Evolution and Religion

[Anonymouse]

This is a detailed refutation of erroneous probability calculations that show abiogenesis to be impossible through mathematics: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Earlier you've responded to me saying how evolution doesn't concern the origins or postulates on the beginnings, when I was pointing out that evolution is a structural philosophy much like Marx' dialectic, as in, it tells us of a beginning, a process, and gives insight into a future. You told me this wasn't true. Now the above statement seems to support the idea of how life began by evolutionary terms. This would contradict your previously held position of telling me that evolution doesn't concern itself with beginnins or futures, but only the process. Make up your mind.

[loseyourname]

It's a defense of abiogenesis, which is a separate matter from evolution. I only threw it in because you keep using the probability argument. Are you going to actually look at this stuff and tell me what you think?

[loseyourname]

By the way, if you're not going to engage in an honest dialogue regarding this, just keep quiet and let the others take a look. I'm pretty much just going to post whatever I have in terms of evidence and arguments from this point forward, so that this thread may be used as a resource for anyone that really wants to learn about this. If you have any evidence or arguments regarding dissenting viewpoints, go ahead and post them. If you are only going to offer the same old tired rants about faith and attack my character, then stay out of it.

[Anonymouse]

Now, I don't want to go off on a rant, but any simpleton can look at abiogenesis and see it is pivotal to the atheistic nuthuggers that latch onto evolution as their preferred worldview, so while it may be a separate concept mechanically, it is part of evolution, philosophically, or as I like to call it, dogmatically.

Here is a link that deals with the improbability of abiogenesis. While I have no time now to comment, future references will follow.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/abiogenesis.html

P.S. And don't flatter yourself that much, I rarely attack your character, and on the contrary whether it was in this thread, or the Existence of Soul or Nature of God, you have far more resorted to character attacks than I, so I would be careful of such statements.

[loseyourname]

Atheistic nuthuggers, Mousy? Do you really think that's constructive? You're really characterizing yourself as virulently anti-scientific. Abiogenesis is not pivotal to anything. Evolution begins with the existence of living cells. From that point, nothing is questioned except mechanims. Prior to that, there are only hypotheses, none of which have attained any particular amount of favor in the scientific community. The fact that you actually say something like that just goes to show how little you actually know about evolutionary theory and biology in general.

I hope that after you read some of this, maybe some of your misconceptions will be cleared up. I doubt it, but I still do hope.

[loseyourname]

In living cells, proteins are the "machines of life," which build the structures and facilitate (catalyze) the chemical reactions used by all life. Proteins are called "informational" molecules, because they each perform a "function" in living things (such as oxygen-transport by hemoglobin), and they are non-repetitively complex, and the sequential order of the building blocks (amino acids) of protein are highly specified ---so that if the proper sequence is changed much at all, function is lost.

That isn't true. Alpha hemoglobin in the average fish varies by 73 amino acids from the alpha hemoglobin in the average human. They both perform the same function. Functionality is not lost by substituting a single amino acid.

Thus, in our proof, we move on to the possibility of the random assembly of proteins: To look most simply at the probability of the random assembly of a protein, note that proteins are made of 20 amino acids, which are linked together into strings or "chains" (polymers). Therefore, if we grant that the supposed "primordial soup" on the early earth had all 20 amino acids available for protein-building, then the chance that the first five amino acids required to build a specific functional protein might randomly bond together in the correct order, would be one chance out of 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20, which equals one chance out of 3,200,000.

That is another fallacy, based on the assumption that only one protein out of the 3,200,000 possible would be functional. That is obviously not the case.

Biochemist Harold Morowitz estimated that the "minimum" self-replicating cell would include:

Five proteins required for making of cell-membrane fats and structures; Eight proteins for a very simplified and basic form of energy metabolism; Ten proteins required for the production of the nucleotides (building-blocks for making DNA) and for the actual production of DNA; and then, finally, About eighty proteins as part of an apparatus for the production of all the cell's proteins.

So, the minimal cell would require at least 100 proteins (of moderate length). Morowitz writes: "This is the smallest hypothetical cell that we can envisage within the context of current biochemical thinking. It is almost certainly a lower limit." Morowitz is basically saying, that this simplest proto-cell could not stand to lose even two or three of the 100 proteins described, and still continue to function and stay alive ...otherwise, by definition, it would not consist of the "minimum" of proteins required.

This isn't relevant to the calculation. No scientist has ever postulated that a living cell rose into existence spontaneously. Every theory of abiogenesis that is out there right now involves the construction of non-living protobionts before the arising of living cells.

At this point, the calculation is hopelessly flawed. Any half-intelligent person reading this article that actually knows anything about the biological sciences would be able to see rather quickly that this is just another creationist lie. Why the creationists feel so much of a need to lie about the facts surrounding evolutionary theory I have no idea. Is your faith really that fragile that you need to delude yourself to maintain it?

[loseyourname]

Now do you have any answer to the probability article I posted? Have you even read it?

[Anonymouse]

That isn't true. Alpha hemoglobin in the average fish varies by 73 amino acids from the alpha hemoglobin in the average human. They both perform the same function. Functionality is not lost by substituting a single amino acid.

This is irrelevant to the statement. It claimed that if the sequence is changed it cannot function, nothing about similarities in hemoglobin, and the faulty analogy wihch you made afterwards. Where are you getting statement from? The hemoglobin between humans and fish vary, and can anyone for once think that if that were change for either species they would function normally? Chlorophyll in plants and human hemoglobin differ in chemical makeup by one molecule. The difference being one magnesium molecule exchanged for one iron molecule. This does not imply that our ancestors were trees. This is once again, cherry picking and drilling at a non-issue.

That is another fallacy, based on the assumption that only one protein out of the 3,200,000 possible would be functional. That is obviously not the case.

This wasn't even posted in the article I posted, where did you get this and the above statement. One wonders where you get these figures. I am assuming it is from the link within the article, which I have not even looked at, but based on the one I posted, it is entirely for the sake of argument that the numbers are taken, and the figure derived from the 20 amino acids, which you know why is 20 I hope. This is still irrelevant.

At this point, the calculation is hopelessly flawed. Any half-intelligent person reading this article that actually knows anything about the biological sciences would be able to see rather quickly that this is just another creationist lie. Why the creationists feel so much of a need to lie about the facts surrounding evolutionary theory I have no idea. Is your faith really that fragile that you need to delude yourself to maintain it?

By a few smitten remarks you conclude the calculation is hopelessly flawed. Well, that is enlightening to say the least. Such statements about the "facts" that surround evolutionary "theory" are obviously beyond the comprehension of the "lying creationists", mind you that it was evolutionists that have lied in order to advance their claims such as Piltdown man or Nebraska man, or even far back to Darwin and the gemules, bathybius and eozoon.

[loseyourname]

This is irrelevant to the statement. It claimed that if the sequence is changed it cannot function, nothing about similarities in hemoglobin, and the faulty analogy wihch you made afterwards. Where are you getting statement from? The hemoglobin between humans and fish vary, and can anyone for once think that if that were change for either species they would function normally? Chlorophyll in plants and human hemoglobin differ in chemical makeup by one molecule. The difference being one magnesium molecule exchanged for one iron molecule. This does not imply that our ancestors were trees. This is once again, cherry picking and drilling at a non-issue.

You can change the sequence and the protein still functions. In fact, you can change hundreds of amino acids in the sequence and the protein will still function. Flatly put, the writer of that article lied. In fact, amino acids are grouped by their properties, that is, their polarity and whether or not they are charged. You can substitute, say Glycine, with any one of nine other amino acids (Alanine, Valine, Leucine, Isoleucine, Methionine, Tryptophan, Phenylalanine, and Proline) without significantly changing the conformation of the protein (and hence its function) because these amino acids are all non-polar and will behave similarly. Methionine, Tryptophan, and Phenylalanine are slightly larger than the others, and so you might get a very slight change, but even this should not effect any enzymatic function. This is why we are able to see such great variation in hemoglobin molecules from species to species, despite the fact fact that each type of hemoglobin carries out exactly the same function.

This wasn't even posted in the article I posted, where did you get this and the above statement. One wonders where you get these figures. I am assuming it is from the link within the article, which I have not even looked at, but based on the one I posted, it is entirely for the sake of argument that the numbers are taken, and the figure derived from the 20 amino acids, which you know why is 20 I hope. This is still irrelevant.

That was from the article. This makes me wonder if you even read the article. The numbers aren't posted simply for the sake of argument. This is the basis of his calculation. He says that if you make a protein from five amino acids, given that their are 20 different amino acids, you will have a 1 in 3,200,000 chance of coming up with any one sequence. Well, duh. Somehow he seems to think that this means this one sequence is the only functional sequence. Presumable even you can see the flaw in this.

By a few smitten remarks you conclude the calculation is hopelessly flawed. Well, that is enlightening to say the least. Such statements about the "facts" that surround evolutionary "theory" are obviously beyond the comprehension of the "lying creationists", mind you that it was evolutionists that have lied in order to advance their claims such as Piltdown man or Nebraska man, or even far back to Darwin and the gemules, bathybius and eozoon.

I don't think anything is beyond the comprehension of these men. They are simply lying, and probably making a good deal of profit doing so, at the expense of gullible people like you that want so badly to believe.

The calculation doesn't hold up. I've shown why. Now can you please address the argument that I linked to?

[Anonymouse]

You can change the sequence and the protein still functions. In fact, you can change hundreds of amino acids in the sequence and the protein will still function. Flatly put, the writer of that article lied.

Flatly put each sequence is geared for that specific organism. That is the way it goes. Change that it can't function, just like the nucleotides. There is no reason for it to, either.

That was from the article. This makes me wonder if you even read the article. The numbers aren't posted simply for the sake of argument. This is the basis of his calculation. He says that if you make a protein from five amino acids, given that their are 20 different amino acids, you will have a 1 in 3,200,000 chance of coming up with any one sequence. Well, duh. Somehow he seems to think that this means this one sequence is the only functional sequence. Presumable even you can see the flaw in this.

If you had read the original article I posted, and not clicked on the further link, you would have seen the author state so for the sake of argument. I read the article I posted, which makes me wonder why you didn't read it, and all the time asking me if I read the article you posted.

I don't think anything is beyond the comprehension of these men. They are simply lying, and probably making a good deal of profit doing so, at the expense of gullible people like you that want so badly to believe.

The calculation doesn't hold up. I've shown why. Now can you please address the argument that I linked to?

This is more nonsense drivel.