Evolution Vs Creation or Dna Manipulation

[uchiha]

Recently i have been hearing some arguements that seem strong in relation to evolution from single celled organisms.

However before dipping into my own research library i was wondering if anyone could offer their own research into the subject.. The only person i know of that discusses this topic (lightly) Is Michael Tsarion

[zedd]

Recently i have been hearing some arguements that seem strong in relation to evolution from single celled organisms.

However before dipping into my own research library i was wondering if anyone could offer their own research into the subject.. The only person i know of that discusses this topic (lightly) Is Michael Tsarion

I believe that right now the main (only?) theory on how it actually began is that molecular chains were constructed on crystal structures within clay material. Apparently using this material has already resulted in easier creation of things like medicines. The problem with the very beginning of organic life being made from inorganic materials is that the chains of molecules would collapse very quickly. Too quickly to actually create life. So, it is believe that the crystals act as a scaffolding to allow complex molecules to form which would turn into simple organisms.

[uchiha]

I believe that right now the main (only?) theory on how it actually began is that molecular chains were constructed on crystal structures within clay material. Apparently using this material has already resulted in easier creation of things like medicines. The problem with the very beginning of organic life being made from inorganic materials is that the chains of molecules would collapse very quickly. Too quickly to actually create life. So, it is believe that the crystals act as a scaffolding to allow complex molecules to form which would turn into simple organisms.

cool except you havent really disputed the evolution theory.. heres some of what the guy im debating has written

he said that a basic mousetrap has 5 parts, and if you remove any of the parts, it won't be a mousetrap anymore. That is the idea of irreducible complexity - you can't remove any part without it being "useless." Like you said, it's "too complex" or somesuch. But that isn't the truth at all. You can remove 40% of a mousetrap's parts, and the mousetrap can still be used effectively for *something* - which is the point of evolution. Things adapt.

"Nothing is "too complex" - DNA, for example, is nothing more than amino acid chains. That's it. All life started as amino acid chains, and DNA - whether ours, or any other creature's, since ours is no more complex - is an aspect of that. Not a single scientist - and note, I'm saying scientist - has ever claimed that the human body is "way to complex" to have evolved from a single organism, because it did evolve from a single organism, as did all other life on this planet."

"Not at all a weird thing. The proof of evolution comes from the various genetic codes, and how they are all similar. For example, humans and chimps have about 3 billion - that's BILLION - base pairs in their DNA (AGTC amino acid links) - but only differ by about 1.2%, at most 4%. That's out of 3 billion. Why? Because we split off from our common ancestor very recently, in terms of evolutionary scale. And even in other animals - some that have nothing to do with us visibly - we have little differentiation in DNA (for example, frogs and humans are disturbingly similar)."

"No, they don't. Evolution does not focus on Homo Erectus, which walked the world millions of years ago. Evolution is the understanding that life as we know it developed from groupings of inherently-unliving organisms. Cells are the smallest things that can be referred to as "life" - and yet they themselves are made of things. The grouping of these things, and the various effects that physics had on them (for example, osmosis drawing them into and out of systems) led to more complex organisms developing, based on these effects."

disproving intelligent design with a mouse trap - YouTube

That link is used as an example by him

[xpleet]

Evolution vs creation? hmmm

well to me it sounds like

accepted mainstream belief system vs. unaccepted ridiculed and supressed alternative (in a total corrupt world).

What would you look after =/

[xxxx]

can't it be both? genetic manipulation or creation when we'd reached the stage of advanced monkey. they're always saying they can't find the missing link. maybe there isn't one. dunno.

[cruise4]

Proof of Intelligent Design is all around us. To me its akin to looking at a TV screen and examining the behaviour of the picture, as oppose to examining the mechanism's of the TV.

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Recently i have been hearing some arguements that seem strong in relation to evolution from single celled organisms.

However before dipping into my own research library i was wondering if anyone could offer their own research into the subject.. The only person i know of that discusses this topic (lightly) Is Michael Tsarion


Hi Uchiha:

Certainly not my Research, but;

Here is a Video that may be helpful to your Quest:


301 Moved Permanently

[zedd]

Well, the way it is said to work when it comes to complexity is that you do not jump from one simple thing to one complex thing in an organism. It proceeds by steps. One example that I have seen used is that of the eye. Primitive organisms had "eyes" but they were nowhere near what we have.

A mutation would have occured in the eyeless organisms which gave rise to a segment of the population that now had a sensory device. This was their "eye", however it may have only had very basic functioning, such as being able to detect light. This new ability would serve a purpose in that it would allow the detection of light for, say, photosynthesis.

This new organisms that could now detect light would eventually have mutations within the population which would take the light sensors and add slightly to what they could do.

Also, all mutations do not have to have a benefit they just cannot be overly harmful to the point where the organism cannot compete for what it needs. One example of this is eye color. Mutations occured which caused people to have various colors in their eyes (green, blue, etc.). Now, there is no benefit that we know of in having a certain eye color so that is an example of a mutation that occured even though you did need it.

This is the way that it is generally explained.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok so I didn't realize that you were looking to debunk his idea that evolution exists.

I think the main issue that cannot be explained is personality. Even my biology professor (Standford/MIT guy) had to admit, in passing, that personality was too complex to understand, although he tried to say that it was caused by the brain and we just can't prove it. unfortunately it doesn't make sense. There is no need to even have a personality to begin with and if you cannot prove something then you cannot claim that it is true. So, one area to expand upon would be personality.

Another thing that I question is the idea of learning. Where does information come from? Well, according to El Profesor it is by creating new connections to various areas of the brain by way of synapses. The problem I have with this, is that this idea suggests that all the answers to the universe are already contained in our brain and you simply have to access them. It would be like building a bridge to gain access to the resources that are already present there.

Yet another issue I have is why nature would create its own destroyer. The only species on the planet that can (and absolutely would) annihilate the planet is us. Why would evolution create something like this naturally?'

Humans also have much more than we need. The human brain provides us with things like philosphy and being able to question reality itself. What is the purpose of such a mechanism. I would doubt that this is simply a byproduct of being intellegent because some very intellegent people don't bother questioning anything, and some less than intellegent people question everything. In fact, you can question your very own existence and decide that you want to end it, for no reason at all but that you can. Why?

We also had to look at skulls in one of my labs and I have to say that the fossil evidence I was shown was fairly weak. The human skull looks almost nothing like the rest, save for a general shape so they need that missing link.

Also, there is no purpose to evolution according to biologists. It is all random. But when you look at the rest of our universe, everything fits into a nice formula or law that governs everything. Why would life be different? If you say that it is all random then there is no rational reason why life should exists at all other than the fact that you see it around you so you think it makes sense. I could have a horse riding a man and show that to you but that doesn't mean it's rational.

Biology also does not take into account quantum physics so whatever madness they (physicists) find will not be applied to biology. If a particle can be in different places at the same time this isn't accounted for in evolution. Nor would the materials you find in books like Forbidden Archaeology.

There are alot of questions but you really won't debunk anything. If people believe in evolution then you won't change their mind and if people don't believe it you won't change their mind either. It is only the fence sitters that can be convinced of anything and even then, it would take alot more than just a good argument.

[zedd]

"Nothing is "too complex" - DNA, for example, is nothing more than amino acid chains. That's it. All life started as amino acid chains, and DNA - whether ours, or any other creature's, since ours is no more complex - is an aspect of that. Not a single scientist - and note, I'm saying scientist - has ever claimed that the human body is "way to complex" to have evolved from a single organism, because it did evolve from a single organism, as did all other life on this planet."

He might not believe that things can be "too complex" but that isn't really true. For one thing, as I have said, amino acid chains are too complex to form and hold together without something to help them. This is why there needs to be a theory of scaffolding to support them.

"Not at all a weird thing. The proof of evolution comes from the various genetic codes, and how they are all similar. For example, humans and chimps have about 3 billion - that's BILLION - base pairs in their DNA (AGTC amino acid links) - but only differ by about 1.2%, at most 4%. That's out of 3 billion. Why? Because we split off from our common ancestor very recently, in terms of evolutionary scale. And even in other animals - some that have nothing to do with us visibly - we have little differentiation in DNA (for example, frogs and humans are disturbingly similar)."

Well, this argument is sort of weak. If we are all made out of the same "stuff", then there should be plenty of things that are similar. Especially if many of the codes (DNA sequences) will not produce something that is functional and can survive.

It would be like me saying that you can pick as many number combinations as you want. Well, 9998 is very close to 9999 but that doesn't mean that 9999 actually evolved from 9998. It is simply a similar combination of numbers that looks very similar.

"No, they don't. Evolution does not focus on Homo Erectus, which walked the world millions of years ago. Evolution is the understanding that life as we know it developed from groupings of inherently-unliving organisms. Cells are the smallest things that can be referred to as "life" - and yet they themselves are made of things. The grouping of these things, and the various effects that physics had on them (for example, osmosis drawing them into and out of systems) led to more complex organisms developing, based on these effects."

This is something which I have not seen proven. Like I said, there was no proof that the crystaline structures in clay actually were used to create organic life. This guy is using hypothesis as fact which is dishonest. There is no definitive proof of how it all got started and scientists only agree that evolution happened. There is no consensus on exactly how.

That link is used as an example by him

Sometimes you have to accept that the other side can make a good point.

Alot of this stuff seems to be more belief and faith he has in science than actual, tangible evidence. If all of this were fact, there would be no debate within the scientific community.

[uchiha]

Thanks for the great information guys.. i hope you dont mind i took it to thicken some of my arguements :D

Again. thanks :)

Anyone else is welcome to post

[uchiha]

hmmm

After discussing the issue of intel design vs evolution with a lot of people

it seems like a surprising amount of people.. Very large in number Believe that anyone who researches or rears near Intelligent design is a Moron.

Most battle science with Science..

the only reason i dedicate so much thought to this is....
If you have the evolution side...... Win this arguement

Pretty much EVERY and i mean EVERY single theory.story.research
of the occult realm.

EVERYTHING discussed here.. is all fake and phony if evolution prevails

[milas_dk]

Take a look at this presentation
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=3531

I too find this subject very interesting, and yes if u talk to anyone about "Intelligent design" they just close off, and people think u are some wierd ufo fan. But it absolutely makes sense.
Here are some interessting quotes:
Man is a unique animal. He stands out like a sore thumb when comparisons are made with his cousins, the apes. The differences are more numerous than the similarities. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is simply unproven
Gunther Rosenburg
Citat:
Most controversial is the evolutionary question. I have done a great deal of work on Darwin and can say with some assurance that Darwin did not derive his theory from nature but rather superimposed a certain philosophical world-view on nature and then spent 20 years trying to gather the facts to make it stick.
Immanuel Velikovsky on Darwinism

Alfred R. Wallace discovered "Natural Selection" previous to Darwin and with him was the founder of the Evolutionist Theory. But on reviewing the startling differences between Homo Sapiens and other mammals, he realized that Man was an exception to the rules. He amazingly wrote:

...some intelligent power has guided or determined the development of Man
Nature never overendows a species beyond the demands of everyday existence

[uchiha]

Take a look at this presentation
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=3531

I too find this subject very interesting, and yes if u talk to anyone about "Intelligent design" they just close off, and people think u are some wierd ufo fan. But it absolutely makes sense.
Here are some interessting quotes:
Man is a unique animal. He stands out like a sore thumb when comparisons are made with his cousins, the apes. The differences are more numerous than the similarities. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is simply unproven
Gunther Rosenburg
Citat:
Most controversial is the evolutionary question. I have done a great deal of work on Darwin and can say with some assurance that Darwin did not derive his theory from nature but rather superimposed a certain philosophical world-view on nature and then spent 20 years trying to gather the facts to make it stick.
Immanuel Velikovsky on Darwinism

Alfred R. Wallace discovered "Natural Selection" previous to Darwin and with him was the founder of the Evolutionist Theory. But on reviewing the startling differences between Homo Sapiens and other mammals, he realized that Man was an exception to the rules. He amazingly wrote:

...some intelligent power has guided or determined the development of Man
Nature never overendows a species beyond the demands of everyday existence

cool. nice quotes. i watched about 10 minutes of that lecture and it really just looked like a review of nibiru/annunaki theories so that was it for me

[milas_dk]

well I guess ur right, but i just thought the presentation was a little different from how Michael Tsarion and others present these theories. Which is more from all the legends, religions and so on, while this is more of a practical way. But if u are all ready familiar with it, then it might not be so interessting :o

[jonb]

I do not think the two philosophies are exclusive to each other. I would tend to evolution as being the way things work in these limited dimentions, because that is the way these limited dimentions were created. My real worry is with the creationist argument which seems to come from the every word of the Bible is true group. the reason I worry about that section is that they tend to say the stories are history so that they dont have to look at the meaning of the stories.
OK what if every part of the theory of evolution was exactly right in every detail and with nothing more to be uncovered. Which might be a more extreme view than that held by Dawkins. Would it exclude the idea that everything came from one unity? No.
On the other hand if the Bible just records events would every event in it have a deeper meaning?
Study the Lilies of the field.
If this is a dog eat dog world it might just be that we have to overcome it, even if our evolution points us in another direction.
I am not a Christian in any formal sence, and I might be presuming too much that many of the contributers in this thread are, and I might be inpinging on your beliefs wrongly, but I find much of what is written in the Bible true, more than many of the adherants to it belive themselves. I just want to say dont get caught up in the nit picking the bigger picture is far more illuminating.