There is a Creator! - 2005/07/30 15:13<b>If an object has a composition, geometry and arrangement of parts that do not form from unadorned processes then it is an intelligent creation.</b>
What shall we say of living organisms? How about the simplest ones?
For the past century many atheistic sophists have been arguing for macro evolution. If true, it would surely falsify the position of elaborate design from an intelligent Creator. In our consideration the simplest organism is an engineering masterpeice of complex systems of intricate mechanisms. Macro evolution is an argument that suggests these amazing organisms arised from insensate and haphazard chemical processes.
However total absence of spontaneously arising DNA, RNA or proteins is probably the strongest argument against macro evolution. These proteins found in living organisms are amazing machines. The simplest life form is a complex system of intricate mechanisms made of hundreds of different proteins.
Some of the most humorous arguments put forward by evolutionist is when they remove some of these “machines” from inside living cells and then claim “ah, ha, see this spring or gear does something and therefore is a cellular life precursor.” That's like doing to the same with a computer. Someone pulls some transistors from a circuit board and exclaims the computer macro evolved from the transistor. We would never say anything but a conscious and intelligent person created a computer.
Another argument of the same calibar is that living organisms share many of the same "machines". And this somehow proves a macro evolutionary process by virtue that the organisms that have the most common "machines" must be closly related on the macro evolution spectrum. Even engineers knows that you do not need to make a new circuit or mechanism ever time you design the same or similar task for your device or machine. Even in programing you have what is called high level language which inherently reuses the same patch of code or methods for similar tasks.
Be that as it may, lets give the evolutionist's argument of organisms arising from insensate and haphazard chemical processes some mathematical rigor.
If you had a medium with the special 20 L-amino acids, and a 'macro evolution connecting means' for the formation of an average-sized protein containing 100 amino acids; They could be arranged in 20^100 or 10^130 different ways. Even if a hundred million billion (10^17) of these combinations could function for a given purpose, there is only one chance in 10^113 of getting one of these required amino acid sequences in the said protein.
The equation for independent trials with multiple simultaneous events is;
s*(1 - (1 - p(A))^n), where s is the number of simultaneous events.
It takes about one second for a protein to be created by RNA. Lets assume the macro evolution connecting means is equally as fast (100 amino acid connection reactions per second per independent trial).
s = 10^72 (a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion simultaneous protein formations per second)
n = 10^-72/10^-113 = 10^41 seconds ... divided by 60*60*24*356 = 3.2511*10^33 years
To give you a scope of the astronomically favorable odds I am giving for the evolutionist case; Imagine if all the atoms in the universe (which is estimated at 10^50) were in molecules of L-amino acids then we would run out of material in less then a second.
So now that we have our specific sequence of amino acids in a chain that could have some function to support life, we now need to fold the chain so that it becomes a functional protein. (If you don't fold the protein it has no mechanical function. If you had a large amount of unfolded protein it would essentially be goo, which can be easily made in a laboratory.) The physics and math involved in folding a protein are beyond my skills, but fortunately for us many scientists have already done the computations.
In 1996, scientists around the world, “armed with their best computer programs, competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protein, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life. ...The result, succinctly put, was this: the computers lost and the proteins won... Scientists have estimated that for an average-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 10^27 (a billion billion billion) years.”—The New York Times, March 25, 1997, "Designing Life: Proteins 1, Computer 0".
Assuming our 'macro evolution folding mechanism' is no faster than the speed of the “best computer programs,” we can guarantee to have a specific folding solution for a protein once in 10^27 (a billion billion billion) years.
Multiplying the folding stats with the sequence stats gives us the probability of making a single functional protein.
3.2511*10^33 times 10^27 = 3.2511*10^60 years
NASA says the universe is 14 billion years old. If we started macro evolution from the beginning the actual probability of a single protein forming is;
1.4*10^10/3.2511*10^60 = 4.3062*10^-51
For those that are not familiar with statistics, please note that anything less then 10^-50 is considered negligible. If you take into account that we did not consider the other hundreds of proteins needed for the simplest life form you should without a doubt know the likelihood of life forming by macro evolution is less then grossly negligible.
If a conscious and intelligent creator is the statistical complement of macro evolution then the probability of there being a God is;
0.999999999999999999999999-->
Or in other words, we can say with certainty there is a Creator.
Nobel laureate Francis Crick, evolutionist and co-discoverer of the DNA structure, stated, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle,"
The fact is, computational biology does not give any evidence to support macro evolution. If anything it does the opposite.
"Artificial evolution in computers... suffers from... malaise... Most runs of computational life fizzle out of novelty quickly. While the programs sometimes keep running, churning out minor variation, they ascend to no new levels of complexity or surprise after the first spurt ...for whatever reason, computational life based on unadorned natural selection has not seen the miracle of open-ended evolution that its creators, and I, would love to see. As the French evolutionist Pierre Grasse said, `Variation is one thing, evolution quite another; this cannot be emphasized strongly enough... So while natural selection may be responsible for microchange-a trend in variations-no one can say indisputably that it is responsible for macrochange-the open-ended creation of an unexpected novel form and progress toward increasing complexity." (Kevin Kelly., "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines", [1994], Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, p.476).
Re:There is a Creator! - 2005/08/28 05:06The quazi mythological concept of macro evolution and it's derivitives are propagandized on TV and at schools and Universities often as if it were a fact.
Even though every twisted theory of macro evolution for the past century has been falsified by computational and mathamatical biology.
The level of desperation to keep there ideology give consern.
We have been given many false evidence; piltdown man...etc.
I have been shown balls of plasma as evidence of early "cell life". Well if plasma balls can support life then why are we wasting billions of dollars looking on Mars for life when we should have been looking on the surface of Sun the whole time?
intelligent design - 2005/12/08 19:25still trying to put forward a coherent argument;
intelligent design;
The composition and geometry and arrangement of parts of objects intelligently designed do not form from insensate phenomena.
In other words insensate phenomena cannot form objects that are intelligently designed.
For example; a simple NOT complex; stop sign. The composition of a stop sign is usually some carbon steel with red and white paint. The geometry is a particularly thin sheet of uniform thickness in a perfect octagon.
Ask yourself these straightforward questions; Can a stop sign form from insensate phenomena? For example; are there any volcanoes spewing out 2000 plus fereheight carbon steel in perfect geometries of thin sheet octagons? If so, is there any process that can place petro-chemical paints in unsmeared perfect shapes onto one of the objects sides?
The answer is no, it cannot form from any insensate phenomena we know of. Some nihilistic sophists would argue; it can form from insensate phenomena we have no knowledge of because we do not have absolute knowledge of all things. Pragmatically speaking, this level of criticism makes all beliefs unprovable assumptions because any belief can be countered from the ignorance of possibilities imagined. No matter how unrealistic. That sort of ignorance belongs to the idiocy hall of fame. Stop signs do not and never will form from insensate phenomena. It is as simple as that.
I have suffieciently proven that something can be intelligently designed. We did not arise from an accident of God's nature. For NO theory of life arising from insensate phenomena assessed through mathematical or computational biology has been substantiated. The likelihood of the formation of living organisms from insensate phenomena has been demonstrated to be grossly negligible. (see calculations and quotes that follow)
Nobel laureate Francis Crick, evolutionist and co-discoverer of the DNA structure, stated, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle,"
Intelligent design holds the statistical complement of life arising from insensate phenomena; In other words, we can say with certainty there is a Creator.
For the past century many atheistic sophists have been arguing for macro evolution and insensate abiogenesis. If true, it would surely falsify the position of elaborate design from an intelligent Creator. In our consideration the simplest organism is an engineering masterpeice of systems of intricate mechanisms. Insensate abiogenesis is an argument that suggests these amazing biological machines arised from insensate phenomena.
However total absence of spontaneously arising biological molecules such as DNA, RNA, proteins or peptides is probably the strongest argument against insensate abiogenesis. Proteins found in living organisms are amazing machines. The simplest life form is a system of intricate mechanisms made of hundreds of different protein machines.
Some of the most humorous arguments put forward by evolutionist's is when they remove some of these “machines” from inside living cells and then claim “ah, ha, see this spring or gear does something and therefore is a cellular life precursor.” That's like doing to the same with a computer. Someone pulls some transistors from a circuit board and exclaims the computer macro evolved from the transistor. We would never say anything but a conscious and intelligent person created a computer.
Another argument of the same calibar is that living organisms share many of the same "machines". And this somehow proves a macro evolutionary process by virtue that the organisms that have the most common "machines" must be closly related on the macro evolution spectrum or tree. Every engineer knows that you do not need to make a new circuit or mechanism ever time you design the same or similar task for your device or machine. Even in programing you have what is called high level language which inherently reuses the same patch of code or methods for similar tasks.
Be that as it may, lets give the evolutionist's argument of organisms arising from insensate phenomena some mathematical rigor.
If you had a medium with the special 20 L-amino acids, and a 'macro evolution connecting means' for the formation of an average-sized protein containing 100 amino acids; They could be arranged in 20^100 or 10^130 different ways. Even if a hundred million billion (10^17) of these combinations could function for a given purpose, there is only one chance in 10^113 of getting one of these required amino acid sequences in the said protein.
The equation for independent trials with multiple simultaneous events is;
s*(1 - (1 - p(A))^n), where s is the number of simultaneous events.
It takes about one second for a protein to be created by RNA. Lets assume the macro evolution connecting means is equally as fast (100 amino acid connection reactions per second per independent trial).
s = 10^72 (a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion simultaneous protein formations per second)
n = 10^-72/10^-113 = 10^41 seconds ... divided by 60*60*24*356 = 3.2511*10^33 years
To give you a scope of the astronomically favorable odds I am giving for the evolutionist case; Imagine if all the atoms in the universe (which is estimated at 10^50) were in molecules of L-amino acids then we would run out of material in less then a second.
So now that we have our specific sequence of amino acids in a chain that could have some function to support life, we now need to fold the chain so that it becomes a functional protein. (If you don't fold the protein it has no mechanical function. If you had a large amount of unfolded protein it would essentially be goo, which can be easily made in a laboratory.) The physics and math involved in folding a protein are beyond my skills, but fortunately for us many scientists have already done the computations.
NASA says the universe is 14 billion years old. If we started macro evolution from the beginning the actual probability of a single protein forming is;
1.4*10^10/3.2511*10^60 = 4.3062*10^-51
For those that are not familiar with statistics, please note that anything less then 10^-50 is considered negligible. If you take into account that we did not consider the other hundreds of proteins needed for the simplest life form you should without a doubt know the likelihood of life forming by macro evolution is less then grossly negligible.
If a conscious and intelligent creator is the statistical complement of macro evolution then the probability of there being a God is;
0.999999999999999999999999-->
Or in other words, we can say with certainty there is a Creator.
Nobel laureate Francis Crick, evolutionist and co-discoverer of the DNA structure, stated, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle,"
The fact is, computational biology does not give any evidence to support macro evolution. If anything it does the opposite.
"Artificial evolution in computers... suffers from... malaise... Most runs of computational life fizzle out of novelty quickly. While the programs sometimes keep running, churning out minor variation, they ascend to no new levels of complexity or surprise after the first spurt ...for whatever reason, computational life based on unadorned natural selection has not seen the miracle of open-ended evolution that its creators, and I, would love to see. As the French evolutionist Pierre Grasse said, `Variation is one thing, evolution quite another; this cannot be emphasized strongly enough... So while natural selection may be responsible for microchange-a trend in variations-no one can say indisputably that it is responsible for macrochange-the open-ended creation of an unexpected novel form and progress toward increasing complexity." (Kevin Kelly., "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines", [1994], Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, p.476).
Dialogue;
Sadly we have quazi-science masqurated as empirical science. Evolutionist think they do not need to make theories that can be verified. They really don't. But if you cannot verify a theory or demonstrate it's probable truth it should not be taught in school. Anadotal evidence is not proof of probability. All the anadotal evidence they provide follow exactly as expected from intelligent design.
In any case, one apologetic websited descided to try and step into the realm of science and suggest that insensate abiogenesis is probable.
I was directed to the appologetic site www.talkorigins.org were we find and argument for insensate abiogenesis.
Thought they do not provide a quantifiable model of insensate abiogenesis they suggest....
"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" - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Solution = 1 x 10^24 (Litres)
Molarity = 1 x 10^(-6) (L-amino acids, moles per litre)
Avogadro's number = 6.022 x 10^23 (molecules per mole)
L-amino acid molecules per litre = 6.022 x 10^17
starting chains = 1 x 10^50 (number of independant events to be calculated)
starting chains per litre = 1 x 10^26
starting chains per L-amino acid molecule = 166.06 x 10^6 (166 MILLION!)
Why are there more starting chains than molecules avalible to be used?
Someone is very poor at verifying the validity of there own calculations.
And this from professor Ian Musgrave from the University of Adelaide.
The equation for independent trials with multiple simultaneous events is;
s*(1 - (1 - p(A))^n), where s is the number of simultaneous events.
It takes about one second for a protein to be created by RNA. Lets assume the insensate abiogenesis connecting means is equally as fast (100 amino acid connection reactions per second per independent trial). That would be about 3 peptides per second per independent trial.
starting chains = 10^15
s = 3x10^15 = 10^16 ( simultaneous peptide formations per second)
n = 3x10^-15/4.29x10^-40 = 6.99x10^24 10^41 seconds ... divided by 60*60*24*356 = 2.27x10^17 years
NASA says the solar system is 4.5 billion years old. If we started insensate abiogenesis from the beginning the actual probability of a single peptide forming is;
(4.5x10^9)/(2.27x10^17) = 1.98x10^-8
The solar system is said to be 4.55 billion years old. However 3.8 to 4 billion years ago asteroid impacts would have effectively sterilised Earth's entire planetary surface. Infact the oldest rocks are 3.85 billion years old from Greenland. The oldest known fossils are cyanobacteria or "blue-green algae", from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old.
That leaves 250 million years for insensate abiogenesis to transform basic organic chemicals into photosynthetic prokaryotes.
Forum 
