[_ Old Earth _] Evolution: Possible or Impossible?

[Spiffy]

Maybe I should have put this in a book discussion, but the point of this post is pro creationism and the impossible likelyhood of any sort of evolution. This excerpt is from James F. Coppedge's book, "Evolution: Possible or Impossible?", it's so awesome. He was a scientist and had 5 PHD's and created a mathematical formula to figure out the impossibility of evolution (has anyone else read this book?).

Now using Coppedge's figures, let's take a look at the time it would take for one simple gene to arrange itself by chance. Remember, natural selection cannot operate until a self-replicating system is produced. Of course, this gene by itself is still only a dead molecule in the absence of other genes and other complex chemicals all perfectly arranged in time and space. Nevertheless, let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10 (to the 147th power) years to obtain just one stable gene. What does this number really mean? Let's look at Coppedge's example; assume we have an amoebaâ€â€and let's assume that this little creature is given the task of carrying matter, one atom at a time from one edge of the universe to the other (though to be about thirty billion light years in diameter). Let's further assume that this amoeba moves at the incredible slow pace of one Angstrom until (about the diameter of a hydrogen atom) every fifteen billion years (this is the assumed age of the universe assigned by many evolutionists). How much matter could this amoeba carry in this time calculated to arrange just one usable gene by chance? The answer is that he would be able to carry 2 x 10 (to the 21st power) complete universes!

This means that all the people living on earth, man, woman and child, counting day and night, would be counting for five thousand years just to count the number of entire universes which this amoeba would have transported across a distance of thirty billion light years, one atom at a time.

 

[John]

Round 2 :rolling

I have calmed down a lot so i will not be fighting like i did in the other evolution thread. :halo

 

[John]

Maybe I should have put this in a book discussion, but the point of this post is pro creationism and the impossible likelyhood of any sort of evolution.

Evolution does happen but it has limits.

This excerpt is from James F. Coppedge's book, "Evolution: Possible or Impossible?", it's so awesome. He was a scientist and had 5 PHD's and created a mathematical formula to figure out the impossibility of evolution (has anyone else read this book?).

I have not read this book yet but i plan to.

I think you would like Dr. David Berlinski

Now using Coppedge's figures, let's take a look at the time it would take for one simple gene to arrange itself by chance. Remember, natural selection cannot operate until a self-replicating system is produced. Of course, this gene by itself is still only a dead molecule in the absence of other genes and other complex chemicals all perfectly arranged in time and space. Nevertheless, let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10 (to the 147th power) years to obtain just one stable gene. What does this number really mean? Let's look at Coppedge's example; assume we have an amoebaâ€â€and let's assume that this little creature is given the task of carrying matter, one atom at a time from one edge of the universe to the other (though to be about thirty billion light years in diameter). Let's further assume that this amoeba moves at the incredible slow pace of one Angstrom until (about the diameter of a hydrogen atom) every fifteen billion years (this is the assumed age of the universe assigned by many evolutionists). How much matter could this amoeba carry in this time calculated to arrange just one usable gene by chance? The answer is that he would be able to carry 2 x 10 (to the 21st power) complete universes!

This means that all the people living on earth, man, woman and child, counting day and night, would be counting for five thousand years just to count the number of entire universes which this amoeba would have transported across a distance of thirty billion light years, one atom at a time.

Life cannot come from non life. we have only mere hypothesis bent in favor of life from non life but there is nothing concrete. Evolution has nothing to do with Abiogenesis even though life would have to arise for evolution to take hold so this is why the race is on to find supporting evidence for Abigenesis.

But lets just say for discussion that a simple celled organism managed against all odds to arise say near a deep sea vent, how long would this cell have to endure its hostile environment to divide itself and then over time change? How did the information in this first simple cell arise? (the information to divide, to support itself etc.) The cell did not have parents so nothing was passed on.

 

[Spiffy]

I agree with your perspective John.

I might add that Mars and the moon are just as old as the earth and due to our studies we know there is not life on either one. Atoms would have aligned themselves such that life evolved, but that did not happen. The atoms could have overcome any obstacles and created life, but that didn't happen either.

The earth is in such a position from the sun that the water molecules are at triple point ie: liquid, solid and gas, if the earth was even 1/100th AU (astronomical unit) closer to the sun or 1/100th of an AU farther away from the sun this would not be the case. The position of the earth is not random.

Coppedge's forumla pretty much sums it up.

 

[lordkalvan]

Not only is Coppedge's work some three decades out-of-date and thus wholly ignorant of current abiogenesis research focussing on metabolism-first theories for the origins of life (see the work carried out by, amongst others, Robert Shapiro), theories which render Coppedge's calculations entirely redundant, but it is also the case that Coppedge's number-crunching is founded on several bogus assumptions. For example, Coppedge uses Dr Harold Morowitz's 1969 work for deciding what will be the life whose chances of origin he is calculating, i.e. a quite complex DNA-based genome made up of 239 proteins with around 400 amino acids per protein. Current theories centre on the above-mentioned metabolism-first molecule and RNA rather than DNA replicators. Coppedge assumes that only one combination of amino acids will 'work' when calculating his odds, that only 20 amino acids are required (and all of those as well), and that only a certain set of randomly-formed proteins are 'usable'. He also, for example, calculates the astronomical odds against proinsulin forming by assuming that proinsulin must have formed whole and complete. As there are so many invalid assumptions underlying Coppedge's calculations, these calculations are largely worthless.

 

[Spiffy]

So you're saying you don't believe in creation or you don't believe Coppedge's argument. If you don't believe in creationism, then why is there not life on the moon and mars, why is it that the earth is positioned exactly in the precise position that water exists in triple point?

It's an incredible chance that life evolved....there is a better chance at winning the 25 million $ lotto.

 

[John]

Actually Spiffy its like winning every lottery every time all around the world and getting struck by lightning everyday and living :rolling


People that view the world and the universe with an evolutionary perspective have no problem putting faith in extraterrestrial life forms and spending millions to send probes to find out what we already know...that life cannot spring forth from non life.

If life can come from non life i would become an atheist or agnostic because if life can arise form non life God is out of a job. :shades

 

[Spiffy]

Actually Spiffy its like winning every lottery every time all around the world and getting struck by lightning everyday and living :rolling


People that view the world and the universe with an evolutionary perspective have no problem putting faith in extraterrestrial life forms and spending millions to send probes to find out what we already know...that life cannot spring forth from non life.

If life can come from non life i would become an atheist or agnostic because if life can arise form non life God is out of a job. :shades

You're hilarious John.

Yeah, no kidding, we've spent millions and millions of $'s, on a continous basis and each time the findings are consistent - nothing.

What gets me is ignoring the creation story of Genesis, but yet believe everything else that was written in the Bible. Nothing like taking what you want and leaving the rest.

 

[John]

Its called "cherry picking"

If the Bible contradicts your world view you either deny it, attempt to alter it to agree with your world view or ignore it all together. Take for example the GAP Theory, this rubbish says that there was billions of years between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to allow room for evolution another example is that Genesis was not meant to be taken literally because "science" today tells us otherwise the funny thing is that "science" also tells us that a virgin can't give birth and that Jesus could not rise from the dead yet we as Christians all believe it, it fact it is the core of our belief. Funny thing isn't it. ;)

 

[lordkalvan]

So you're saying you don't believe in creation or you don't believe Coppedge's argument.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Also, what do you mean by 'creation'? If you mean a literal, six 24-hour day creation then my answer would be no.

If you don't believe in creationism, then why is there not life on the moon and mars, why is it that the earth is positioned exactly in the precise position that water exists in triple point?

We do not know for certain that there is not life on Mars. There may be life on the Moon that we have not yet detected, although I personally doubt it. It is also absurd to postulate that even if there is no life on Mars and the Moon, this is in some way confirmation that life is special to Earth. If Earth was not situated at a distance from the Sun that allows it to support us, then we would not be here to discuss the matter. Your argument has no logical force and is just the anthropic principle restated in a slightly different way. Astronomers have already detected planets orbiting other stars at the so-called 'Goldilocks' distance:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070424_hab_exoplanet.html

It's an incredible chance that life evolved....there is a better chance at winning the 25 million $ lotto.

It's a big Universe. It's actually a monstrously huge galaxy too. If the odds of life evolving in our Galaxy are several times worse than your chance of winning the $25 million lotto (assuming you buy a ticket), there still must be several planets with life in our Galaxy. And it remains the case that neither of us can assign a probability to the chance of life evolving that has any meaningful value.

 

[Spiffy]

You tell me "Your argument has no logical force" and you believe that nothing came from nothing? Now that sounds extremely illogical to me. Let's see...we watch nothing for millions of years and oh, look....it turns into NOTHING......then we watch the nothing again and another million years goes by and NO WAY.....there's still nothing. Yeah, that's pretty logical to me.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

You tell me "Your argument has no logical force" and you believe that nothing came from nothing? Now that sounds extremely illogical to me. Let's see...we watch nothing for millions of years and oh, look....it turns into NOTHING......then we watch the nothing again and another million years goes by and NO WAY.....there's still nothing. Yeah, that's pretty logical to me.

Wether or not you believe "nothing can't make anything" is beside the point of evolution.

Evolution does not teach that in any shape or form. Evolution deals with how life adapts and changes over time due to environmental changes.

 

[John]

Evolution = Decent with modification of first life.
Abiogenesis = Arrival of first life.

 

[Spiffy]

Debating this topic isn't going to change anyone's mind...I believe the Bible is divine in its entirety and no one will convince me otherwise. The only tool I have to use is the Bible and if a person doesn't believe the truth of it, then using scripture to defend my case would be useless.

 

[Gabe]

Debating this topic isn't going to change anyone's mind...I believe the Bible is divine in its entirety and no one will convince me otherwise. The only tool I have to use is the Bible and if a person doesn't believe the truth of it, then using scripture to defend my case would be useless.

Please note that Its not the Holy Bible or its divinity which is being discussed, but the book "Evolution: Possible or Impossible?" and James F. Coppedge's mathematical formula.

 

[lordkalvan]

You tell me "Your argument has no logical force" and you believe that nothing came from nothing? Now that sounds extremely illogical to me.

Whether my argument is illogical or not is irrelevant as to whether yours does or does not have logical force (by the way, I have not argued at all that 'nothing came from nothing').

The argument you have advanced concerning Earth's 'Goldilocks' orbital position and the development on it of life as we know it is, as I said before, no better than the anthropic principle restated in a slightly different form and pretty much an argument from personal incredulity. We exist on Earth, therefore Earth must be capable of generating and supporting the sort of life we are familiar with, but this is neither evidence for nor against how that life may have come about. However small the number of planets there may be in the Universe that are capable of supporting life as we know it, we must inevitably be on one of those planets or else we wouldn't be discussing the subject here and now.

Let's see...we watch nothing for millions of years and oh, look....it turns into NOTHING......then we watch the nothing again and another million years goes by and NO WAY.....there's still nothing. Yeah, that's pretty logical to me.

Your timescale seems to be a little wild. Who's been watching what for millions of years? What turns into nothing? In the few years that astronomers have been searching for evidence of extra-terrestrial water and planets in the Goldilocks zones of other stars, such extraterrestrial water and planets have already been discovered. Your argument again appears to lack logical force.

 

[lordkalvan]

Debating this topic isn't going to change anyone's mind...I believe the Bible is divine in its entirety and no one will convince me otherwise. The only tool I have to use is the Bible and if a person doesn't believe the truth of it, then using scripture to defend my case would be useless.

It is entirely possible for the Bible to be the divinely inspired work of imperfect human beings without necessarily expecting that it be literally true as a consequence.

 

[lordkalvan]

Debating this topic isn't going to change anyone's mind...I believe the Bible is divine in its entirety and no one will convince me otherwise. The only tool I have to use is the Bible and if a person doesn't believe the truth of it, then using scripture to defend my case would be useless.

Please note that Its not the Holy Bible or its divinity which is being discussed, but the book "Evolution: Possible or Impossible?" and James F. Coppedge's mathematical formula.

I agree. Coppedge's flawed work adds virtually nothing to our understanding of the likelihood or otherwise of the birh of the first life on Earth.

 

[Spiffy]

Science has NEVER shown that mutations have transformed into anything other then themselves, in spite of numerous studies. Humans breed humans. It would be like taking a tsunami and turning it into a submarine. A bird turning into a helicopter. A flower turning into an elephant. Other scientists have also created formulas, such as Coppledge's, and they all say the probablity of evolution is nil.

From one cell, compound, chemical, however you believe life to begin, will never be able to explain the vast differences in creation itself.

On a side note, all of your points could have been expressed in about a 4 sentence concised paragraph as most of it was repeating itself anyway......sometimes less is better.

 

[John]

Science has NEVER shown that mutations have transformed into anything other then themselves, in spite of numerous studies. Humans breed humans

:yes