PDA

View Full Version : Newsweek Article


Zobair
August 2, 2003, 09:00 PM
well...really here is not the place to discuss specific stuff like that...In any case...I have lost the energy or the motivation!

Anyways, here is a site with the other side of the view that you might find interesting too, if you have the time.

refutation of evolution (http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php)

Orpheus
August 3, 2003, 12:31 PM
Damn pompous, I didn't know you were that interesting! I usually snore reading your posts (ok that was a not funny joke)!

The major basis of evolutionary evidence is that of fossil found in various parts of the world with massive time-gaps in between e.g. Half-fish half-reptile looking creatures have been used as evidence for a fish evolving into a reptile.
The best evidence I found for evolution is a bengali friend of mine. If you see him you would instantly figure out that Darwin knew what he was talking about! My friend is a taller (not a hunchback) APE with reduced hair.

If you guys are still not convinced, then here is another example.

NBA star Shaqil Oneil! Now if you don't belive that We came from monkeys after watching him... then you are stupid! Shala ekta gorilla! Kothao bole gorrilar moto..

Bob: "Was fatigue a problem for you in the 4th quarter after playing 3 straight without being benched?"
Shaq: "Weh, No ah ah Tha .. so Fan ah uh Momntum" (not a typo)

Tehsin
August 3, 2003, 09:32 PM
Orpheaus wrote

================
If you are saying that all religion have same fundamentals and that believers find GOD in different names, nature, things etc... then your argument is plausible and I would emphasize that you are very open-minded.
============

I'd like to think of myself as open minded.

But how can you say this?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But NO - Someone, thousands of years ago figured out - he can dream a little dream and become a messiah of the God. Few years later, another shmuck got in the action. Wish we could go back in time, bring those TARDS here and lynch the life out of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


=====================
I didn't expect comments like that from YOU! You can believe in whatever you want but to blatantly impugning the integrity of all the prophets that most portion of the world believe in is just too offensive. If I were to believe you, I would also have to believe in the notion that almost all of the world is filled with idiots and you are one of the selected few to see things straight, which is so conspicuous!
=================

The world is filled with lots of idiots. If they are not idiots, they are weak or too strong (or don't care at all) and would go with the flow as it suits them.

Here's another - My background makes me believe that the prophets were real. If my prophets were real, then the other prophets were simply frauds or just misread the texts - the HUMAN error dealt a huge blow to the one religion and divided it into more.

Why do I think there is one god. Well, there's either one or none (uh oh). Then again, how would I know ? How would ANYONE know ?
The reasoning behind one god - if there were more, wouldn't we see them clash all the time. You can say that even if they do clash, us puny humans have no ways to tell.
The reasoning behind NO god - just look around you. Gotta be a pretty Messed (I wanted to use the other one) up god to let all evil happen around us. pretty evil.

Oh wait, what if there was never any god but just evil ? khek khek khek khek khek.

Nasif
August 4, 2003, 09:36 AM
Evolution is one of the most unscientific theory ever put forth by scientists. Mostly driven by propaganda than anything else.

Breifly why evolution is crackpot idea:

1. In Darwins day cell was thought to be a tiny dot without much to do. And life was thought to come by itself (worms and maggots coming out of a self contained rotten piece of meat etc). If Darwin knew about the complexities of a cell, he would have never proposed his bull crap theory.

2. A cell cannot be created. Those who think that Stanley's experiment to create amino acid (building block of cell) was a success needs to re-read the experiment procedure. Scientists now know that a cell cannot be created and neither can it come into existance by itself. Research to create cell has stopped for a long time (no one even tries, cause its IMPOSSIBLE). There is not a even a chance in 1 in billion trillion to create even one part of a cell (say mitocondrea), let alone a whole cell itself. Those who think a cell can come into existance by itslef needs to take basic college leve. Probability and Statistics class!

3. Why does all animal species appear all of a sudden in Cambrian period? "The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today". (from Science). What happened to gradual evolution?

4. We are still waiting for at least a fossil of an intermediate species (let alone an alive one). Why would natural selection destroy an evolved and better fit intermediate species while un-evolved one is still around us (take a look atl the chimps).

5. Darwin himself was confused about his theory and wrote about these in a chapter called "Difficulites in Theory". Where he admits that he cannot explain how an eye can evolve.

If you really want to know why evolution theory is nothing but all bull crap then please read this book completely:

Evoution Deciet by Harun Yahya (http://207.44.240.34/files/book/pdf/en/evolutio.zip)
The above file is a ZIP file containing the PDF format book. You can visit the writer's site at http://www.harunyahya.com all his books are free to download.

Every species from tiny DNA of a virus to complex human is created by God Alone.

Nasif

PS. Don't equate adaptation to evolution. Staying out of sun and getting a light skin tone is not an evolution.

Arnab
August 4, 2003, 11:32 AM
Nasif, check out talkorigins.org.

Better yet, check out this article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

[Edited on 4-8-2003 by Arnab]

Nasif
August 4, 2003, 02:09 PM
I was aware of these arguments. It is sad that every modern evolution logic must end with mutation.

According to this view, GLO gene copies in the human and guinea pig lineages were inactivated by mutations.

Wow what a coincidetal mutation! Only deactivated GLO gene sequence. Afterall scientist all over the world trying every possible way for last 30 years or so to mutate a successful fruit-fly, with results that are nothing short of freak of nature.

His whole argument rests on the idea of "successful" positive mutation (meaning mutated living being survies and passes on the genetic traits). Mutation by default can never be successful because by mutating, a DNA does NOT aquire new genetic information rather it looses it (X-Men is only good for cartoons and movies). DNA is a program sequence much like a computer program. For a computer to run its program, all the bits have to be ordered correctly. One incorrect bit sequence can render the program useless.

DNA is program sequence of life itself. Its a software, information storage system, encoder and a decoder. To serve its complete purpose it must always be complete. An incomplete DNA sequence (or gene seqnece) cannot re-organize itself to a complete one. Therefore a DNA cannot evolve, because that would require it to be self concious. A selfconsious C, N, O and H molecules! Not possible. If we argue that a comlex moleclue like DNA can come to being by chance then its nothing short of good laugh!

The probability of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-handed and being combined with only peptide bonds is "1" over 10^950 (1 followed by 950 zeros).
The Molecular Impasse of Evolution (http://www.harunyahya.com/evolutiondeceit10.php)

If we run a computer and simluate every possible older generation operation systems on it for eternity, it will never create a Windows XP by itself. There has to be a programmer who writes the software to serve a purpose. Similarly, if we run the earth the for eons, a single DNA chain will not come into being.

Now lets the bake the nodles even harder. Which came first the cell or the DNA? This question is not supposed to be trivia like egg and chicken situation (although its same principle). A cell cannot come into being without the DNA sequence, and a DNA sequence cannot come into being without a cell! Only way for the evolutionists to solve this situation is by saying that, "C, N, H and O said lets get together and make amino acid and then make a cell with complete DNA chain." See the logic! :-/

If we cannot prove that a cell evolved by itself then there is no argument for evolution. All other arguments falls flat on ground. Because at the heart of every life there is a cell and the DNA chain.

Its just the tip of the iceberg. And lets not start the plant evolution.

Arnab
August 4, 2003, 02:46 PM
The probability of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-handed and being combined with only peptide bonds is "1" over 10^950 (1 followed by 950 zeros).
The Molecular Impasse of Evolution


Talkorigins is SO handy in answering this type of probability related questions. :)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html


Excerpt:


Here is a experiment you can do yourself: take a coin, flip it four times, write down the results, and then do it again. How many times would you think you had to repeat this procedure (trial) before you get 4 heads in a row?

Now the probability of 4 heads in a row is is (1/2)^4 or 1 chance in 16: do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 10^40) gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did). Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early. But there is more.

1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 is still orgulously, gobsmackingly unlikely; it's hard to cope with this number. Even with the argument above (you could get it on your very first trial) most people would say "surely it would still take more time than the Earth existed to make this replicator by random methods". Not really; in the above examples we were examining sequential trials, as if there was only one protein/DNA/proto-replicator being assembled per trial. In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates

Let's go back to our example with the coins. Say it takes a minute to toss the coins 4 times; to generate HHHH would take on average 8 minutes. Now get 16 friends, each with a coin, to all flip the coin simultaneously 4 times; the average time to generate HHHH is now 1 minute. Now try to flip 6 heads in a row; this has a probability of (1/2)^6 or 1 in 64. This would take half an hour on average, but go out and recruit 64 people, and you can flip it in a minute. If you want to flip a sequence with a chance of 1 in a billion, just recruit the population of China to flip coins for you, you will have that sequence in no time flat.

.............


So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.

Okay, you are looking at that number again, 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, that's a big number, and although a billion starting molecules is a lot of molecules, could we ever get enough molecules to randomly assemble our first replicator in under half a billion years?

Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 10^24 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 10^27 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks.

So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 10^24 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10^-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 10^50 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 10^31) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).

Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence. Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort).

Although I have used the Ghadiri ligase as an example, as I mentioned above the same calculations can be performed for the SunY self replicator, or the Ekland RNA polymerase. I leave this as an exercise for the reader, but the general conclusion (you can make scads of the things in a short time) is the same for these oligonucleotides.

----------------


Arnab: By the way, EVOLUTION is not the discipline that deals with the emergence of life(self-replicating molecule) from non-living matters. That discipline is called ABIOGENESIS.

[Edited on 4-8-2003 by Arnab]

Nasif
August 5, 2003, 05:45 AM
Arnab you gotta be kidding me bhai ;)

You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did). Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early.
Just shows how un-scientific the approach of the article is. To convince the reader writer has to draw similarities with out of this world comparision of 1/16 to 1/billion-trillion(many times over)

If universe ran with this "fantasy" logic then all of our wishes would have come true and you could have gone to work today riding an unicorn.


1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 is still orgulously, gobsmackingly unlikely
What said the probability of making a protein at random is 1 in 4.29x10^40? An average protein with around 500 left-handed amino acid (only left handed amino acid forms protien) combined with only peptide bond is 1 in 10^950. Visit the link given before to study complete detail of this probablity calculation.


Not really; in the above examples we were examining sequential trials, as if there was only one protein/DNA/proto-replicator being assembled per trial. In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates
What happened to this successful replicator generation process? Was it successful for only one situation? Then it would be hard to speculate origin of plant cell (with cloroplast)! If it was successful many times then why all life on earth is of similar structure (DNA, chemical compunds, chemical composition etc)? Catch 22!

Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10^-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]),
And how did amino acid come into being at the first place? And please don't quote Stanly's experiment of creating amino acid. Also, writer fails to mention that only left handed amino acid can form protein. All life on this earth only has left handed amino acid. Right handed amino acid is useless piece of junk.

Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 10^24 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 10^27 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks.
Notice how un-scientific remark it is! He is stating the above as if it is a proven FACT. Whereas, the reality is that its just his hypothesis which borders on imaginative fiction. I wonder why no one tries the above experiment! One also wonders why all the micro-biologist in the world gave up effort to create any element of a cell.

My final question in the previous post was not about the probablity. Rather the question was chicken and egg question. Let me re-pharse it (quoted from Evolution Deciete):

One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.

I know evolution doesn't deal with origin of life (rather it deals origin of species). But you cannot talk one leaving the other. If you talk about chicken then you have to start with the egg. :D Anything else is just an escape from the truth.


Nasif Akand



PS: things to ponder about....

Formation of Carbon (building block of life)

Now comes the interesting story of that element of life, carbon. Helium is a very stable element. It is so stable that for a while physicists thought that it was a fundamental particle, and it was named the alpha particle. Carbon has a mass number 12, and consists of three helium atoms stuck together in a stable configuration. Unfortunately, two helium atoms, which make beryllium, are very much unstable. The stuff sticks around for less that 10^–16 of a second before disintegrating. It takes an additional neutron to make stable beryllium-9. Therein lies our problem. A collision of stable beryllium-9 with helium-4 will not add up to carbon-12. The unstable beryllium-8 does not last long enough to permit any reasonable level of carbon formation by interaction with helium. Finally, the odds of three helium atoms hitting each other simultaneously in just the right way to stick together as carbon is out of sight. It looks like there isn't any way to make carbon. And as noted, without carbon there is no life. Now, it is important to understand that without carbon there is still a universe. It does not even look very different from what we have, on a superficial level. The basic fuel for stars is here, and the stars burn very nicely. The only important difference is that we are not around to enjoy it. But we know that we are, in fact, around. And we know that there is lots of carbon around. So where did it come from?

In 1954, Fred Hoyle of Cambridge proposed a solution. He suggested that there is a resonance between helium-4, beryllium-8 and carbon-12. A resonance describes an effect where one gets a big result from a relatively small effort. Pluck a string in a certain way and you get a big sound for a small pull; do it some other way and it goes flat. Taking into account the mass-energy of each nucleus, and the calculated kinetic energy of the moving particles based on the temperature in the star, Hoyle predicted a hitherto unsuspected energy level, at 7.82 million electron volts, in the carbon-12 nucleus that would cause a resonance for the combined energies of the three elements. This resonance causes three helium-4 particles to stay together just a bit longer than usual, and that is long enough for these to rearrange themselves into the compact and stable configuration of carbon-12. The prediction was tested in the laboratory and found to be correct. The question to ask is, what is it in the basic laws of the universe that requires this resonance, involving three elements and the conditions inside a star, to be there? Why not have a universe without carbon? We do not know the answer.

Above quoted from Heavenly Time machine (http://www.pcez.com/~jmsc/heavenly_tm_excrp_carbon.html).

Carbon is there because God created it. Cell is there because God created it.

[Edited on 5-8-2003 by nasif]

Zobair
August 5, 2003, 09:10 AM
Hear! Hear! Mashallah :)

Arnab
August 5, 2003, 10:54 AM
Meh...I am seriously thinking if I should devote more time on this. Nasif, bhai,

1. Did you read the article?

2. I thought the coin analogy was a great one. You have taken basic probability courses in college, haven't you?

3. Let's just focus on one problem/confusion at a time. Right now, I am willing to discuss the validity of replicators rising from non-living matters in the premordial soup given the infinitesimal probability for ONE such event happening.

Let me clarify in VERY SIMPLISTIC WORDS what the author was trying to say.

Let's take your probability value at the range of 10^950 or whatever. We have half a billion years of time to produce a replicator or whatever. Now, in every second of the premordial earth, say in a liter, only one liter, volume of the chemical soup, billions of reactions are taking place. But the premordial soups entire volume is not one liters, it's an OCEAN! so there are billions of liters of chemical soup and in each liter there are billions of reactions taking place every second. But this didn't happen for one second. It was happening for millions of years, a time frame which contained gadzillions of seconds. Do you see the humongous number of reactions going on simultaneously for an obscene amount of time? And the emergence of the replicator out of these billions of billions of gadzillions of reactions ONLY had to happen once, then it could replicate.

Do you know what your chances are of winning the first prize in America's biggest lottery? 1 in several millions right? But still, even though the chances are so low, SOMEBODY actually wins the lottery, isn't that true? Do you see what I am saying? :)

Nasif
August 5, 2003, 11:14 AM
Arnab you cant do bachelors in engineering without prob and stats. :)

And yes, I understood the logic that the writer was putting forth. And no it does not hold because there is no premordial soup of amino acid (origins of amino acide?). Thats it. No chance to of anything happening. You forgot one little difference between winning the lottery by someone and cell evolution. Which is, lottery numbers have a FINITE set (say 1 to 54 ), whereas natural phenomenons are in INFINITE set. I can gurantee you this that no one in this world will even win a single lottery that has infinite set. :D

You are still evading the very basic question that I put forth :)

In any event here is another anecdote, gotta love'em :)

One day, a lump of clay, pressed between the rocks in a barren land, becomes wet after it rains. The wet clay dries and hardens when the sun rises, and takes on a stiff, resistant form. Afterwards, these rocks, which also served as a mould, are somehow smashed into pieces, and then a neat, well shaped, and strong brick appears. This brick waits under the same natural conditions for years for a similar brick to be formed. This goes on until hundreds and thousands of the same bricks have been formed in the same place. However, by chance, none of the bricks that were previously formed are damaged. Although exposed to storm, rain, wind, scorching sun, and freezing cold for thousands of years, the bricks do not crack, break up, or get dragged away, but wait there in the same place with the same determination for other bricks to form.

When the number of bricks is adequate, they erect a building by being arranged sideways and on top of each other, having been randomly dragged along by the effects of natural conditions such as winds, storms, or tornadoes. Meanwhile, materials such as cement or soil mixtures form under "natural conditions", with perfect timing, and creep between the bricks to clamp them to each other. While all this is happening, iron ore under the ground is shaped under "natural conditions" and lays the foundations of a building that is to be formed with these bricks. At the end of this process, a complete building rises with all its materials, carpentry, and installations intact.

Arnab
August 5, 2003, 12:06 PM
Hmm..I still don't know if you got it or not. because if you did, you wouldn't be talking about "infinity." Earlier, you said before it wasn't infinity, it's 10^950(which is also a very improbable number btw, but that's another story) or something. Make up your mind. Be congruent. And spare me the anecdotes for now. Let's stick to this one topic first. We have plenty of time to come back to other topics. :)



[Edited on 5-8-2003 by Arnab]

Nasif
August 5, 2003, 01:53 PM
Arnab trust me, I do get it. Trillions of molecules can line up perfectly to produce replicator in the very first chance. And probability gets increased because everywhere in the soup billions of molecules can combine billions of way in split seconds. :o Even so where did the amino acid come from to begin with?

Not to mention that the very postulate that billions of the molecules trying independently of one another increases the chance of creating a replicator is completely against laws of probability. Buying lottery for 10 weeks straight and loosing won't increase your chance of winning in 11th week. Because each lottery is independent of one another and your loosing doesn't increase your chance of your winning.

Whole theory rests on this flimsy string. Its so flimsy that I don't see the string. :-/

You still didn't answer the question. :)

I would suggest you read the Evolution Deciet. Not to make you a believer in creation but just to show that there might be alternate solutions that one can certainly delve into. If nothing else you will get to know creationists' views a whole lot better.

Nasif:)



[Edited on 7-8-2003 by nasif]

Ockey
August 5, 2003, 02:01 PM
I think I might have opened up a pandora's box on the topic of religion. For a while we had a discussion going but now it's turning to arguments for and against evolution and religion and frankly I am losing interest in the topic all togather.

The point I was trying to make with my initial post is that in a truely democratic state freedom of speech should prevail even if that speech that is perceived to be blasphemous or demeaning. And it's not just because in this day and age it's useless to supress any speech because of the advent of internet. I feel if we ban any and all other differing school of thoughts we run into the danger of creating a puritanical version of a religion where everything that is interpreted by the religious leaders is the rule of law and perceived as the actual will of God. The classic example is the Wahabi teachings in the Middle East. In certain countries in the reagion (not mentioning names) hatred for the people of other religion and even other sects of Islam is indoctrinated not only in the Madrasas (religious school) but the overall education system itself. This coupled with the overall xenophobic attitudes of the inhabitants creates an ideal breading ground for deciples who are taught to correct all the wrong in the world and bring back the glory days! To see the latest result click on the link below:

Bombing in Jakarta (http://news.bbc.co.uk/)

Some may argue that if we are to believe that Islam is the divine religion, we have a duty to protect it (as It asks us to do). My answer to them to what is this supposed threat? Is the threat seen by the rational minds of our society or the "trusted" religious leaders. And what lengths are you willing to go to protect your religion? Does it include killing innocent people?

The sentiment that is shared by Islamic extremists about the people from the West is the same sentiment that I hear so often from the underprivileged in the US about white people: they are all rich, corrupt and racist. My question to them is: have you met all the white people in the US?

Arnab
August 5, 2003, 02:12 PM
Even so where did the amino acid come from to begin with?

Didn't Stanley Miller spontaneously produce amino acids within a week in the lab? If he can produce them in the lab in a week, then why is it not possible to produce amino acids in primordial earth? Got any good reasons?

Arnab
August 5, 2003, 02:24 PM
Not to mention that the very postulate that billions of the molecules trying independently of one another increases the chance of creating a replicator is completely against laws of probability. Buying lottery for 10 weeks straight and loosing won't increase your chance of winning in 11th week. Because each lottery is independent of one another and your loosing doesn't increase your chance of your winning.

It won't increase my chance. But if I keep buying tickets for lotteries every week for a million years, I WILL BE A WINNER IN AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE WEEKS. Now, do we have enough time to do the same thing with producing replicators? Yes. Using the analogy of lottery, there are billions of such lotteries being conducted every second and these lotteries are going on for millions of years. Don't you think there has to be AT LEAST ONE OR TWO INCIDENTS when the reaction will hit the jackpot over the course of gadzillions of lotteries? And it just takes ONCE to do this.



PS. Ockey, I apologise for taking part in this thread hijacking. :) I totally agree with what you said in your last post, BTW.


[Edited on 5-8-2003 by Arnab]

Nasif
August 6, 2003, 10:58 AM
Didn't Stanley Miller spontaneously produce amino acids within a
week in the lab?

Now I know that you didn't read any of my posts completely. If you read you
wouldn't have mentioned Miller's experiment. Please study why Miller's experiment cannot be used as a Scientific proof or argument for self genesis of amino acid.

Four
Facts That Invalidate Miller's Experiment (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_10.html)
or
Miller and other stuff
(http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted9.php)
Maggots, Mice, and…Stanley Miller (http://www.stanford.edu/group/STS/techne/Fall2002/srinivasan1.htm)

What does Miller himself say?
“It must be admitted from the beginning that we do not know how life began. It is generally believed that a variety of processes led to the formation of simple organic compounds on the primitive earth. These compounds combined together to give more and more complex structures until one was formed that could be called living. No one should be satisfied with an explanation as general as this.”
Stanley Miller


For Ockey:
Sorry for taking up the space to talk about evolution. I agree 100% with freedom of speech. Doesn't matter if it goes against political or normal social ideology. One must hear it out and make their own mind.

Acutally I started the discussion just to expose the fallacy of evolution. Nothing more.

Arnab
August 6, 2003, 11:34 AM
I will come back to the amino acid topic later, after I read the articles Nasif provided.

One LAST article on this probablity question:

The article is exremely resourceful in the sense that it actually chronologically describes the history of probability calculations by creationists regarding abiogenesis and points out the flaws. It's pretty big. So take time to read.


Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept?
(http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html)



[Edited on 6-8-2003 by Arnab]

[Edited on 6-8-2003 by Arnab]

Orpheus
August 6, 2003, 12:48 PM
First I would like to say that this is a very interesting debate with Nasif leading by one run (just pissing off Arnab :)). Although I must say that most of the links to my Orgo text book isn’t interesting at all. Since Ockey wants to discuss freedom of speech, I request our active moderators to split the topic somewhere in the first page. No need to apologize for going “Off topic”. Now Nasif bhai, I didn’t think you were just trying to expose the fallacy of Evolution. I got the impression that you were keener on showing God’s work. Whatever it is, I will share my thoughts on it later…. Don’t want to put all thoughts in one post and make it too long!

Now the arguments on Probability:

Not to mention that the very postulate that billions of the molecules trying independently of one another increases the chance of creating a replicator is completely against laws of probability.

Well, I will not argue with the laws of probability or even go to the lottery analogy. Both are a bit theoretical. Let’s take a look at a practical (something that happened) analogy. I will get to the point…keep reading.

Nasif Bhai - I am presuming you have heard of the RSA-129 challenge. The challenge in brief: There is a 129-digit number, which is the multiplication of two prime numbers. RSA (Rivest, Shamir, and Adelman?) published the 129-digit number along with an encoded message and you had to crack it by finding those two prime numbers that made up the 129-digit number. Prize: $100 – lol. (Cheap bastards)! (Oh yeah I think the amount of numbers below 129-digit number can be technically seen as the infinite set in comparison with lottery’s finite set :))

RSA predicted that it would take 40 quadrillion years (4.0 x 10^16) to crack that number. To their astonishment it was cracked in just 17 years. Later RSA figured that their estimated/anticipated time had an “error”. But still their new calculation predicted that it would take at least Thousands (yeah that’s with an “S” – plural) of years to crack it.

How it was cracked: Through internet! Ah whah? Yup. But how? Well they invited people all over the world to volunteer their desktop in cracking the code. So several hundred computers along with 2 fax machines were engaged in cracking the number. It took only 8 months of real time to get the two primes. Talk about 40 quadriwhah Billion years?

So, you can’t really say with certainty that the probability of producing a “self-replicator” is almost zero. After all we are talking about the probability of something that happened billions of years ago. It’s easy to make a mistake in calculation or very likely – not to include some “catalysts” (factors), that would speed up or perhaps isolate some reactions to get better results.

Let’s get back to the RSA challenge and see some of the factors that lead to the crack. Well, obviously the computers got faster in 17 years. But also a kid name Pom?, no not pompous, I think pomrence (he is my catalyst) came up with a discovery called the quadratic sieve. He uses some clock calculators where not all numbers below 129-digit number are considered individually – some automatic elimination. In any case, the idea was that the more clocks that could be used, the closer he could get to cracking a number into its prime constituents. He couldn’t crack it with his machine though.. It was through the hundreds of computers which implemented the idea – cracked it!

Now you ask why the hell you are giving me all these cryptography jargon which has nothing to do with abiogenesis/evolution? Well I just wanted to show you that
1. Expectations (quadrillions yrs) doesn’t always comply with results (17 years).
2. There may be some factors left out from the reaction that may well increase the probability. It’s hard to believe that we got detailed and precise analysis of some billion years old environment.
3. As much as I understand, chances are more when it is done widely (more computers, more reactions etc etc).

Ok I think I had enough today….

(by the way Arnab, you might wanna summarize those probability articles - I think I am interested now... I am overwhelmed by the size, not everyone wants to go through text books :))

Orpheus
August 6, 2003, 06:21 PM
hmmm, is this discussion dead? Here is my thoughts on creation and evolution.

Even though most of the arguments here seems to be around the origin of life from non-living matters but overall it seems like we are arguing about the existence of God. (the simple address of some of the links provided are enough clues.. ex: harunyayah.com; infidel.org etc etc). These debates are usually redundant and “end” in impasse. After all, no one wants to give up on their beliefs despite the plausibility of the arguments. It is often hard to find some refreshingly new views.

People arguing against a God usually will have tougher time persuading others, simply because people want to believe in God. Atheists also have to back-up their arguments very scientifically while a believer in God just has to find a hole in an argument to persuade everyone that God exists. Creationists often try to invalidate Evolutional ideas or any ideas that may “threaten” the existence of God. Can’t both the existence of God and evolution be true? Certainly it can and that’s what I believe in… Anyhow, from Nasif’s post:

PS: things to ponder about....

Formation of Carbon (building block of life)

“……The question to ask is, what is it in the basic laws of the universe that requires this resonance, involving three elements and the conditions inside a star, to be there? Why not have a universe without carbon? We do not know the answer…...”

Carbon is there because God created it. Cell is there because God created it.

You do understand how lame that author’s argument is right? What kind of backing for God is this, “why not have a universe w/o carbon”? These sorts of question-type arguments are done by idiots. I can also argue that “why did God create all the things that we do not need such as other galaxies or other sections of universe(s) outside our solar system?” or “Why did God have to make the human race at much later stage of an evolved Earth, why couldn’t he make Earth perfect for human since the beginning because after all, we are the sole reason why God created all these? etc etc.” Does that prove that God doesn’t exist? Nope nor the “carbon argument” proves the existence of God.

There are also some interesting arguments regarding the existence of life…arguments on many fundamental numbers of the laws of science (ex: electrical charge of electron, proton & electron mass ration etc). The argument is that the remarkable values of these numbers have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For ex: if the electric charge of the electron was slightly different, then stars either wouldn’t be able to burn hydrogen and helium, or wouldn’t have exploded. Thus no planets, no earth, no nothing!

So what are we left to believe in? Those numbers were placed because God wanted us to exist or we exist because those numbers are there (I hope this isn’t confusing). I think the latter idea is called the anthropic principle. Even though I don’t understand or is not interested in the whole thing but the idea is this: Let’s say there is a model for a universe – and it has its own sets of laws of science. Those laws and conditions of the universe led to the development of complicated organisms. If you ask, but why such laws – well the answer is if those weren’t the sets of laws, you wouldn’t be here and asking such ridiculous questions.

Anyways, enough!

I believe that Universe was created by God and is left alone to run by itself with all its sets of laws. The universe doesn’t work arbitrarily nor does God intervene. Everything has a process. For example, in our Holy text – we are told that each of us are created by God (by his angel) but last time I checked you were born because your mom and dad did some peculiar things. Your mom sure didn’t have an immaculate conception like Mary. Also, you weren’t just thrown from the sky, were you? We are replicating, that’s the process - a natural process. Same goes for evolution. It is a process. If it is right (I like to think so), it doesn’t prove that there is no God. If it is false, that also doesn’t prove that there is in fact a God.

I believe that there is a God who created the Universe and we are here because of evolution which was set by almighty himself. Think of it this way, the very first “Monkey” with a DNA perfectly resembling a human being is Adam! His parents are some sort of later stage monkeys evolving to human. I am sure he wasn’t just thrown into a jungle – just like you weren’t!

Arnab
August 6, 2003, 09:27 PM
Hmm...that's a great way to ease the inner turmoil, Orpheus. I should have tried that path...but I am kinda ever curious, which sucks.

Richard Feynman said it best: "God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand."

Zobair
August 6, 2003, 10:05 PM
I thought I would just stop writing on this topic...but I had to respond...but this is my last post for sure on this!




why did God create all the things that we do not need such as other galaxies or other sections of universe(s) outside our solar system?” or “Why did God have to make the human race at much later stage of an evolved Earth, why couldn’t he make Earth perfect for human since the beginning because after all, we are the sole reason why God created all these?



and you know for sure that these planets and galaxies are useless eh? wow! what a collosal waste of time for all those physicists who sleep. live and eat astronomy and astrophysics. All this theories about gravitational pull between bodies and the various emissions and their various effects on each other, all rubbish??? wow! a brave comment to make when hardly anything is known about even a corner of the universe and the farthest man has travelled is the moon.
And time can be a very relative term! If you read descriptions of time as it will be on the day of judgement and thereafter, you will see God doesnot necessarily run according to your terms. He does according to His own wishes. Even if He did creat this world for humans, why should that mean that He would want humans on earth from day 1 (especially as you know it!)???
Plus I don't think the author was justifying God's existence with that question at all. He was just trying to contemplate for a second how impossible it is to contemplate a world with out carbon. Now read the question again.

And whats wrong with discarding a theory if a flaw is found? thats how "science" works doesn't it? Isn't that how you prove and disprove scientific theories?

In the end you wanna believe what you wanna believe, and so I agree all this is pointless. There will be points in time when one side will claim partial vicotry over the other. For me its simply a matter of faith at that point, the bigger picture and try and make sense out of it. SOmewhat like if you go really close to a huge painting one loses perspective adn it can get confusing...and so sometimes its better to stand back and look at the whole picture and see what makes sense the most. To me its crystal clear. For me, the most clear proof fo existence of God is in the Quran! How on earth can you possibly explain the descriptions of the development of an human baby in such minute detail in those days?? Hell! highly qualified doctors had no choice but to admit to existence of some sort of devine intervention!!!! Have you ever read about the various scientific issues discussed in the Quran? The mathematical symmetry of that Book is astonishing! How can you reject the proof that is right in front of you? God is an invention?! Give me a break!

And some people actually claim if there is a God He is evil coz look at all the injustice in the world. SO did you expect it to be a perfect utopia?!?! News Flash! If you are a Muslim you would know this world is a test for all, every one of us tested in their own ways, every one with their own demons to fight! It was from day1 and it will be so till the day of Judgement!! Hell! the "day of judgement" should ring some bells! you only have a day of Judgement if you have something to be judged for! and you are only judged when your actions are put to test!!!!! But hey there is a utopia after all! its called Heaven for us Muslims! And when I say Muslims, I am not trying ot be exclusive...Muslim is anyone who submits to God and obeys His commandments to the best of their abilities. God is the judge and no one else!


No more from me on this topic.



[Edited on 7-8-2003 by pompous]

Zobair
August 6, 2003, 11:34 PM
Richard Feynman is indeed of the greates physicists of all time. YOu know who else is a darn good physiscist. Einstein! It seems eventually he himslef had to admit to the existence of God!!!! Here is a well written, easy and concise description of that I am taking from an article by Hugh Ross.


The first such scientific breakthrough arose from Einstein's theory of general relativity. Subtracting one set of his famous field equations from the other yielded the surprising result that everything in the universe is simultaneously expanding and decelerating. The only physical phenomenon satisfying simultaneous expansion and deceleration is an explosion. But, if the universe is the aftermath of an explosion, then sometime in the past it must have had a beginning. If it had a beginning, then there must be a Beginner.
Einstein's own world view initially kept him from adopting such a conclusion. Rather he proposed a new force of physics that would perfectly cancel out the deceleration and expansion induced by gravity. However, Edwin Hubble soon proved that the galaxies indeed were expanding away from one another in the manner predicted by Einstein's original formulation of general relativity. Confronted with this, Einstein gave grudging acceptance to "the necessity for a beginning," and to "the presence of a superior reasoning power
(Hugh Ross)

Ok I am done for real this time...futility of common sense ...sigh!


[Edited on 7-8-2003 by pompous]

Nasif
August 7, 2003, 12:38 AM
Orph:
Sorry for the delay in replying. Its a long post, but please do bear with me.

Yes I am aware of the RSA encryption. By the way as far as I know, most recent cracked RSA number was 64 bit encryption.

eWeek.com: Team Cracks RSA Encryption Challenge (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,560039,00.asp)

There is no 129 bit encryption. There is 128bit, 256bit, 512bit encryption etc (in power of 2). The level of encryption used by your internet browser to send encrypted data over the internet is 128 bit(click on Help - About to see encryption level). Now a days though most sensitive data uses 512 bit encryption or higher. There is a new challege from XBOX hacking community. If you can break the Microsoft's 2048 bit encryption of XBOX program data signature then you make quite a sum $100,000.

The Neo Project (http://www.compscihigh.net/showrc.aspx?TopicID=1164)


Aside from that I fully understand and accept the premise of collective "effort". The reason I put the word effort in quotes is that there must be an EFFORT to overcome the laws of probablity. If there is no effort then the probability law holds.

"Distributed.net, a collection of more than 331,000 volunteers who lent their machines' idle processing power to the effort, solved the challenge posed in 1997 by RSA Laboratories, the research arm of RSA Security Inc. It took nearly four years, a search through 15,769,938,165,961,326,592 keys and processing power roughly equivalent to nearly 46,000 2GHz AMD Athlon machines for the team to find the correct key."
Quoted from eWeek.com article link given above

Let us understand why RSA encryption was broken so quickly. With collective (distributed computing) effort on decryption algorithm, the probability of getting the correct number increases rapidly. Because everytime you try to generate a new number you know which seed won't work from previous attempts and so you don't try those seeds. If you didn't have this knowledge you will be faced with repeated number of same seed and same number. And here is the primary difference between "pure natural order" and a "posteriori order (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=3216&tocid=0&query=posteriori&ct=)" (posteriori=knowledge from previous experiences).

From evolutionist point of view there is no external (deliberate) interferece in natural order. Therefore all natural systems are "priori system (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=3217&tocid=0&query=priori&ct=)". This is the reason why one cannot compare probablities that refers to human works and probalities that refer to pure natural works. If there wasn't any collective effort then the RSA 64bit encryption would most likely never be broken.


You do understand how lame that author's argument is right? What kind of backing for God is this, why not have a universe w/o carbonThese sorts of question-type arguments are done by idiots.

The reason I posted the that small article was not to show God's existance but to show that there is an external force at work and there is a deliberate wish to create life. By the way, the formation of carbon is quite intruiging indeed. You have to understand how hard it is to fuse an atom if they are not stable. Fusion of H to He occurs in sun due to extraordinary stability of He at those extreme temperature. For that very reason formation of Carbon is very unlikey. I thought the article was very clear about that. Question/answer method of writing is probably this writer's way of writing. That doesn't overshadow the fact of extraordinary effort that is required to create one single atom of Carbon.


There are also some interesting arguments regarding the existence of lifeÂ…arguments on many fundamental numbers of the laws of science

I agree. There is a deliberate attempt all over this planet to create life. The air pressure, temperature (such a short range of temperature supports life thats just amazing), water cycle, seasonal changes and photosynthesis of plant (one of the most amazing thing in nature). Just amazing to think about how plant would figure out a way to convert sun's light into food. A perfect life would have self food creation system like plants and mobility like animal. That would have given it full control over the planet. Sadly that type of life never evolved on this earth. Wonder why natural selection didn't select best of both world?

I believe that Universe was created by God and is left alone to run by itself with all its sets of laws.

I beg to differ. God is active all over the world. Without His authorization nothing can happen. God is in Full Control.


(Quran 35:11)
GOD created you from dust, then from a tiny drop, then He causes you to reproduce through your spouses. No female becomes pregnant, nor gives birth, without His knowledge. No one survives for a long life, and no one's life is snapped short, except in accordance with a pre-existing record. This is easy for GOD.

(Quran 13:8)
GOD knows what every female bears, and what every womb releases, or gains. Everything He does is perfectly measured.

(Quran 6:59)
With Him are the keys to all secrets; none knows them except He. He knows everything on land and in the sea. Not a leaf falls without His knowledge. Nor is there a grain in the depths of the soil. Nor is there anything wet or dry, that is not recorded in a profound record.


You may ask then why do we have a choice to have a child whenever we want? Well, you may wish to have a child and have sex but you cannot have a child unless its authorized. Doesn't matter how hard you try, ultimately you are left to mercy of God. And the choice to have a child or do anything is a responsibility given to us due to something we did before, some act of transgression!

(Quran 33:72) We have offered the responsibility (freedom of choice) to the heavens and the earth, and the mountains, but they refused to bear it, and were afraid of it. But the human being accepted it; he was transgressing, ignorant.


And no, clonning doesn't mean you created a new life. You can create a new life only when you can create a Zygote that will reproduce and create a whole living system.

=============================

My posts on this thread is indeed to expose the fallasy and common misconception held about the theory of evolution. Our world is so much media centric that one cannot grasp the truth unless one seeks it with certain amount effort and hardship. Media and so called majority of "modern" man loves the theory of evolution not because it is the most scientifically sound hypothesis, but rather because he feels he has explained/detailed a world where no one is controlled or answerable to any higher power. It is sad that people often refers that science and religion cannot stay together. In saying so man forgets man's original quest to study science! Original quest of science started thousands of years ago to explain the creation of God. To marvel at the magnificence of this creation. It is not man who is creating the new ideas of science, it is God who created the quarks, the protons, the elections, the atom, the fusion, the fission, the matter, the anti-matter, you, me and 6 billion others human and trillion other living system on this tiny planet. And we still want to rival God's Authority with websites like infidel.org . How sad indeed.

I truely hope I have not offended anyone. I am here for the same reason you are here. To discuss ideas. No one can force anyone to believe in anything. But we can always discuss. That is the essence of knowledge.

(Quran 17:36)
You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.

Arnab
August 7, 2003, 03:26 PM
hmm...now that my summer courses are over, should I indulge into the topic a little more and launch a full scale tornado attack? :)

Zobair
August 7, 2003, 04:01 PM
Arnab...thanks for the warning...I am diving for cover :P

Nasif
August 7, 2003, 04:16 PM
:)

hmm...now that my summer courses are over, should I indulge into the topic a little more

At least through this discussion you have been exposed to some of the shortcoming of evolution theory that requires more "indulging into". You are most welcome to increase your knowledge on this matter.


pompous:
Muslim is anyone who submits to God

Agreed 100% brother. Thanks.

Orpheus
August 7, 2003, 04:19 PM
Nasif:
I truly hope I have not offended anyone. I am here for the same reason you are here. To discuss ideas. No one can force anyone to believe in anything. But we can always discuss. That is the essence of knowledge.

I couldn’t agree more. There is no reason why anyone would be offended here (except me from pompous’ outburst but I know better than that, thus no offense). You are actually one of very few Banglacricket members who is focused on the subject rather than going into personal attacks (pompous’ fear – thus he wants to end it :)). So far, I love your counterarguments! I also disagree with pompous that this discussion is just futile. I am sure we are learning something new – like I learned about the probability and I doubt whether most of you knew about RSA encryption if you are not into mathematics or computer. It’s not possible to know everything… So discuss away….

This is gonna be a lonnnnng post, I capitalized the person whom I am answering to: so I request the concerned person to read his with care. You may skip others but read anyway – after all I am spending fair amount of time here.

POMPOUS:

and you know for sure that these planets and galaxies are useless eh? wow! what a collosal waste of time for all those physicists who sleep. live and eat astronomy and astrophysics. All this theories about gravitational pull between bodies and the various emissions and their various effects on each other, all rubbish??? wow!

Pompous, notice I said “OUTSIDE OUR SOLAR SYSTEM”, yes true that gravitational pull between bodies and various other effects are essence to our survival and the survival of our planet but please inform me why we need all those other galaxies beside the Milky Way and so many other matters all over the universe. Is it really your thorough knowledge of space and time or are you being dismissive because you feel that whatever a dumb**** like Orpheus says have no credibility? I am sure you don’t think our whole universe was built so meticulously that a slight change will end everything. Did we ever feel the impact of all those stars that have collapsed over time? Anyways, here is a physicist who “sleeps, lives, and eats” theoretical physics, Stephen Hawking. Here is an excerpt from one of his book:

“Our Solar System is certainly a prerequisite for our existence, and one might extend this to the whole of our galaxy to allow for an earlier generation of stars that created the heavier elements. But there does not seem to be any need for all those other galaxies, nor for the universe to be so uniform and similar in every direction on the large scale.”

I think that was enough. No those theories are not “all rubbish”; (You just made me realize something - the way your logic works, I am beginning to think why you don’t believe in Evolution even though quiet a fair amount of intelligent being spent time in developing such theories). Anyways, please read what I write with a little care w/o getting too excited.
brave comment to make when hardly anything is known about even a corner of the universe and the farthest man has travelled is the moon.
I think I already showed you why that comment was made but then again you can still argue not “much” is known. Well I have (no one has) nothing else to say to that. But the furthest men have traveled to may be the moon but that doesn’t necessarily mean our knowledge of space is limited to it. I mean we know about black holes but you sure don’t want to travel there, do you?

And time can be a very relative term! If you read descriptions of time as it will be on the day of judgement and thereafter, you will see God doesnot necessarily run according to your terms. He does according to His own wishes. Even if He did creat this world for humans, why should that mean that He would want humans on earth from day 1 (especially as you know it!)???

Well making all the necessities for human survival and then putting them there would be the logical thing to do because all is done for their sake. But I don’t know why he chose the “other path”, do you? From your post, I get the feeling you believe in the Big Bang Theory – so do I. I believe that’s when the universe was created with its laws (like a programmer making a program that would do certain things at certain time). Even though he is omnipotent and can do whatever he wishes but he doesn’t. The universe do not run in an arbitrary manner (I gave some examples of that previously), it follows logic set by the almighty himself. You should stop watching the weather channel if you think everything is just spontaneous.

Now – Time. Yes that is a very interesting concept. I agree that time is a relative thing and God doesn’t run according to ours. Here is a better explanation. Time is the 4th dimension of the UNIVERSE. Time is only in universe. God isn’t in the Universe, so our time wouldn’t affect him. He has no time, thus he sees everything, and he sees the future. (Yeah it’s hard to imagine time being a dimension :)). I failed to see what you are trying to say with time… if you are saying that God’s “waiting” was not as much ours “waiting”, I still ask “why didn’t he make a perfect state for human being, the very first split-second?”

Plus I don't think the author was justifying God's existence with that question at all. He was just trying to contemplate for a second how impossible it is to contemplate a world with out carbon.
Well the author does not necessarily have to spell out, THUS GOD EXIST for you. But he is certainly implying some sort of evidence for divine purpose.

Now read the question again.

And whats wrong with discarding a theory if a flaw is found? thats how "science" works doesn't it? Isn't that how you prove and disprove scientific theories?
Was this the question in discussion? Sorry – I could swear I don’t remember seeing that question. Anyways, there is nothing wrong with discarding a theory if a flaw is found. You are absolutely right, that’s how science works. As I said in my earlier post, I believe in God and at the same time Evolution sounds plausible. It may be wrong – no doubt. It will be great if some can comprehensibly prove/disapprove it. But believer seem to oppose Evolution merely because they feel it is questioning God’s existence. (read last paragraph of Nasif’s reply to me). They think by disapproving Evolution (I am still waiting), they are proving God’s existence. They fail to understand that they also need to justify their theory (it seems they didn’t even get close to anything). Without evidence, nothing holds – whether or not it is true.

You next paragraphs seem to jump into Quran before even finishing God.. so I will let it pass.. But one last post just to amuse my mind...

And some people actually claim if there is a God He is evil coz look at all the injustice in the world.
LOL, don’t take Tehsin’s words too seriously now. I was gonna reply to him but I felt he doesn’t even know what he is talking about. (sorry tehsin bhai – Good that you are not reading it anyway! -)


Nasif bhai, I will reply to yours later – bhalo lage na aar.. wasted too much time on pompous –
Pompous, eventhough you said that was your last post – I do however expect a reply. Allah Hafez.

Zobair
August 7, 2003, 06:22 PM
Nope Orpheus...I won't reply specifically to any comments including yours anymore though the temptation is there. I will just say this that the jist of my criticism of your point of view was that Allah didnot create anything without a reason or so He says! ergo......
I don't know what your definition fo personal attack is but I thought I was not attacking anyone but debating their viewpoints. I would rather call such statements as "so and so is is saying such and such out of fear or whatever" more offensive and insulting than actually challenging a viewpoint because now you are getting personal about their abilities and character. Don't you agree?! ...and I was talking about the futility of common sense...NOT futility of this discussion!!!...and I wasnnot singling out Tehsin bhai...that kind of a view is one we often come across don't we?!....there I go again...getting drawn into it :P

Anyways, I am done with this thread.
My reasons being,

1. I have had enough (driven by fear according to orph and by "enough is is enough" according to me!)
2. I would rather go and learn some more and take stock of all that was said in this thread. There is enough material for me to feed on for a while.
3. Sometimes when you hammer a point too much you can damage the woodwork!
4. Sometimes when one debates for a prolonged period of time, one forgets to listen! I am wary of reaching that point.

For what its worth I don't think you are a dumb****, orpheus.







[Edited on 7-8-2003 by pompous]

Orpheus
August 9, 2003, 11:46 PM
Even though this discussion seems to be dead but here is my reply to Nasif bhai as I promised but before that I will give a piece of my mind to pompous… :D
Allah didnot create anything without a reason
Agreed
I don't know what your definition fo personal attack is but I thought I was not attacking anyone but debating their viewpoints.
Perhaps “PA” was not the right sets of words (you know me and my english) but you surely were very dismissive with unnecessary emotion such as “eh?”, “WOW”, mild sarcasm, “brave comment” ittadi ittadi. What do you really expect me to infer from those?
I would rather call such statements as "so and so is is saying such and such out of fear or whatever" more offensive and insulting than actually challenging a viewpoint because now you are getting personal about their abilities and character. Don't you agree?!
First notice what I said. It was “fear of PA” (parenthesis followed after words “PA”) – I think we have been in this forum long enough to realize how most discussions end. So it is in a sense better to stay out. So, that comment was actually a sort of compliment to your character from my perspective.
and I was talking about the futility of common sense...NOT futility of this discussion!!!...
Well I wasn’t necessarily referring to that particular sentence of yours. I think you may have said something about useless debates… but I maybe wrong. By the way, not sure what you mean by futility of common sense? Common sense as in God exist ????
Anyways, I am done with this thread.
My reasons being,
Perfectly understood!
For what its worth I don't think you are a dumb****, orpheus.
To tell you the truth, it doesn’t worth much! I couldn’t care less what you or anyone else for that matter thought about me.

Finally – I apologize for whatever YOU may have inferred insulting. Allah Hafez!

Now – Nasif Bhai!
Even though this doesn’t affect the main discussion much but I do have to show that I wasn’t wrong or making things up :)
Yes I am aware of the RSA encryption. By the way as far as I know, most recent cracked RSA number was 64 bit encryption.
Perhaps! You are talking about encryptions that were implemented.
There is no 129 bit encryption. There is 128bit, 256bit, 512bit encryption etc (in power of 2).
Well I was really talking about the mathematics side of the RSA encryption, not necessarily the encryption itself. The implemented encryptions are in the power of 2 but mathematically it can be any number. RSA – #, where # is the number of digits in the product of two prime numbers.

Cracking the “encryption” would be to find those two primes. So there is RSA – 129 and my story was NOT made up. You can do a google search of RSA-129. Thus, rest of that cryptography jargon along with Neo project is not necessary anymore.

But still your argument on effort holds even for RSA-129. I will add that it’s pretty good one :). I thought RSA analogy was pretty good and I gave my reasons on the conclusion on that post (you can read it again). Anyhow, I will not further argue with it because I don’t have detailed knowledge on this issue and don’t feel like gaining it either…. Shob text book article!
The reason I posted the that small article was not to show God's existance but to show that there is an external force at work and there is a deliberate wish to create life.
External force = GOD, whatever your reason was!
You have to understand how hard it is to fuse an atom if they are not stable. Fusion of H to He occurs in sun due to extraordinary stability of He at those extreme temperature. For that very reason formation of Carbon is very unlikey. I thought the article was very clear about that. Question/answer method of writing is probably this writer's way of writing. That doesn't overshadow the fact of extraordinary effort that is required to create one single atom of Carbon.
Looks like the article wasn’t that clear to me. This is what I understood.
First the author explains how it’s hard to make carbon because beryllium-8 is so unstable that it doesn’t stay long enough to react with helium. But berrylium-9 is stable however a collision with Helium-4 does not make carbon-12. So he is asking himself - Universe is there w/o carbon but we are not. If it’s so hard, how/why is it formed? He sees God for a split second.
God disappears because there is a resonance. This resonance lets helium to stay long enough to form carbon (was tested in Lab – talk about God’s hand?). Now he is being a bit clever and asking but why this resonance? Now you see the problem here right? He will keep asking “but why this” … well because of that… “but why that” – it’s never ending because he wants to believe in purpose.
Question/answer method of writing is probably this writer's way of writing. That doesn't overshadow the fact of extraordinary effort that is required to create one single atom of Carbon.
That’s a stupid style of writing. About the extraordinary effort – let’s quote something from the article where the author describes resonance in laymen’s terms..
A resonance describes an effect where one gets a big result from a relatively small effort. Pluck a string in a certain way and you get a big sound for a small pull; do it some other way and it goes flat.
I agree. There is a deliberate attempt all over this planet to create life. The air pressure, temperature (such a short range of temperature supports life thats just amazing), water cycle, seasonal changes and photosynthesis of plant (one of the most amazing thing in nature).
What do you mean deliberate attempt? I thought I already gave a very good reasoning behind this – the anthropic principle. I will reiterate. For ex: let’s take the ranges of temperature… I don’t know the range but let’s assume it’s 0-100 (Celsius). Now you are saying, that is God’s work, it could have been different range. Let’s say – the temperature in the earth fluctuated from -500 to -300 (Celsius). Well then you wouldn’t be here. Current condition is PERFECT for you to survive, that’s why you exist. You are reasoning the other way (not that logical), it’s because of us – the ranges were made that way. I hope I am clear. If an intelligent species survived in -500 to -300 range, then they would be asking… why such range? This argument is basically dead-lock here but its better to go with more logical one.
A perfect life would have self food creation system like plants and mobility like animal. That would have given it full control over the planet. Sadly that type of life never evolved on this earth. Wonder why natural selection didn't select best of both world?
That perfect life is the figment of your imagination. What makes you think that natural selection is aiming for “perfect life”? Natural selection selects the best from the CURRENT bunch. You can try making a perfect life by having sex with a tree – up to you!
You may ask then why do we have a choice to have a child whenever we want? Well, you may wish to have a child and have sex but you cannot have a child unless its authorized. Doesn't matter how hard you try, ultimately you are left to mercy of God.
Again you perceive whatever you want. I will reemphasize that there is a process. There is always a reason why a couple can’t have children. Let’s say the guy has some dead sperms, it is not penetrating the eggs. There are so many other medical reasons. Perhaps it is God’s will but it’s not like everything is perfect but no child! You see my point here?
In the Holy text, pregnancy is often regarded as the “mercy of God” – just like you wrote. Pre-marital sex is a sin but why bless them with a child? It’s about choice right? There are a lot of unwanted pregnancy…wasn’t God reading their mind?
My posts on this thread is indeed to expose the fallasy and common misconception held about the theory of evolution.
Appreciated it!
it is God who created the quarks, the protons, the elections, the atom, the fusion, the fission, the matter, the anti-matter, you, me and 6 billion others human and trillion other living system on this tiny planet..

Again, technically God created everything but he didn’t create everything individually. All you need is quarks to get to the rest. From quarks you will get proton and neutron – from those two, you will have atoms and then molecules, gas etc. I don’t know what you mean by God created fusion and fission – they are reactions and are from certain characteristics of protons and etc… If it was only at God’s will that fission worked, we would be seeing Nuclear Bombs exploding without ignition.

Anyways this redundancy is getting really really boring… my final though….NOTHING IS ARBITRARY except for our cricket team selection.

Arnab
August 10, 2003, 02:41 PM
Nasif posed the following question:

3. Why does all animal species appear all of a sudden in Cambrian period? "The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today". (from Science). What happened to gradual evolution?

Responses:

1. Chris Nedin of the department of Geology, Adelaide University in Australia writes in talk.origins:

What most people think of as the "Cambrian Explosion" is, in actual fact, not a sudden burst of life, but a rapid increase in the number of fossils found in the fossil record. This is because around this time organisms started to mineralize their exoskeletons using the abundant calcium and carbonate from the surrounding seawater. Previously to this, organisms had entirely organic exoskeletons similar to many insects today. This type of exoskeleton is not easily preserved and usually decays too rapidly to survive as a fossil. The much tougher mineralized exoskeletons preserved far better, resulting in a large increase in the number of fossils.

The second claim usually made about the "Cambrian Explosion" is that most if not all of the major animal groups came into existance at this time. This claim is not correct. It is almost certain that such major groups as annelids (worms), cnidarian (corals and jellyfish), gastropods (snails) and probably arthropods have a pre-Cambrian history.

It should be pointed out that almost all pre-Cambrian fossils have no hard parts such as mineralized exoskeletons, and as such they are very unlikely to be preserved.

While there was a rapid (over a 5-10 million year period) diversification of animal life during the "Cambrian Explosion", this was a diversification from an already existing stem stock of organisms, which were soft bodied and thus underrepresented in the fossil record.

What we see in the fossil record are representatives of all the major groups which possess mineralized body parts. This record funnels back to the Early Cambrian where most of the groups apparently disappear. This disappearance does not represent the origin of the group, as some would suggest, but the origin of mineralized hard parts. The groups continue to exist below their occurrence in the fossil record, but they appear to be absent because they have no hard parts and are not fossilised.

The "Cambrian Explosion" represents what we call a taphanomic boundary, that is, it represents a large increase in the chances of organisms to be fossilised (by having hard parts) and hence appear in the fossil record. It does not represent the origin of those groups.

Source: www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jun97.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jun97.html)


2. An editorial in Takorigins:
The reader asserts that "macroevolution by any known naturalistic processes is impossible." That's quite an unsupported assertion, but unfortunately for the reader, the scientific evidence proves him wrong. Presumably the reader is aware of the fact that the geological record shows widespread and significant change in the types of organisms that have existed throughout the planet's history. For over three billion years, the planet was entirely populated by single celled organisms. There were no mammals, no fish, and no trees. Then, during the Cambrian explosion approximately 550 million years ago, dozens of new forms appeared, some with fossilizable hard body parts that allowed us to witness the birth of some of the Earth's earliest multicellular organisms. With a few exceptions, these pioneering invertebrates that appeared in the Cambrian were bizarre by today's standards. For instance, the giant Anomalocaris was a strange-looking creature vaguely reminiscent of a squid, but with two odd feeding arms protruding from the bottom of its head.

Anomalocaris, like many of the other Cambrian organisms, does not fit into any of the broad categories, known as phyla, that characterize modern organisms. Nevertheless, while today we wouldn't recognize most of the organisms from the Cambrian period, it is believed that all but one modern phylum had an early representative in that period.

Later on came a further diversification of life, which Stephen Jay Gould has described as "variation on set anatomical themes" established during the Cambrian explosion. Fish emerge 500 million years ago; primitive sharks emerge 375 million years ago; amphibians, insects and ferns emerge 350 million years ago; reptiles emerge 300 million years ago; primitive crocodiles and mammals emerge 200 million years ago; dinosaurs go extinct 65 million years ago; many modern mammal species emerge between 65 and 20 million years ago; primitive bipedal hominids with small brain capacities emerge 4 million years ago; the first primitive humans emerge 1.6 million years ago. Life has obviously done a lot of changing over time.

If the reader was taught that the fossil record proves Darwinism true because it presents a progression from simple to complex, then he was taught wrong, and he misunderstands Darwinism. The fossil record does not progress from simple to complex, nor is Darwinian selection a theory of such progress. Darwinian natural selection is simply a progress-neutral mechanism for adaptive change.

When I pointed out earlier that evolution predicts that organisms with recent common ancestors will share a large amount of their genetic material, the reader responded that "intelligent design" also predicts genetic similarity.

But why does intelligent design predict this? Couldn't an omnipotent creator just as easily have chosen to make all his animals with completely divergent genetic makeups? Unlike evolutionary theory, "intelligent design" would explain divergent genomes just as easily as it explains similar genomes.

Concepts like creationism that can explain everything explain nothing. Evolution, which is supported by numerous and independent lines of evidence, is a robust scientific theory that is falsifiable and makes predictions.

Source: www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/nov96.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/nov96.html)

3. From “Introduction to Evolutionary Biology,” Version 2, Copyright © 1996-1997 by Chris Colby:

Animals start appearing prior to the Cambrian, about 600 million years ago. The first animals dating from just before the Cambrian were found in rocks near Adelaide, Australia. They are called the Ediacarian fauna and have subsequently been found in other locales as well. It is unclear if these forms have any surviving descendants. Some look a bit like Cnidarians (jellyfish, sea anemones and the like); others resemble annelids (earthworms). All the phyla (the second highest taxonomic category) of animals appeared around the Cambrian. The Cambrian 'explosion' may have been a result of higher oxygen concentrations enabling larger organisms with higher metabolisms to evolve. Or it might be due to the spreading of shallow seas at that time providing a variety of new niches. In any case, the radiation produced a wide variety of animals.

Some paleontologists think more animal phyla were present then than now. The animals of the Burgess shale are an example of Cambrian animal fossils. These fossils, from Canada, show a bizarre array of creatures, some which appear to have unique body plans unlike those seen in any living animals.

The extent of the Cambrian explosion is often overstated. Although quick, the Cambrian explosion is not instantaneous in geologic time. Also, there is evidence of animal life prior to the Cambrian. In addition, although all the phyla of animals came into being, these were not the modern forms we see today. Our own phylum (which we share with other mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians and fish) was represented by a small, sliver-like thing called Pikaia. Plants were not yet present. Photosynthetic protists and algae were the bottom of the food chain. Following the Cambrian, the number of marine families leveled off at a little less than 200.

The Ordovician explosion, around 500 million years ago, followed. This 'explosion', larger than the Cambrian, introduced numerous families of the Paleozoic fauna (including crinoids, articulate brachiopods, cephalopods and corals). The Cambrian fauna, (trilobites, inarticulate brachiopods, etc.) declined slowly during this time. By the end of the Ordovician, the Cambrian fauna had mostly given way to the Paleozoic fauna and the number of marine families was just over 400. It stayed at this level until the end of the Permian period.

Source: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html)

Arnab
August 10, 2003, 04:11 PM
Nasif wrote:

4. We are still waiting for at least a fossil of an intermediate species (let alone

an alive one). Why would natural selection destroy an evolved and better fit

intermediate species while un-evolved one is still around us (take a look atl the

chimps).


Responses:

1. Chris Nedin's Rebuttal:

Where are the Transitionals?

The relevance of this finding is the speed at which stabilising selection breaks down in response to environmental change. Here, as in the case of the Galapagos Finch species, there is a rapid response to a changing environment whereby clear morphological differences are seen to emerge (caveat - I haven't read the report yet so I do not know if the morphology of the new lizards exceeds the normal morphological variation of the original group. This is an important point as Clark pointed out - by the way Dorman, where is my video?!!). The island lizards are now morphologically different from the original population of lizards from the main island.

Now as has been pointed out (however tongue in cheek), this is not speciation. Or is it?

Certainly it is not biological speciation. The morphological changes have not resulted in reproductive isolation (provided the short-legged lizards get a helping . . umm, err, . . leg up) and so, using the biological species concept, the two groups of lizards are still the same species.

But, palaeontologists cannot use the biological concept of the species, nor DNA studies, in identifying fossil species. The only criterion we are left with is morphological comparison. Not that this is a problem by and large, since virtually all taxonomy is based primarily on morphological comparison. However, palaeontologists are further restricted in that we can only use mineralized body parts (bones, shells, etc.)

Suppose (and it is entirely possible assuming sufficient morphological dissimilarity) that these two morphotypes were considered different species if found as fossils only. Then, were we to look back from the future at the fossil record of this change (assuming the short-legged lizards survive for some appreciable amount of time), we would see one morphotype of lizard then two separate morphotypes, with no evidence of the transition between them because it occurred far too rapidly.

Thus, identifiable and stable, discontinuous variation in morphology has been seen to occur very rapidly. Since variation in morphology is the standard method of identifying fossil species, this example tends to support the view that such morphological changes tend to occur far too rapidly to be adequately represented in the fossil record.

The literalist creationist would then ask "where is the transitional species with intermediate leg length?". The answer would be that it is in a short time window of only 20 years (in this case) and thus finding any would be an impossible task.

These findings support the view that transitionals would be very rare in the fossil record.

Look at it another way:


No. in original
Population
^
|
|
|
| species A species B species C
|
| * * o o
| * * @ @ o o x = fossils
| * x * @ x @ o x o
| * x x * @ x x @ o x x o
| * x * @ x x @ o x x x o
| * x x x * @ x x @ o x xxx o
| * x xx x * @ x x @ o x x o
|* @ * x x x o @ x xx x o
----------------------------------------------------------------------->
Morphology


Time
^
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | C |
| | | | B | | |
| | A | | |
| | | | |
| | |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Morphological limits of species as found as fossils

Suppose species B evolved from A and C from B, in similar circumstances to those of the lizards. Then, looking back at the fossil record, we would see three distinct morphotypes which would be classed as different species. The total number of transitional individuals and the total length of time those transitional organisms existed is very small compared with the total numbers and length of time in existance of those organisms corresponding to the typical species morphology. Thus the morphological gaps between species A, B and C would be very hard to fill. The literalist creationist would point to the gaps and say "where are the transitionals? B cannot be transitional because it is a discrete species".

But supposing we were fortunate enough to find a small group of fossils intermediate between A and B, e,g:


|
|
|
| species A D species B
| * * |
| * * | @ @ x = fossils
| * x * | @ x @
| * x x * | @ x x @
| * x * \|/ @ x x @
| * x x x * @ x x @
| * x xx x * x @ x x @
|* @ x * x x x @
----------------------------------------------------------------------->
Morphology


Time
^
|
| | | | |
| | | D | |
| | | | B |
| | A | || | |
| | | || | |
| | | ||
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Morphological limits of species as found as fossils

The cry would still go up "where is the intermediates between A and D and D and C?" This is the 'transitional fossil infinite regression'. But, as the lizard study tends to support, finding a complete series is next to impossible given the speed that discontinuous morphological variation between groups can occur.

Source: www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may97.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may97.html)

2. Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil: A refutation of creationist claims by Chris Nedin can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html

3. From "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution" Copyright © 1995-1997 by Mark Isaak :


Misconception: "There are no transitional fossils."

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.


"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

Arnab
August 10, 2003, 04:30 PM
Nasif also talked about the following:

2. A cell cannot be created. Those who think that Stanley's experiment to create amino acid (building block of cell) was a success needs to re-read the experiment procedure. Scientists now know that a cell cannot be created and neither can it come into existance by itself. Research to create cell has stopped for a long time (no one even tries, cause its IMPOSSIBLE). There is not a even a chance in 1 in billion trillion to create even one part of a cell (say mitocondrea), let alone a whole cell itself. Those who think a cell can come into existance by itslef needs to take basic college leve. Probability and Statistics class!

Responses:

1. The following is an email response entitled "Re: Abiogenesis
Post of the Month: April 1998" from talk.origins email archives.

On 1 Apr 1998 00:12:13 -0500, "RD Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>colinpeters@geocities.com wrote in message
><6ffdl6$25r$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>In article <aTnS.2389$563.2496766@news4.atl.bellsouth.net>,
>> "RD Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote:

<snip intro re: "party-line" to focus on the following issues>

>>If there is anything resembling a party line concerning abiogenesis it
>>is that abiogenesis most probably happened spontaneously. As to exactly
>>how it might have happened there is no agreement whatsoever (though the
>>RNA world hypothesis seems to be winning).
>
>Yes, but still this is a far cry from a living organism. Unless we call the
>RNA
>world where RNA molecules are able to replicate themselves, serving as
>their own enzyme,*living*. Not that I am suggesting anyone does. But where
>does this leave us?

At the first stage of development of organisms we would recognize as living. From self-replicating ribozymes, you could progress to say, ribozymes in liposomes, to membrane bound ribozymes with amino acid co-catalysts, to ribozymes coding for proteins [1]. Step by step you progress toward something we would recognise as an organism (but not, of course a modern one).

>From what I have read replicating molecules is rather
>easy done in a modern lab. For example:
>
>Sol Spegelman in the 60s experimented with a supply of virus which he
>placed in a test tube, enriched a supply of the replicase enzyme that was
>required by the virus in order to replicate its RNA and an ample supply of
>free nucleotides. After he mixed these, and arranged a flow of materials
>into the system, he waited to see what happened. In the beginning the
>RNA copied itself rather faithfully. However, mutations quickly started
>cutting the RNA strands in half. These strands became increasingly
>shorter until after about 70 generations the RNA lengths stabilized at
>the shortest possible length capable of replicating itself. This strand
>contained about 220 nucleotides, little more than the recognition sight
>for the replicase enzyme. This molecule, labeled the Spiegelman Monster
>was able to reproduce itself at a fantastic rate in this protected test
>tube environment. But could not survive in the unprotected world,
>to say nothing of its survival in the primordial ocean.

Why would it not survive in a prebiotic world, where there are no competitors? [2]

>Manfred Eigen took the experiment one step further and started his
>experiment without the seed virus and with essentially the same results.
>This gave support to the naked gene hypothesis, which proposed
>that the first RNA consisting of a hundred or so nucleotides having
>only one purpose - to replicate themselves. But what are the chances
>of such a self - assembling molecule happening in the primordial
>seas, not to mention surviving.

Quite good actually. There are 1.6 x 10^60 possible 100 nucleotide sequences. In a primordial ocean of 10^24 litres with a nucleotide concentration of 10^-6M (reasonably dilute), assembling a 100 nucleotides sequences on clay al la Ferris [3] and assuming it takes a week to make a full sequence, then you can have produced roughly 1 x 10^50 sequences in a year! As it has been estimated that one in every 1 x 10^17 random RNA sequences is a high efficiency ligase [4], the chances of getting at least one self-replicating polymerase (or small self replicating assembly) is quite high.

Survival should be quite good, polynucleotides are quite stable (in the order of thousands of years), and there are no competitions to gobble them up, so a replicating ribozyme should come to dominate any lake or ocean it is in. With competition for resources, variants of the original ribozyme will come to dominate in certain environments.

>A second problem is the Gene-Protein linkup problem.
>
>The noble prize winning chemist, Walter Gilbert built upon the above
>work as well as the contributions of Orgel and others. Orgel succeeded
>in getting RNA to form new molecules in an energy rich nucleotide
>units then form new RNA chains matching the existing ones. They then
>automatically would form the double helix configuration. Gilbert proposed
>a scenario for the emergence of life. Beginning with self-catalytic ability
>needed to assemble themselves from the soup. Followed by
>recombination and mutation in order to explore new functions. Then the
>RNA molecules formed proteins. The protein enzymes are encoded by RNA.
>Finally the DNA appears giving a stable error correcting store of
>information. The main RNA functions, were then taken over by its creations, the protein
>and DNA.
>
>The problem with this scenario is the same as with the others - getting the
>first step: getting the self - replicating RNA which experimentally comes only from
>present day modern RNA. Thus, the question is, how far have we come
>from the requirement for first life?

RNA (or RNA lookalikes [5]) can be generated abiotically, and RNA (or RNA lookalikes) can polymerize on clay substrates. Under plausible abiotic conditions virtually all possible 100 nucleotide sequences could be produced in under a billion years. We have come quite a long way.

<big snip re abiogenesis definitions>

>>The problem is that when you said
>>"then biological evolution would have no foundation,
>>since biological evolution proceeds only through natural
>>processes. And so, it seems a logical extension that life
>>must have also originated in the same manner." you seem to be
>>saying that if abiogenesis cannot be shown to be possible then
>>biological evolution must similarly be impossible
>>
>I can accept your contention that abiogenesis is distinct from
>biological evolution, nevertheless it is a continuous and unbroken
>chain, beginning with or before the appearance of the
>self-replicating RNA which mutated, recombined and progressed
>up through the stage where it began to synthesis protein,
>enzymes and DNA. This process continued to mutate, the most
>efficient pre-cursor to life replicating and leaving the most
>offspring thus prenatural selection is born(?). This process
>continues to replicate and mutate until the first living biological
>entity appears. This first living entities continue to replicate,
>mutate, and become increasing complex. The first bacteria,
>blue-green algae, etc. appears and these or some relative
>prokaryote cells enter into a symbiotic relationship thus the
>first primitive eukaryotic cells are born. Long before this
>juncture ie the appearance of eukaryotic cells *evolution*
>was well on its way. But to call the process from the first
>RNA molecule to the first living entity is not evolution. Just
>how arbitrary is the break in this continuous process where
>non-evolution ends and evolution begins?

Evolution begins when you have replication, heredity (as you can have replication without heredity in some hypercycle systems) and selection of variant copies. So you could be justified in applying this to the first self-replicating RNA ribozyme. However the events leading up to the first self-replicating RNA ribozyme (prebiotic nucleotide synthesis RNA polymers assembled on clay, non-self replicating hypercycles) are not evolution.

Yes it is hard to decide what is the dividing line, even today it is hard to call the line between living and non-living (is a virus alive? it can replicate and evolve, a prion?). This in itself suggests that life is a natural process rather than divine fiat or deliberate construction.

>>when they do
>>not, in fact, work in the same manner at all, except insofar as
>>both are thought to be natural processes. Biological evolution
>>has been demonstrated to work, to the satisfaction of the vast
>>majority of scientists. Abiogenesis has not, but since they are
>>separate issues this does not make anyone doubt the veracity of
>>biological evolution.
>>
>Is this a fair question: is abiogenesis and evolution distinct because
>abiogenesis is poorly supported, consequently, it can lend no support
>to evolution? But then neither can it throw into question the veracity
>of evolution. So how can we know whether or not this is a protective
>strategy?

Abiogenesis and evolution are distinct because they involve distinctly different natural processes.

<snip more stuff>

>>Pasteur's experiment has demonstrated that water in a sterile
>>test-tube will not result in abiogenesis in a century or two (I believe the
>>test-tube is still on display in Paris). That hardly demonstrates that
>>life cannot arise from non-living matter on an entire planet full of
>complex
>>chemical reactions over the course of thousands or millions of years.
>
>Here again the proof is in the pudding. And there is scant evidence to the
>contrary. Pasteur also experimented with broth that had been sterilized
>(boiled). Then by using a flask with a crooked neck, in order to keep out
>microbes, was he able to demonstrate his hypotheses. Since microbes
>did not reach the sterile broth living organisms could not or did not
>appear. Thus, proving his hypothesis that life comes only from pre-existing life.

Again, no one is expecting an "amino acids to cyanobacteria" type transition that this implies. Furthermore, a litre or so of broth sitting quietly in a glass container for a century and a half is nothing like the primordial earth, where billions of litres of reactive chemicals in the ancients seas are churned by waves and mixed on catalytic clay and sand beaches, and even in this situation we might expect millennia to pass before we see something that could be defined as life (See Lacano refs at [5]).

>One thing is certain by removing the origin of life to an inaccessible time
>and place, researchers can never falsify the theory of the origin of life
>regardless of what theory scientist may advance. Consequently, they can
>experiment until their hearts are content with whatever results, great or
>small, they may obtain. No cynicism meant. just a statement of fact
>(as I see it).

This isn't true. The origin of life is placed where it is by evidence. As more evidence is accumulated various scenarios can be eliminated (as some have), new types of tests can be devised. Not long ago we had no way of detecting fossil bacteria, now we can. With more research we will undoubtedly be able to think of new ways of accessing these past times.

Cheers! Ian

[1] Here I am giving only one possible scenario, others include "protein hypercycles first, then RNA/DNA" and "protein/RNA co-development".

[2] I am aware that this example required a pre-existing polymerase and that as well as the RNA , a polymerase would have to be around. However, in the prebiotic world this polymerase would not have to be anything like modern polymerases, even clay might do nicely, and so polymerase availability is not as limiting as in a modern example.

[3]Ferris JP, Hill AR Jr, Liu R, and Orgel LE. (1996 May 2). Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces [see comments] Nature, 381, 59-61.

[4]Ekland EH, Szostak JW, and Bartel DP. (1995 Jul 21). Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences. Science , 269, 364-70.

[5] See:

Miller SL. (1997 Mar). Peptide nucleic acids and prebiotic chemistry Nat Struct Biol , 4, 167-9.

Hager AJ, and Szostak JW. (1997 Aug). Isolation of novel ribozymes that ligate AMP-activated RNA substrates Chem Biol , 4, 607-17.

James KD, and Ellington AD. (1997 Aug). Surprising fidelity of template-directed chemical ligation of oligonucleotides [In Process Citation] Chem Biol , 4, 595-605.

Schwartz AW. (1997 Aug). Speculation on the RNA Precursor Problem J Theor Biol , 187, 523-7.

Bolli M, Micura R, and Eschenmoser A. (1997 Apr). Pyranosyl-RNA: chiroselective self-assembly of base sequences by ligative oligomerization of tetranucleotide-2',3'-cyclophosphates (with a commentary concerning the origin of biomolecular homochirality). Chem Biol , 4, 309-20.

Bohler C, Nielsen PE, and Orgel LE. (1995 Aug 17). Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides Nature , 376, 578-81.

Lazcano A, and Miller SL. (1996 Jun 14). The origin and early evolution of life: prebiotic chemistry, the pre- RNA world, and time. Cell , 85, 793-8.

Ertem G, and Ferris JP. (1996 Jan 18). Synthesis of RNA oligomers on heterogeneous templates. Nature , 379, 238-40.

Ishizaka M, Ohshima Y, and Tani T. (1995 Sep 14). Isolation of active ribozymes from an RNA pool of random sequences using an anchored substrate RNA. Biochem Biophys Res Commun , 214, 403-9.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Peta, Ian and Jack Francis

reynella at werple dot mira dot net dot au

Aitch Tee Tee Pee colon slash slash werple dot mira dot net dot au slash tilde reynella

Source: www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr98.html

2. Also check out this link:

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,
and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
by Ian Musgrave (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html)

3. And a history of faulty probability calculations of abiogenesis by creationists over the years can be found here:

Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html)

Happy reading.


[Edited on 10-8-2003 by Arnab]

[Edited on 10-8-2003 by Arnab]

rafiq
August 14, 2003, 10:22 PM
ALL I KNOW IS I WANT ALL OF YOU GUYS ON MY NEXT STARTUP!!!!!!!!

Arnab
August 15, 2003, 05:38 AM
You sure? You want people who waste valuable time on internet boards researching on inconsequential topics? :)