Evidence Disproving Evolution

myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

[AntiGuv]

Thank you. I've enjoyed the discussion likewise. Have a g'night.

[AndrewC]

But if a self-replicating cell of a simpler type can exist (perhaps a lipid membrane enclosing a few protein or RNA fragments, 1/1000 the complexity of the simplest currently feasible cell, and the “laboratory,” instead of ~1 cubic meter is instead the world’s oceans (1,370,000,000 cubic kilometers, or 1,370,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters), and the “experiment,” instead of taking, say, 10 years, takes 4,000,000,000 years, then the process becomes 5.48E+29 (548,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times more likely to produce life.

Since my calculator cannot display all of the numbers involved I must use logs. First 4²⁵⁰⁰⁰⁰ is not a small number, in terms of 10 it is 10^150514.9978 . Consequently even if the odds were increased 5.48E29, ----no let us say 5.48E29 times a billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, times more (or 5.48E74) the odds would be ~1 in 10¹⁵⁰⁴⁴⁰

Since this is beyond comprehension if we use instead 4^250 as the beginning odds, the final number becomes a more reasonable looking 1 in 5.97334E+75, that is including all of the adjustments increasing your odds. Now how does this relate to anything we can conceive? Well given a 20 billion year old universe(fudging in your favor) with 366 days per year(again fudging in your favor), 24 hours per day (no fudging), 60 minutes per hour(again no fudging) and 60 seconds per minute(straight as an arrow) we can calculate that there have been 6.32448E+17 seconds since the beginning of the universe. Hmmm. If we allowed your total scenario to occur every second since the beginning of the universe we cannot cover all of the possibilities for even a chain of 250. Well how about doing the process every picosecond? That would make the iterations 6.32448E+29, still far short of the 5.97334E+75 combinations remaining.

[elbucko]

It is still a horse before and after its immune system adapts.

Your point is a good one. The example I gave is but a nanosecond in the evolution of the horse. Actually, fossil records for horses are quite contiguous. The modern horses hoof is actually its middle fingers, finger nail. Some semblance of former digits are still observable. However, since the modern horse did not exist in North America until the Spanish conquest the fossil record is not contaminated with equivocal evidence. The skeletal development of the horse in North America is quite complete and progressive. The horse evolved from the size of a small dog to that of a horse. It isn't announced in a chapter in Genesis, but it's good enough for me.

[AntiGuv]

The mathematical odds are of no great consequence unless you have some genuine standard of measure. If the odds are even so monumental that the event would happen only once in the entire history of the universe - and even then, perhaps, by happenstance - then whatever sentient beings arose would still have arisen due to those slimmest of conceivable odds. Until you can assert that it has happened dozens or hundreds or millions of times on other planets, then all you have is the fact that it happened once. However slim the odds of life arising, from whatever source, they became a reality at least in this one instance here on Earth. It does not follow that the evolutionary model is suspect or that natural selection does not occur.

[Hunble]

But but but...

If you believe in magic, this is easily performed. See, you just wave your magic wand and poof...

Ok, so to keep some people happy, have must wave that magic wand a few more times to crate those false fossile records. Pain in the butt, but easy enough to do.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

I am reluctant to post this question, as I am still smarting from a well deserved beat-down of epic proportions that I incurred only two days ago, but I will go against better judgement and do so at my own peril.

This question may be familiar to some of you who are more educated than I, which would be a lot of you, but I have not heard it addressed yet in this crowd, nor elsewhere.

If all human life descended from Adam and Eve, what, is the explanation for the multitude of distinct human races? Anglos distinctively pale, Africans distinctively dark, Asians and others with profoundly unique facial features, etc.

Would this not suggest that groups of humans have changed since the Dawn of Man, that they have become different than the Original Pair, and would this not be classified as "evoloving?"

LanaTurnerOverdrive signed up on 2002-07-02

[elbucko]

If you believe in magic,

Oh but I do believe in magic. I once saw a Unicorn draw close to drink at the bank of river that emptied into the ocean, not far away. There, on a rock was a Mermaid that had swam upstream. They looked at each other and the Mermaid said to the Unicorn: "If you believe in me, I will believe in you".

I like that. Good Night all.

P.S. Say Gore3k, have you ever heard of Dr. Erwin Corey? You two would make scientific history.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Good grief....make that "evolving" thank you.

[Hunble]

If all human life descended from Adam and Eve, what, is the explanation for the multitude of distinct human races? Anglos distinctively pale, Africans distinctively dark, Asians and others with profoundly unique facial features, etc.

Actually, I do have a simple answer to your question.

Today, we have some outstanding breeds of dogs. Take a few minutes and look at those same breeds from around 1850. Finding those old images is not easy, but possible.

If you are able to find those pictures, you will realize how rapidly a 'race' can be created.

[AntiGuv]

Yes. This is evolution. As you can see from looking at the various human races, it doesn't even take very much time in the grand scheme of things for genetic variations to emerge and become pervasive within even a relatively isolated group of the same species. With sufficient time, you would have enough genetic drift that subgroups would be unable to reproduce with one another. As a matter of fact, the Aborigines and the rest of humanity were already quite close to this threshold when the British colonized Australia. Indeed, the number of live births that would result from interbreeding between those two groups would probably be almost nonexistent without modern medicine.

[Hunble]

Thanks, and I do believe in magic.

But Science will be my first choice.

[AndrewC]

The mathematical odds are of no great consequence unless you have some genuine standard of measure.

They are important when the cause for an event is stated.

"I don't know" is the answer that makes the odds of no great consequence.

[AntiGuv]

Your argument is with abiogenesis, not evolution. The opening declaration of this thread was that evolution has been disproven, not that abiogenesis has been disproven. Therefore, I am debating the validity of evolution, not the original spark of life. However life got sparked - whether or not by divine intervention - evolution has evidently followed.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Selective breeding on that scale, done in a time when humans were barely cognizant, seems like it would take a level of intelligence, sophisitication and previously existing innate differences in complection that most likely was not available at the time.

LanaTurnerOverdrive signed up on 2002-07-02

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Selective breeding on that scale, done in a time when humans were barely cognizant, seems like it would take a level of intelligence, sophisitication and previously existing innate differences in complection that most likely was not available at the time.

LanaTurnerOverdrive signed up on 2002-07-02

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

WERE not available at the time....I'm hammered.

[AntiGuv]

The key point here to keep in mind is the concept of genetic drift. The longer two populations reproduce in isolation from one another, you will have more and more genetic drift. You can clearly see the evidence in that - for whatever reason - Africans drifted toward darker skintypes while Asians drifted toward slanted eyes and Europeans drifted toward aquiline features. At some point, if you isolate two populations of the same species long enough, they will drift apart to the point where the sperm of one will not fertilize the egg of another, or where females of one can no longer carry infants of the other to term. Whenever this juncture is reached, then you will have yourself two or more divergent species. There won't even be a "bright line" between the two. You probably won't be able to tell the one species from the next just by looking at them. That's why there are many closely related species that look almost indistinguishable from one another - but they've drifted apart just enough that they can no longer mate with each other.

[AndrewC]

Your argument is with abiogenesis, not evolution.

That's the beginning, yes, but evolution is touted as beginning with the first self-replicating system and includes aspects of randomness which are clearly also dependant on numbers.

[AntiGuv]

Evolution does begin with the first self-replicating system regardless of how the first self-replicating system began.

[philman_36]

Short and "too sweet"...
Evolution is Religion—Not Science
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.