The Scientific Method Applied To Evolution...

[luke1733]

THIS PART IS A RANT/JUST SKIP TO LAST PART IF U WANT

People born 7’0 tall have knee problems, some have forms of gigantism, and they seek to return back to the norm. Midgets and dwarves have health problems (and they aren’t seen as evolving-or are they??-- they are b/c they are deviants from the norm) and to be completely healthy they must compare themselves to the normal human which is the average height/health for whatever humans are.

Let’s move on to what’s just as important as Life……Death.

Then with this death. This cell also knows, all from accident and from the beginning to create trees and a healthy diet for life to exist on. I state the former claim, because I want to return to death. Why? Because now this cell that dies, somehow also creates soil/dust and trees/minerals to live off of, and by accident when it dies it feeds the soil and the ocean’s equally so that even in its death it sustain’s life.

Let’s remember it does all this by accident. Such a complex cell capable of travelling through space, invading a foreign atmosphere, creating a diet, surviving, having the ability to mutate and prepare for death and co-create is all by accident!!!!!

Those are a lot of prepared accidents to me. Just admit that shit. It’s ridiculous.

All this preparation and order from a cell that came to be in existence by accident? Who is challenging this theory? Nobody must be really even thinking of the claim that has been made, because this shit is stupid.

Logically it doesn't match a pattern that life before my very eyes in all/ALL and all of its existence shows me that all life on earth exists within a balance and is maintained by an order.

Diseases can kill its host and then it dies, tigers don’t go on killing sprees if healthy, humans breathe air, ocean’s don’t just fall off the tilting axis of the earth, the minerals and precious metals of earth are aligned to earth’s gravitational pull like a magnet to keep earth’s rotation at a speed that supports all life so that we are not flung off the planet, the seasons themselves are very testament to the circle of life. Moss grows to the right of a stone, chlorophyll is like blood like fuel is to an engine to a electricity is to water.

 

[luke1733]

LAST PART

Then after this cell comes into existence, I can't emphasize enough that it literally just spontaneously bleeps itself and comes into existence --we are to believe it also hurries up and replicates a bunch of times to ensure its own survival before it dies.

How it knows about death and it just came into being by accident-the first life form ever on earth--who knows? That will never be known and don't think about that because obviously we aren’t to think about this at all. Just know that because it is a fact seen with your own eyes that many species are obviously related that all life from tree to elephant are all from one cell that spawned us all……..BY ACCIDENT!!!!

Then, this very pioneer, first of firsts and THE MOST important cell to all life suddenly is untraceable and disappears. Its original-life-all-encompassing self-somehow becomes extinct. Suddenly it disappears from its original cell structure and all of its abundant and ever evolving life creating ability is also to never be known of again or discovered by mankind again.

Something responsible for all life, with seemingly never ending mutating abilities and evolution structures that prior to its existence is unique as the GREATEST THING EVER TO Be-held or witnessed in all TIMES history just disappears and stops replicating its original cell structure..........but, wait.........it still leaves all its mutated offspring that are able to do what it couldn’t (which is continue to live) but yet it created and at one time was able to do but yet somehow lost its ability to survive and now its offspring somehow are more capable than this cell that prepared for life, death, and created everything was.

So, now of course someone will say we haven't discovered it yet. Yet, how could something this prevalent and responsible for everything we see in existence be so well hidden??? It's almost God-like. But, don't use that word cause God doesn't exist b/c you can't see him or prove it---kinda like the theory that so many believe in about this one cell that nobody knows what it is or where it came from or……….wait for it……….wait for it…………..we don’t know what it is, where it is, where it came from or IF IT EXISTS.

Amen

 

[whar]

"One cell is the cause of all life on earth."

This is almost certainly false. Life arose in a population of 'cells'. I use that term loosely since the first thing we would call alive would have been a very primitive organism compared to a cell found in a modern organism.

 

[luke1733]

whar, I am familiar with the gases and nitrogen and earth expanding to the point of allowing for carbon or hydrogen/basically gases, thus the ingredients for multiple cells to randomly be created (I know I'm summarizing what would take 2 paragraphs to explain), but I am not speaking on that. I am speaking on the theory of one cell starting all life theory,which is how a lot of evolutionists believed life began, then they covered themselves later by including what basically you are talking about (population of cells formed here on earth, and not invading earth as I was ridiculing earlier), and NOW again they are returning to one cell again.

Basically, the core of my argument has maintained that this type of evolution theory (I say this type, because I accept otherparts of evolution theory) depends on people accepting too many accidents: the accident that the earth cooled at the right time as the planets expanded, the accident that the stars formed, the accident of protons, neutrons and electrons combined at the right time to form neutral atoms, not to mention the singularity debate and all that stuff you talked already at length with in a former debate.

Those are alot of accidents when dealing with such a precise formula to create all the circumstances of life as we see it. Not mad at any scientist for discovering very factual information on many accounts of how things come together, but on that point on the origin of "life"; it's obvious I take issue (meaning I don't believe them) with the claim of atheist scientists empirical evidence claims they make on their certainty of knowledge on the subject.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

 

[whar]

The area that you are discussing is abiogenesis, the transition from chemistry into biology. Currently there is no accepted theory on this subject. Arguing that 'accidents' are the explanation is therefore flawed since no explanation yet exists. Based on what we do know, however, we can see that accidents will not be the pathway that life took to arise. Almost all the basic building blocks of a living cell, the macromolecules that make up its composition, arise naturally in the environment. In fact they have a tendency to arise from common chemical interaction in nature. The concept of a random grouping of atoms that fuse into a living cell is simply false.

Stars do not form by accident. This is known.

Atoms do not form by accident. This is known.

Life did not form by accident. This is currently assumed.

If you are instead driving at the special tuning in the universe to have rules that tend to produce atoms and stars then I would direct you to this quote by Douglas Adams.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.” -Adams

It should be no great surprise that we who have naturally arisen in a universe should find out how well suited that universe is to the things that naturally arise within it.

 

[luke1733]

No, I am right by saying accident and happening coincidentally at the right time. All you, not you but you keep including yourself in the atheist scientists that actually did work, are doing is describing the components of what makes a star, an atom.

Describing the conditions that have to exist for something to exist does not mean that the conditions set forth at a very specific time that states many things (I state things to avoid writing how much it takes for a human finger to develop or the conditions for soil to exist) happened within 20 years of each other is not by accident when you consider the numerous amounts of data listed that have to take place in an exact way to make for differing compositions from a star to an atom or whatever matter you speak of.

For example, if you go to many planets and just take from earth hydrogen and oxygen and combine them you won't get water in that planet's atmosphere unless you manipulate the formula in the midst of the atmosphere somehow. Why? Because hydrogen and oxygen combining to make water also depend on other factors within the atmosphere. That's how it's accident and that's how you explaining how something is constructed does not deal with what I stated the number of data for what you well know all had to exist within very short time spans to bring forth so much that is infinitely different and complex and dependent on it being.....unbelievably beyond chance. Even the scientists put it like 10 to the 2,680th power of happening (I'll retrieve the two quotes of this fraction if needed). Who are you?...

and I know water or ice is found on other planets, but I am making the point of how more atmospheric conditions are necessary than just the composition to form water. Basically, h2 O won't be on the sun, b/c of temperature

It's not that we know how rocks are formed or the chemistry makeup of another life form that is appealing. It is the number of exact conditions that everything has to be in for life to exist that is astounding. There is a lot of things coming together, to which you already know and have had told to you. Oh, I say by accident for atheists claim, b/c there's only two ways to go when considering the conditions for everything that have to be right at the right time and all serve a purpose. 1. it was by accident 2.it was on purpose.

Thus, to what spiritual people claim, if it was on purpose then you should have a problem with it.

Again, it's not that many things are composed of dna/rna or proteins that is going to make one say "oh, b/c this makes that, therefore God exists." No. No. That is not what is being said. What is being said is "you have over a million different complex forms of atoms, matter, life that all are unique in their own right.....and due to the complexity and differences of each it is unbelievable/accidental or purposeful that all this could all form to make an infinite number of complex materials that all are..........whatever man...I just got tired of writing. You get the point.

 

[whar]

Your post was hard to follow but I think this is the core of your argument.

" It is the number of exact conditions that everything has to be in for life to exist that is astounding. "

It is not that astounding when we look at the scope of the Galaxy though. There are an estimated 40,000,000,000 planets in habitable zone in the Milky Way. Add to that the fact that there are 170,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe and there is a tremendous space for rare events to occur. The 1x10^2680 number you mention is the chance that the life we observe on earth arose from multiple sources rather than one. It has nothing to do with the chance that life can arise. We have no idea how rare or common life is as we only have 3 planets that could have supported liquid water and a couple moons that might have liquid water. Hell even if we strike out on all places in our solar system we still have a 16% to 20% success rate for life to exist when liquid water exists based on that evidence.

We simply do not have sufficient evidence to predict how common life is outside the earth. We therefore have no means to judge how remarkable the presence of life is compared to the rest of the universe. If we are the only spot in the entire Universe where life exists then we have to address how that could be. If we find life in the oceans of Titan then we will go a long way to knowing that life is much more common and explore how it could arise so easily.

We are currently in the happy position that we simply need to learn more.

 

[luke1733]

Knowing what we know it stands Earth is the only planet with Life. That, alone, is astounding. To you it is not, but to probably everyone else, including astronomers and NASA (using billions of dollars is validation to the claim)looking at other planets it seems pretty unique. Even if we find other planets with life, it is still unique to the thousands of planets and stars that are known to not have life. It's not unique water exists/ur pond reference. If i see (i've explained this example too many times) water feed the soil that feeds the trees that feed the air to which all life needs and humans have and then see people building, diseases operating, electricity manufactured, photosynthesis performed etcetera than I have gone waaaay beyond the pond.....and anyone that can't recognize that basically wants to say nothing is unique or worth seeing as evidence that what we witness everyday could be a miracle.

You are now lying when you have said, contrary to my claim:" It is not that astounding when we look at the scope of the Galaxy though."

To this point, there's nothing astounding to most people about a rock or a planet with nothing on it. To my exact point vs the quote, to the 99.99% of normal people in the world if there's life found on another planet---THAT will by definition be Astounding. Now, take us looking at another planet with life and look in the mirror at what would be your facial expression and see the truth in your face that this earth, unique to all we now of 2015 know is astounding.

astounding-capable of overwhelming with amazement; stunningly surprising.

But, a difference of terms and opinions is just that

 

[luke1733]

To stay on point to the thread. Here is what is said (and I already posted) about life on Earth’s probabilities according to scientists/chemists.

N=R*fp*ne*fe*fi*fc*L

1. The "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis" has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes, said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.

But, based on the new analysis, the odds of that are "just astronomically enormous," he said. "The number's so big, it's kind of silly to say it"—1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

2. “If you take just the composition of an enzyme in the human component, which the enzyme is the building block of the gene, the gene is the building block of the cell: the possibility of the human enzyme coming together by random (says Vicram Singhi professor of applied mathematics of Cardan in Wales) is 1 and 10 to the power of 40,000. That’s more than the atoms of this Universe altogether

3. Basically, Thomas Huxley (whom I mentioned much in the earlier posts) was wrong.

4. The theory of spontaneous generation has been debunked and effectively disproven. (I am aware from your posts you do not subscribe to spontaneous generation but it is the method of which I was speaking toward and basing my claims in opposition to macro-evolution; or my other point to which you and the scientific term announces it as -abiogenesis)

Pasteur said:“Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.”

5. “At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life,” he said. “If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we’d suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed.”
http://www.universetoday.com/13741/the-odds-of-intelligent-life-in-the-universe/

paper published by a scientist from the University of East Anglia

Professor Andrew Watson,

"Watson’s model suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low — less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.

Each step is independent of the other and can only take place after the previous steps in the sequence have occurred. They tend to be evenly spaced through Earth’s history and this is consistent with some of the major transitions identified in the evolution of life on Earth."

Each step is to what I have been saying to you whar constantly about how many different steps independent of the other had to form and not only had to form but had to form while air exists, while an independent step of air somehow brought into existence an organism/cell that could then exist within the air-the air which did not create the organism; then from here a separate step of temperatures and the other steps. But, I hear you, these steps only seem complex b/c the person wants to acknowledge each step as complex. We can make a rock complex if we want to. You would probably say life is what happens when a+b meet and others want to make it complex or maybe it is all just terminology.

I understand your rationale. If a+b meet then c is nothing special, it is just what happens when a+b meet. I get that. I don't agree with it because to me I differ from you in that I see it as A+B+C+ the chinese alphabet+all the numbers to the googleplex times all the atoms of the universe met and formed and like Tetris or Jenga this had to happen to make LIFE on a planet. This is not me saying this but the exact scientists atheist evolutionist scientists have claimed and researched with all of their formulas and evidence. I'm using your own reference point WHAR to show you what they claim and what it says. They are not saying googleplex, but the numbers to the powers I've mentioned are (according to YOUR scientists claims) what they are.

That, without ever seeing God or talking to God or knowing if there is one; does make me believe that from this formulaic equation (that we now know has to exist; minus maybe the chinese alphabet/but seriously the carbon, the water, the distance from the sun, ability to mutate)for life to exist as we know it; it does make any intelligent person rationally look at it as DESIGNED when considering the odds.

Granted that person could be wrong, it is highly understandable and the most rational to see Life as against the odds of probability of what happens when this and that meet and that just happening to come together "by accident."

And you don't consider it accident, you say it is what happens when a+b meet. I say a+b is fine, but what we have here isn't a+b meeting to get c. It is a+b+ all the other stuff having to meet all precisely in order for just c to come into existence, not even accounting for that once you get past c, you must deal with the rest of the alphabet that has it's own equal equation that just so happens to come together. This is what debunks the a+b logic to me. So, therefore if it is not by accident and a+b cannot happen that many times in different ways on Earth that the rest of the entire universe as we know it shows us is a million times diverse in matter, in gases and life than any place we know of that exists. Hell, even if we find a place the same...then that will also be unique.

OKay, then if life on earth is not an accident (you said it wasn't) and probability (as you suggest it's just what happens) says life is not likely in a meeting of certain stimuli/gases/matter or aka a+b then there is only one option left: It was on purpose and it appears not random. Thus (like other guys post about the table being set,there's a lot here on planet Earth, way beyond a pond) if it is not by accident and is not random chance then this equation equals that no matter how much you think it is impractical, mathematically it is by this equation more likely logically to seem as though it might be designed--like it or not---or be it true or not the evidence of life speaks for the proof this is not by accident and way beyond the suggestion of probable chance. What it is, I don't know; but I don't rule out other theories since I obviously don't buy the one you and other scientists on abiogenesis and pieces of macroevolution suggest to be the the origin of LiFe.

That's when I say "what we're looking at and exist within is by definition to comparisons or lack of--a miracle,"and when we return to dust in the wind it still would've been. But, judging you from your comments; people like you think once you know how something is created it is no longer mysterious; or -just because people don't know how something is done doesn't qualify it as a miracle. So-be it. I know how a baby is made, but the fact female humans are the only one's to get pregnant in our species, it is still miraculous to think 23 chromosomes and one X and one Y, and the fluid sac and passing through the pussy between the anus and piss hole makes that shit amazing and even more interesting---not less.

Cells are much more interesting even under a microscope than a rock.

Even to a human an ant's civilization is quite peculiar.

My point is to any eye of any life, what we have here is worth seeing and it's not just my words based on me as a source.

R*fp*ne*fl*fc*L=between 1,000 and 100,000,00 is not right, but N = 7 × 0.4 × 10−11 × 10−9 × 0.1 × 304 = 8 x 10−20 probably is.

 

[whar]

The Drake equation you cite is for the number of intelligent civilization not just life. This is a vastly different number than those that produce life. Even using your pessimistic numbers, which are do not address the observable data we have on earth, the number of planets supporting life in the observable universe would be 680,000,000. Given that number you are dealing with almost 20 civilizations in the observable universe.

I do believe once we can explain something it stops being mysterious but that is based on the meaning of words. Something that is understood is no longer mysterious, however if you change your wording to amazing or remarkable then knowledge does not change this. In fact knowledge can enhance the wonder. I am continually amazed that all the stuff I see around me was forged in the heart of an ancient star.

In the case of birth does it matter that billions and billions of birth have happened in the past to make the next one any less a miracle? Does knowledge of the baby's gender, thereby reducing the mystery, makes the event less amazing? The frequency of an event does not diminish how amazing the event is. Right now in the empty space between you and your computer screen tiny bits of matter and anti-matter are winking into existence and obliterating each other. This happens in every corner of the universe. It is going on inside you right now. I think that is spectacularly amazing! It is also the single most common event in the entire universe! I do not see rarity as adding to the wonder of a thing.

 

[luke1733]

fair enough for 99% of what you just wrote. As for the intelligent life that is correct on that equation, but the fact I also cite is that NO life (not just intelligent life as the drake suggests, but beyond that equation the fact is that NO life) has been found outside of Earth, none at all. Does it make it special? We just differ on me saying yes and you no.

On another note, I do believe life exists outside of Earth (iam way beyond skeptical on if there's been any contact with that life; meaning I don't believe it)and it hasn't been found yet and there is no proof of that either, but logic as with God makes me see that too as being plausible.