Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

15 questions for evolutionists.

errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 4:03:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
These are tough.

http://creation.com...

If you wish to answer a question, I would recommend you read the attached links before you do.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 4:11:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 4:03:39 PM, errya wrote:
These are tough.

http://creation.com...

If you wish to answer a question, I would recommend you read the attached links before you do.

Do you know what a Gish Gallop is?

Further, the first question isn't a question for "evolutionists". Abiogenesis, and the theories thereof, are not part of evolution.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 4:38:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And now, having read them all, I see that you have done no critical thinking of your own.

I'm not going to do your googling for you: every single one of the things in this list has been answered multiple places multiple times.

Heck, even Yahoo answers of all places has multiple threads on this.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 4:52:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
First question is irrelevant to evolution. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 5:05:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 4:03:39 PM, errya wrote:
These are tough.

http://creation.com...

If you wish to answer a question, I would recommend you read the attached links before you do.

"How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, "Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell."1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, "we don"t really know how life originated on this planet".2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? "

A couple of professors are not an authority on the entire biological scientific community. Despite whatever school at which those professors teach, clearly, neither of them even have a doctorates.

In any case, it's not as inconceivable as it was once believed that a bunch of precursors to life began exhibiting signs of life when it close proximity. Scientists have been able to so much as put together a few base elements in a dish, which began exhibiting signs of life all by themselves without so much as a genetic code.

Other scientists have been able to sequence amino acids to write entire genomes, then inject them into dead cells, which sprung to life and reflected that genetic coding. Life is no longer as mysterious as it once was, leaving much less room for people to make silly claims like, "well, science can't explain it, so clearly God did it."
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 5:08:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters"just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? "

This is a misinterpretation of the nature of matter as it relates to life. Life is not some special state that requires something specific, like a genetic code, in order to evidence itself. Life is a natural potential state in all elements, they just require the right elements in the right proportion. With all elements present, the right proportion is inevitable after enough time, and according to current scientific theory, this planet was around for a good few hundred thousand, or even a few million years (I don't remember), before life manifested. That means that even if the chances that the right elements in the right proportions would meet and spring to life were one in a million, it was still inevitable.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 5:10:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"How could mutations"accidental copying mistakes (DNA "letters" exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)"create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use"much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make "goo-to-you" evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a "postman" delivering parcels inside cells) originate? See:"

This is a misinterpretation of the development of life. Those mutations do not cause development or further complexities. They only cause chances. Other developments and complexities happen in other ways, such as an increase in physical size due to dietary changes or an alteration in sensory development due to environmental changes. An organism influences its own DNA over time about as much as mutations do.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 5:11:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as "evolution", as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? "

Well, I agree. Natural selection is not evolution, and it is not an explanation for the origin, nor the diversity of life. However, that does not prove "God did it" as opposed to actual prevailing scientific theories.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 5:16:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, "we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

Biological cooperation. It's the story of mitochondria as they relate to cells. Indeed, Charles Darwin himself was not so dogmatic a "Darwinist" as some who subscribe to his theories seem to be, as he considered biological cooperation to be a more significant influence on evolution than even Natural Selection. He complained about that to a colleague in a letter once, which has since been published.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 5:17:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?"

Actual knowledge and the empirical exploration of that knowledge, rather than conjecturalizing, which is what this question is doing.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 5:18:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival "learn" to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? "

That's a strange question, because it should be readily evident even to those who have taken a high school biology course. Even today, all life on this planet begins as a single-celled organism that eventually learns to cooperate and specialize throughout its life.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 5:19:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success ("fitness") for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected?"

Well, how sex originated in general is a pretty good question, but in terms of reproductive success, genetic variation yields far more success than genetic replication.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 5:20:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?"

Even down to the "Missing Link" itself, they no longer are. This question is simply dated.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 5:22:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"How do "living fossils" remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?"

Wow, worms into humans? Despite this egregious falsification of evolutionary theory, "living fossils" have usually changed enormously, usually in terms of size, given the different environment the earth exhibits. They're considered "living fossils" because they remain generally the same species, not generally unchanged.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 5:22:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?"

It didn't. Sentience was required first.
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 6:11:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 4:11:39 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/20/2013 4:03:39 PM, errya wrote:
These are tough.

http://creation.com...

If you wish to answer a question, I would recommend you read the attached links before you do.

Do you know what a Gish Gallop is?

No.

Further, the first question isn't a question for "evolutionists". Abiogenesis, and the theories thereof, are not part of evolution.

Not directly, but evolution requires life to evolve from, so an origin of life is needed.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 6:13:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. False. No modern theory of abiogenesis argues for aminos first, the link only cites Miller Urey which was discarded long ago. The first living organism need only some form of replicator and some form of barrier. We already know how naturally occurring vesicles could lead to the exterior of a proto-cell (http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org...).

2. "The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters"

False. Syntax is not intrinsic to physics.Any type of content/semantics is a result of observer-relative processes (http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca...).

The question is how certain molecules chemically interacted with other to form and continue life. At no point did some set of semantics/syntax arise out of the biology.

3. Deceptive question. Asking how there can be the addition of information to a genome is not the same as asking for an explanation of irreducibly complex structures like a flagella.

"Gene duplications have no observed evidence of being beneficial"

False. http://www.news.illinois.edu...

4. Misleading. No one thinks natural selection actively "selects" or has any kind of "creative" power. Natural selection occurs as a result of differential reproduction and limited resources.

5. "Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, "we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations"

False or a quote-mine. We have observed a new digestive ability through evolution of nylonase (http://www.talkorigins.org...) . There are known reconstructions showing stet-by-step evolution of different biochemical pathways from a common ancestor (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org...).

6. "The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design"

Creationists have yet to intelligibly give a mechanism for "identifying intelligent design" in biological systems without inappropriate resort to metaphors.

For instance, we know arrowheads were made by native americans and we know pots where made as well. We've seen car engines made by people as well as batteries from scrap metal. So to point to such a thing and say "look, that must be designed" is simply saying "We have seen x designed, and now that we encounter x it is probably designed."

We have never seen a biological system intelligently designed. All we've got is people saying "well, we've seen a CAR motor intelligently designed, car motors move objects forward, and that ATP biochemical structure moves flagella forward, therefore the ATP biochemical structures is designed."

7. Moronic grasp of evolutionary theory. Ignores well know phenomena.

http://www.nature.com...

8. Well known explanations exist such as Matt Ridley's Red Queen. http://www.pbs.org.... Division into a limited number of sexes was a result of mitochondrial transfer being inefficient in pregnancy when coming from more than one source (the mitochondria "fight" with each other). See Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life.

9. Where are countless millions of transitional fossils?

Quoting Gould to support Creationist arguments is like quoting Hitler to support tolerance towards Jews. He was giving an account of punctuated equilibrium.

Personally, I'm surprised we've found as many fossils as we found. Even ignoring how rare a fossilization, you're ignoring the fossil hunters are bit like treasure hunters who don't have a map.

10. How do living fossils remain unchanged?

Genetically, living fossils are quite different from their "fossil" common ancestor. However, phenotypic change necessitates selection pressures which will dominate natural genetic drift and other "noise" creating factors.

For instance, many species of sharks are considered living fossils. They remain the way they are because they have adapted to an environment which has no changed substantially enough to drive natural selection.

11. Three questions in one.

First, property dualism means there is no contradiction between an emergent account of consciousness from increasingly complex biological processes and a naturalistically based world.

Second, the burden is on the writer for why evolution needs to provide an account of "meaning" anymore than an account of "mathematics."

Third, consciousness did not come in one big jump. There are differing levels of mental ability, and dogs, birds, and even octupi have the neurological correlates needed to produce phenomenological experience and self-awareness (http://io9.com...). Therefore the "ex nihilo" claim is misleading.

12. "Just so" stories are a rife problem in evolutionary psychology. However, Skell was referring specifically to Evo Psych (I don't see him doing otherwise). Namely, Evo Psychs go from an assumption of universalized behavior to the assumption of a genetic basis.

I don't plan to defend Evo Psych. It grounds itself in some cognitive science, but immediately goes off the rails when it comes to complex behavoir in humans.

13. False. http://en.wikipedia.org...

14. Ignores that Evolutionary Theory is falsifiable through experimentation, thus subject to the scientific method.

For instance, if it were in any way shown life on earth/the universe has been around for, say, just 10,000 years, then it is naturalistically impossible for common descent to be true.

15. Rhetorical question.
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 6:15:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 4:38:43 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
And now, having read them all, I see that you have done no critical thinking of your own.

I'm not going to do your googling for you: every single one of the things in this list has been answered multiple places multiple times.

Heck, even Yahoo answers of all places has multiple threads on this.

Well, then answer one of the questions. That is what this thread is for.

Also, it is quite arrogant to assume that just because a refutation has been posted, it has answered the question. I mean, you haven't even heard their reply to your refutation. In fact, there may be one, on a different article on the website.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 6:15:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 4:52:38 PM, phantom wrote:
First question is irrelevant to evolution. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

See above reply.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 6:30:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 5:05:26 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/20/2013 4:03:39 PM, errya wrote:
These are tough.

http://creation.com...

If you wish to answer a question, I would recommend you read the attached links before you do.

"How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, "Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell."1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, "we don"t really know how life originated on this planet".2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? "

A couple of professors are not an authority on the entire biological scientific community. Despite whatever school at which those professors teach, clearly, neither of them even have a doctorates.

1. The argument itself is not effected by those who endorse it.

2. The question shown on this page is just a summary, if you want to hear the details, click on the links underneath the question.

3. Must a professor have a doctorate to me considered legitimate?

4. The word of the professors is meant to endorse the arguments, not be the argument.

In any case, it's not as inconceivable as it was once believed that a bunch of precursors to life began exhibiting signs of life when it close proximity. Scientists have been able to so much as put together a few base elements in a dish, which began exhibiting signs of life all by themselves without so much as a genetic code.

What exactly were the signs of life? And why should I take you at your word?

Other scientists have been able to sequence amino acids to write entire genomes, then inject them into dead cells, which sprung to life and reflected that genetic coding.

Done by the scientists. Who have intelligence.

Life is no longer as mysterious as it once was, leaving much less room for people to make silly claims like, "well, science can't explain it, so clearly God did it."

Who gave you the power to determine what is silly and what is not?
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 6:32:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 5:11:42 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
"Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as "evolution", as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? "

Well, I agree. Natural selection is not evolution, and it is not an explanation for the origin, nor the diversity of life. However, that does not prove "God did it" as opposed to actual prevailing scientific theories.

Then why is it taught as evolution?
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 6:41:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 6:32:16 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/20/2013 5:11:42 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
"Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as "evolution", as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? "

Well, I agree. Natural selection is not evolution, and it is not an explanation for the origin, nor the diversity of life. However, that does not prove "God did it" as opposed to actual prevailing scientific theories.

Then why is it taught as evolution?

Natural selection is not evolution in the same way flour is not a cake.
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 6:50:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 5:08:20 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
"How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters"just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? "

This is a misinterpretation of the nature of matter as it relates to life. Life is not some special state that requires something specific, like a genetic code, in order to evidence itself.

So what you are saying is that life does not need anything to specify what it is, it can just "be". Where is your evidence for such an outrageous claim? As far as I am aware, all self replicating organisms have a DNA code. What makes you think that life doesn't need specifications? Also, DNA is required for evolution to progress. No DNA, no evolution. But without evolution how can DNA arise?


Life is a natural potential state in all elements, they just require the right elements in the right proportion. With all elements present, the right proportion is inevitable after enough time, and according to current scientific theory, this planet was around for a good few hundred thousand, or even a few million years (I don't remember), before life manifested. That means that even if the chances that the right elements in the right proportions would meet and spring to life were one in a million, it was still inevitable.


Well, Franz, I'm sorry to tell you, but the probability of life forming from a combination of all the right ingredients is along the lines 1 x 10 to the power of 80.
A billion years is but a grain of sand compared to that.

It's good that you realize that an origin of life is needed for evolution to function though.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 7:05:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 5:10:24 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
"How could mutations"accidental copying mistakes (DNA "letters" exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)"create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use"much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make "goo-to-you" evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a "postman" delivering parcels inside cells) originate? See:"

This is a misinterpretation of the development of life. Those mutations do not cause development or further complexities. They only cause chances. Other developments and complexities happen in other ways, such as an increase in physical size due to dietary changes or an alteration in sensory development due to environmental changes. An organism influences its own DNA over time about as much as mutations do.

If, the environment changes, and I have to start using my body more, it doesn't mean my baby will look like a bodybuilder. This is simple stuff. Organisms can't influence their own DNA.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 7:08:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 5:16:19 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
"How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, "we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

Biological cooperation. It's the story of mitochondria as they relate to cells. Indeed, Charles Darwin himself was not so dogmatic a "Darwinist" as some who subscribe to his theories seem to be, as he considered biological cooperation to be a more significant influence on evolution than even Natural Selection. He complained about that to a colleague in a letter once, which has since been published.

You haven't really explained anything here. I tried searching up biological cooperation and mitochondria on Google but found nothing helpful.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 7:10:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Evolution doesn't need to explain where life came from for the reason reason the rulebooks for card games don't need to explain where decks of cards come from.
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 7:12:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 5:17:46 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
"Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?"

Actual knowledge and the empirical exploration of that knowledge, rather than conjecturalizing, which is what this question is doing.

How is this done with not enough information? Something looks designed. Therefore, we can safely assume it is designed. Perhaps, there is an alternative, but it is still a valid conclusion.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 7:13:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 5:18:57 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
"How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival "learn" to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? "

That's a strange question, because it should be readily evident even to those who have taken a high school biology course. Even today, all life on this planet begins as a single-celled organism that eventually learns to cooperate and specialize throughout its life.

How?
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 7:18:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 5:19:55 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
"How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success ("fitness") for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected?"

Well, how sex originated in general is a pretty good question, but in terms of reproductive success, genetic variation yields far more success than genetic replication.

pretty good question

That's a forfeit.

And while it is true that genetic variation is better, the sheer numbers produced from asexual reproduction more than make up for it.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...