPosted 11/19/2012 11:25:55 AM(edited)
ave1 posted...
So if amino acids couldn't form due to oxygen being around, there would be no life forming on the ocean floor. Life requires the amino acids building blocks. . .


Are you high? Oxygen is necessary for amino acids. Jesus, do you know what a carboxyl group is? Did you also miss the part where amino acids are found all over the place, even on meteorites? Did you also miss the part where amino acids actually PROTECT organisms from oxygen toxiicity? Did you also miss the part where I listed that free oxygen definitely was present in the early earth, but at much lower concentrations than after the first algal blooms?

Did you even read any of the previous posts?

EDIT: And just so people realize I'm not just making stuff up, here's a publication concluding that polypeptides (and amino acids) do not interact significantly with free oxygen; even if the early earth's atmosphere was highly oxygenated. Which it wasn't.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8016206
#109ave1Posted 11/20/2012 7:12:09 AM
Thuggernautz posted...
ave1 posted...
So if amino acids couldn't form due to oxygen being around, there would be no life forming on the ocean floor. Life requires the amino acids building blocks. . .


Are you high? Oxygen is necessary for amino acids.

Free oxygen? The Miller Urey experiment required the environment to be having a reducing atmosphere (which means no free oxygen). Check out: http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/ch8life.html

"Neither oxidation (there was no O2) nor decay (there were no bacteria) would have destroyed these molecules, and they would have accumulated in the early oceans for hundreds of millions of years, eventually producing a thick, warm, organic soup or primordial soup containing a variety of organic molecules."

Now let's look at the new idea that having O2 present will still be okay for the origin of amino acids (which apparently makes the Miller origin of life experiment not all that important anymore):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html "Yet even if the early Earth’s atmosphere would have been neutral rather than reducing, new data suggest that efficient amino acid synthesis would have been possible also under these circumstances."

I think it's interesting that this article discusses a free oxygen atmosphere for a short while, but then (in the following paragraph) goes right back to the thinking it's better to have an oxygen free atmosphere: "In a reducing atmosphere, made likely with the findings discussed above, the concentration of organic compounds in the prebiotic ocean may have been relatively high. Furthermore, locally a ‘prebiotic soup’ might have been greatly concentrated by such simple processes as, for example, evaporation in puddles or shallow lakes, possibly with long-term wet/dry cycles."

So what we're left to think here is that in an atmosphere with free oxygen the concentrating isn't going to happen to any great extent. Now I know that the article mentions that when scientists add "oxidation inhibitors" in a free oxygen environment the amino acids tend to not degrade, but that smells of intelligent design. The scientists are putting pure amino acids together with other selected compounds and nothing else to get these results. No mud, no tar, no sludge. It's an experiment directed towards a specified end using intelligence. I suppose any scientist can steer the results with enough constraints imposed (AKA: a recipe), but it's not in any way impressive.

Jesus, do you know what a carboxyl group is?

Just because something contains oxygen doesn't mean it's free oxygen. All you're doing here is setting up some sort of lame strawman argument.

Did you also miss the part where amino acids are found all over the place, even on meteorites?

Well, let's say meteorite amino acids hit the Earth and get into the ocean. Water will tend toward keeping them from connecting together. Diffusion in water causes more unbonding to occur than bonding- it's what we observe thanks to thermodynamics. So much for deep sea concentrating of an amino-acid rich prebiotic soup. . .

Did you also miss the part where amino acids actually PROTECT organisms from oxygen toxiicity?

You have to build an organism first before protecting organisms is remotely important. Let's get back on the subject here.
---
If a tree falls in a forest and you hear it, but your eyes are closed, how do you know it's not just fifty porcupines sliding down a hill?
#110ave1Posted 11/20/2012 7:13:26 AM
(continued from above)
Did you also miss the part where I listed that free oxygen definitely was present in the early earth, but at much lower concentrations than after the first algal blooms?

If oxygen is present anywhere that amino acid formation is trying to occur, the amino acids chemically change to other compounds (unless scientists start adding in pure oxidation inhibitors, of course). . .

Did you even read any of the previous posts?


Maybe you should be the one doing more reading. Abiotic synthesis of amino acids in an oxygenated environment requires intelligent design to keep the amino acids around.

EDIT: And just so people realize I'm not just making stuff up, here's a publication concluding that polypeptides (and amino acids) do not interact significantly with free oxygen; even if the early earth's atmosphere was highly oxygenated. Which it wasn't.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8016206


If oxygen doesn't oxidize polypeptides (amino acid chains), then why did the Talk Origins webpage I cited above say that oxidation inhibitors were needing to be added in with the amino acids to keep them from breaking down?
---
If a tree falls in a forest and you hear it, but your eyes are closed, how do you know it's not just fifty porcupines sliding down a hill?