Posts by pomegranate

b) there are transitional forms. take archeopterix as the most prominent example. there are many many others. however transitional forms are of course rare since species stay in more or less the same form for most of their existence. transitional forms gain importance only if environmental changes occur that allow the adaptaion to a new niche.

If evolution were true, there would be BILLIONS of transitions in the fossil record. There would be species NOW in the transitional MODE. Both are NOT TRUE.

c) if you would have a scientific mind then you would try to come up with an alternative scientific explaination instead of refering to God who somehow and miracously put everything here (despite a gigantic pile of evidence against that idea)

Why sidestep the truth? Again, more claims of EVIDENCE and facts wirth NONE presented. Staus Quo.

d) just on the side: biological evolution does NOT depend on how the first cell formed.

It surely does, because without that first cell, there is NO LIFE AT ALL.

e) here is an abstract from a rather new review about peptide formation:

Peptides and the origin of life. Rode BM.

Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Institute for General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Innsbruck, Austria. [email protected]

Considering the state-of-the-art views of the geochemical conditions of the primitive earth, it seems most likely that peptides were produced ahead of all other oligomer precursors of biomolecules. Among all the reactions proposed so far for the formation of peptides under primordial earth conditions, the salt-induced peptide formation reaction in connection with adsorption processes on clay minerals would appear to be the simplest and most universal mechanism known to date. The properties of this reaction greatly favor the formation of biologically relevant peptides within a wide variation of environmental conditions such as temperature, pH, and the presence of inorganic compounds. The reaction-inherent preferences of certain peptide linkages make the argument of 'statistical impossibility' of the evolutionary formation of the 'right' peptides and proteins rather insignificant. Indeed, the fact that these sequences are reflected in the preferential sequences of membrane proteins of archaebacteria and prokaryonta distinctly indicates the relevance of this reaction for chemical peptide evolution. On the basis of these results and the recent findings of self-replicating peptides, some ideas have been developed as to the first steps leading to life on earth.

How in the hell does a salt induced peptide formation undermine the statistical impossibility of evolution using the RIGHT peptides and proteins? It doesn't.

Edited by - pomegranate on 18 October 2002 17:42:20

145

Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability

by pomegranate in

jw
friends

any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?

pomegranate

It seems ridiculous to invoke a supernatural entity for one little act of abiogenesis. That deus ex machina approach never sits well with skeptics. If you mean that god actually directed (or directs) evolution, then that abolishes the need for or possibility of natural selection, the cornerstone of modern evolutionary theory.
A god would have to be cruel or at least pitiless to allow progress to happen in such a slow and brutish manner. If humans are simply primates with very evolved brains, then it's hard for fundamentalists to argue that God has any interest in us. And a god who uses such an inefficient means of creation is hardly awe-inspiring.

I agree.

145

Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability

by pomegranate in

jw
friends

any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?

pomegranate

The whole point of the essay is to show that probability calculations are pointless regarding abiogenesis. The statistical errors explained by the essay illustrated that. Your response pointing out where you thought there were further statistical errors merely emphasized that point.

First, the essay uses WRONG starting numbers. An elementary mistake right from the beginning.

Second, how is it that probabilty math is usable in the infinite complexities of atomic quantum mechanics AND BE GOOD AND USEFUL, and of no use to the SIMPLE NUMBERS of connecting biological elements into CHAINS of life? Of course evolution has to try and release itself from probability math, because the numbers show IMPOSSIBILTY.

Evolutionists want the theory to be EASIER than the math shows.

145

Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability

by pomegranate in

jw
friends

any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?

pomegranate

Here is what Jan says:

"Pome, Your intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking."

And also:

But you are right about one thing: all species now living have evolved from a common ancestor. That is a fact.

Here is what his linked article reveals:

"Common descent is a general descriptive theory..."

"Simply put, the hypothesis of common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions; these predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the hypothesis fairs in light of the observable evidence."

Didn't you read that Jan? HYPOTHESIS. NOT FACT.

You calling something a fact that your OWN ARTLICE says is just a hypothesis and theoretical postulation I believe is dishonest, don't you?

PS. Dig this sentence of spectaculor scholarly reasoning from the same article introduction:

"In fact, without assuming the truth of universal common descent, it is highly probable that the hypothesis will indeed fail for most of these predictions - and this is exactly why many of these predictions are such strong evidence for common descent."

In order for you to understand this HYPOTHESIS, you have to assume it is a universal truth first, otherwise it's predictions wil FAIL.

That's A FACT.

Edited by - pomegranate on 18 October 2002 17:17:8

145

Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability

by pomegranate in

jw
friends

any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?

pomegranate

The above is another classic example. All CLAIMS and NO FACTS, whilst diminishing pomegranate by intellectual insult.

Kewl.

At least there's consistency.

145

Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability

by pomegranate in

jw
friends

any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?

pomegranate

Pomeganete,
Just wanted to say thanks for a well thought out discourse. We both stated our views, and neither of us resorted to personal attaks or name calling. I've really enjoyed your posts as well. I wish I could have more discussions like this, just an open exchanange of ideas by folks with differing thoughts. I believe this is how we learn things. If your ever in California let me know, and I'll take you up on that cup of coffee.

You have a admirable "air" about your posts which I enjoy. I concur that reasonable men can disagree and not be derogatory toward another. Even when I am being belittled, I try to maintain an absence of ill demeanor. It is challenging though and I do fail sometimes!

I'd love to get out to Cal someday rap over some good java. I was out there many years ago in Orange County...

Peace be with you.

Thanks, and back at ya twice as much.

pomegranate aka Ric

145

Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability

by pomegranate in

jw
friends

any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?

pomegranate

it becomes really pointless to discuss science with people who have no idea what they are talking about.

I guess that means me eh? Well why are you still here, don't you know you defy your own statement?

i don't blame anyone for not having the time to study physics, biology or whatever science.

Sorry. That's a pitiful cope out.

but then they should at least not try to argue against proven scientific facts.

Ooo. Another guy eluding to these "proven facts." Sure wish someone would reveal these "facts."

non of the people here who are defending creation have a clue about the facts that support evolution.

That's because nobody here defending evolution has presented any FACTS to support their position. Can you blame us?

in fact they have no clue about how science works.

Here we go again. Creationists have no clue how science works. I believe the FACTS I have presented wholey disprove your disparaging claims.

otherwise they would keep their rediculous statements to themselfs.

A statement like the above wit NO FACTS is so much hot air.

i think decency would require that they read the scientific facts and explanations before they post.

Why not present these marvels of evolutionary facts for us would you? Seems no one else will.

but unfortunately they are not even willing to read summaries like that provided on talkorigins.

Why not present them on your OWN understanding? Or are you incompetent? I have already poked a hole in talkorigins "math" with no refute.

145

Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability

by pomegranate in

jw
friends

any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?

pomegranate

This is incorrect. Evolution is Evolution. Abiogenesis is Abiogenesis. They are completeley separate. Evolution does not rely on Abiogenesis for support. You don't have to accept Abiogenesis to accept Evolution. In fact, many (maybe most?) people in the world don't.

Really? What would you call the transition bewtween abiogenesis (no life) to biogenesis (life)? In order for life to be, it had to EVOLVE out of DEAD CHAOTIC CHEMISTRY (abio) into fully ordered and COMPLEX systems (bio). Evolving is going UP in order and complexity BY ITSELF with NO intelligence. To go from abio (dead) to bio (life) is EVOLUTION in the broadest sense of the word.

That is why many Christians and other theists and deists accept Evolution. Evolution conforms with all of the facts.

How does evolution conform with this fact?:

There are no actual transitional links in the fossil record to support the theory of evolution. All of the species of plants and animals along with their biological parts, traits, and characteristics are found already fully-formed or complete within the fossil record. For example, not a single fossil with part fins/part feet has been discovered to show that fish had evolved into amphibians. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that there ever was a process of evolution going on.

There are, however, enough facts to support Evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You have shown NOT ONE FACT. You have only uttered the existence of these FACTS without preseting them. Here is another fact:

Nowhere PRESENTLY, do we see animal species with transitional or partially evolved legs, eyes, skin, brain, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures as evidence that evolution is still occurring. We should be seeing in-between stages of macro-evolution occurring all around us right now if Darwinian evolutionary process is a reality.

Oh yes, evolutionists do have their FEW supposed transitional links, but even they admit, that they are not indisputable.

As for the transitional links themselves, the fact is if macro-evolution really occurred with all the variety and varience of life we see now, there should be billions of billions of anatomically indisputable transitional forms in the fossil record instead of just one or two questionable ones which even all evolutionists themselves can't even agree upon.

So, where's the facts you are professing?

Anyone who looks at the facts and denies the reality of Evolution is being intellectually dishonest.

Again, another portrayal of facts that are never presented. Show your "facts" would you?

They are forcing the observed facts to conform with their ancient religious text. And when that doesn't work, they outright deny the facts. That is intellectual dishonesty in the extreme.

Again the elusive evolutionary "facts." Where for art thou facts of evolution you keep talking about?

Evolution is not a theory that tries to avoid giving creative credit to a personal original cause. It is just a scientific theory that explains the facts well. It says nothing of the origins of life... only of the origins and changing of species. Repeat after me: Abiogenesis is not Evolution.

You are right, abiogenesis is DEATH. Biogenesis is life and has nothing to do with evolution. Life procreates according to it's KIND exactly as God had created, exactly as we see now with NO transitions in the fossil record (which should be in the billions of billions) or as we see in our world now.

You keep arguing a straw man. Shame on you!

Show some FACTS, maybe we'll see the real straw man.

22

Keep Free From Murmuring....Are YOU A Murmurer?

by minimus in

jw
friends

wt.

11-15 02 states:"persistent murmurers attach too much importance to their feelings or position, drawing attention to themselves rather than to god.

if not checked, this causes dissension among spiritual brothers and hinders their efforts to serve jehovah shoulder to shoulder.this is so because murmurers invariably voice their complaints, doubtless hoping that others will sympathize with them.

pomegranate

Remember Ethel Murmer? Oh. Wait...that was Ethel Murman. Never mind...