Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
However, every day we see in humans, cows, pigs, chickens and everywhere else we look organisms faithfully reproduce themselves with progeny like themselves.
Exactly like themselves? Really?
Okay, thanks for the insults. Wanted to give a chance to back up your statements by refuting something I said. Your declining to do so and insulting me shows that I am correct.
Absolutely wrong. If you follow evolutionist logic you destroy any kind of rational inquiry into the natural world. Science and ID postulate that nature is knowable, that it has rules, that it is ordered. Evolution postulates the opposite, that change occurs at random without cause, without reason. It is the evolutionist stance which is both irrational and unscientific. It is because of the unscientific postulates of evolution that with each new scientific discovery the theory is disproved and has to be re-written.
You read it and post the strongest proof of evolution on this thread if you like and we will discuss it. However, let me tell you that speciation is not evolution. Only when you have a new more complex species arising from a less complex one do you have evolution. This is necessary because to get from a single celled bacteria to man you need increased complexity.
Don't be ridiculous. DNA does not arrange itself. In fact, no DNA has ever been found to occur except in living species. No experiment has ever been able to show that it can arise by natural means.
Looking a posteriori, it's 1 in 1 by definition, regardless of the a priori odds.
From the TrueOrigins.org website, a rebuttal to the TalkOrigins article: Here
For those who don't wish to go there, here's the rebuttal:
As for the “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ (the reading of which is encouraged by this writer), after one goes to the trouble of digesting all the preliminary verbiage, all the “speciation” examples given fall into one of two categories:
“new” species that are “new” to man, but whose “newness” remains equivocal in light of observed genetic “variation” vs. genetic “change” (as discussed above), and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.
“new” species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new “species” remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.
In neither of the above examples cited by Isaak was the natural (i.e., unaided) generation of a new species accomplished or observed, in which an unequivocally “new” trait was obtained (i.e., new genetic information created) and carried forward within a population of organisms. In other words, these are not examples of macro-evolutionary speciation—they are examples of human discovery and/or genetic manipulation and/or natural genetic recombination. They serve to confirm the observable nature of genetic variation, while saying absolutely nothing in support of Darwinian “macro-evolution,” which postulates not just variations within a type of organism but the emergence of entirely new organisms.
Definitions of “species” and (therefore) “speciation” remain many and varied, and by most modern definitions, certain changes within organism populations do indeed qualify as “speciation events”—yet even after many decades of study, there remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened or could happen.
Hope this helps to clear-up your confusion.
As for the “Observed Instances of Speciation” FAQ (the reading of which is encouraged by this writer), after one goes to the trouble of digesting all the preliminary verbiage, all the “speciation” examples given fall into one of two categories:Translation so far: We have two kinds of lawyerly "outs," one of which should work for dismissing any evidence likely to ever be presented.
“new” species that are “new” to man, but whose “newness” remains equivocal in light of observed genetic “variation” vs. genetic “change” (as discussed above), and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.Translation: We can either say "It's not all that different" or "Maybe it's not all that new." If we can't say those things because the speciation was induced in something like a lab setting right before human eyes ...
“new” species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new “species” remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.... we say "It shows 'design,' not nature!" Tah-dah!
Creationists make an empty show of demanding evidence which they openly admit that they will dismiss by one cheap rhetorical gimmick or another. This is not science, not a contribution to human knowledge, only a catalog of cheap tricks for unlearning and dismissing what has been tediously built up through decades of work and research by others. Creationists are Luddites.
When all of these factors occur together, they create a region of space that Gonzalez calls a "Galactic Habitable Zone." Gonzalez believes every form of life on our planet - from the simplest bacteria to the most complex animal - owes its existence to the balance of these unique conditions.
Because of this, states Gonzalez, "I believe both simple life and complex life are very rare, but complex life, like us, is probably unique in the observable Universe."
A carbon-12 nucleus is made from the near-simultaneous collision of three of these helium-4 nuclei [within stars]. Actually, what happens is that two helium-4 nuclei merge to make beryllium-8 [G1], but beryllium-8 is so unstable that it lasts only 10^-17 of a second, and so a third alpha particle (which is what a helium nucleus is) must collide and fuse with the beryllium nucleus within that time. Not only is this triple encounter a relatively unlikely event, but any such unstable beryllium nuclei ought to be smashed apart in the process. Therefore, it should be expected that carbon itself (and consequently all heavier elements) would be rare in the Universe.
However, the efficiencies of nuclear reactions vary as a function of energy, and at certain critical levels a reaction rate can increase sharply - this is called resonance. It just so happens that there is a resonance in the three-helium reaction at the precise thermal energy corresponding to the core of a star...
So if there was another resonance at work here all the carbon would be quickly processed into oxygen, making carbon very rare again. In fact, it turns out that there is an excited state of oxygen-16 that almost allows a resonant reaction, but it is too low by just 1%. It is shifted just far enough away from the critical energy to leave enough life-giving quantities of carbon untouched.
Strong Nuclear Force.
If the strong force had actually been just 13% stronger, all of the free protons would have combined into helium-2 at an early stage of the Big Bang, and decay almost immediately into deuterons. Then pairs of deuterons would readily fuse to become helium-4, leaving no hydrogen in the Universe, and so no water, and no hydrocarbons…
An increase in the strong force of just 9% would have made the dineutron possible. On the other hand a decrease of about 31% would be sufficient to make the deuteron unstable, and so remove an essential step in the chain of nucleosynthesis: the Universe would contain nothing but hydrogen, and again life would be impossible.
Supernovae.
This ejection of rich material into space is carried by an enormous flux of neutrinos generated in the explosion. The neutrino is normally such a ghostly particle that it could pass right through many light-years of solid lead, unaffected. In blasting apart a supernova, its precise interactivity (or lack of it) is such that it should have enough time to reach the stellar envelope before dumping its energy and momentum, but not so much time that it should escape. This property is partly a function of the weak force in a complex relationship which must be just as we observe it, to one part in a thousand. If the star's matter was not so effectively redistributed, it would simply collect about the dead star or fall back. It would not be available for new stars to make planets capable of bearing life. A universe without our particular kind of neutrinos would be a dead universe.
Gravity.
The forces show a very wide spread of strengths, which our Universe depends on to greater or lesser degrees. Suppose gravity was stronger, by a factor of 10^10. This seems quite a lot, but it would still be the weakest force, just 10^-28 of the strength of electromagnetism. The result would be that not as many atoms would be needed in a star to crush its core to make a nuclear furnace. Stars in this high-gravity universe would have the mass of a small planet in our Universe, being about 2km in diameter. They would have far less nuclear fuel as a result, and would use it all up in about one year. Needless to say, it is unlikely that any life would evolve or survive long under such conditions.
Make gravity substantially weaker on the other hand, the gas clouds of hydrogen and helium left after the Big Bang would never manage to collapse in an expanding universe, once again leaving no opportunity for life to emerge.
Water.
These and other odd features of water are a consequence of the hydrogen bond - the attraction of the electron-rich oxygen atoms of water molecules for the electron-starved hydrogen atoms of other water molecules. This in turn is a function of the precise properties of the oxygen and hydrogen atoms, which also determines the H-O-H bond angle of 104.5 degrees - only slightly less than the ideal tetrahedral angle of 109.5 degrees. It is (incidentally) the hydrogen bond which holds together the two strands of DNA.
It is also the hydrogen bond which is responsible for the crystalline structure of ice, which is in the form of an open lattice: this makes ice less dense than the liquid. As a result, ice floats. If ice was denser than its liquid form (as is the case with most other substances) then it would collect at the bottom of lakes and oceans, and eventually build up until the world was frozen solid. As it is, it forms a thin insulating sheet which prevents evaporation and keeps the waters below warm.
Dimensionality. One consequence of having a three-dimensional space is the inverse square law of forces. In particular, only in such a space are stable planetary orbits possible: more or fewer dimensions introduce instability. By a series of complex arguments it can also be shown that stable atoms and chemistry also require three dimensions of space, and the distortion-free propagation of any wave-based signal also requires exactly three dimensions of space.
Flatness of the Universe.
The Universe has been expanding for 15 billion years at a rate fantastically close to a knife-edge line between recollapse and ultimate dispersion. Even at this point in time we can not tell for sure which side of the line we are on: whether Big Crunch or Heat Death is the ultimate fate of the Universe. It is lucky for us that the Universe is flat in this way since the tiniest deviation from its initial value (which must have been exact to one part in 10^35) would have led to a rapid Big Crunch or cosmic dissipation. And, as usual, no life.
Proton-Neutron Mass Difference.
The difference in mass between a proton and a neutron is only a little greater than the mass of the relatively tiny electron (which has about 1/1833 the mass of a proton). Calculations of relative particle abundances following the first second of the Big Bang, using Boltzmann's statistical theorem, show that neutrons should make up about 10% of the total particle content of the Universe. This is sensitive to the proton:neutron mass ratio which is (coincidentally) almost 1. A slight deviation from this mass ratio could have led to a neutron abundance of zero, or of 100%, the latter being most catastrophic for the prospects of any life appearing. Even if there were 50% neutrons, all of them would have combined with the remaining protons early in the Big Bang, leading to a Universe with no hydrogen, no stable long-lived stars, and no water. And no life.
Antimatter and the Photon/Proton Ratio.
Why is there matter in the universe, but no appreciable quantities of antimatter? In the colossal energies of first millionth of a second of the Big Bang, particles and their anti-particles would have been created and destroyed in pairs, equally. Once the temperature fell sufficiently, photons could no longer be readily converted into particle-antiparticle pairs, and so they annihilated each other. The present ratio of photons to protons, 'S', is 10^9, which suggests that only one proton (and one electron) per billion escaped annihilation.
Maybe we're "fine-tuned" for existence in this universe...
Could be, Junior! Thank you for your post!
Either way, we are probably extremely rare. Even more so if you consider the effect of the moon in stabilizing the earth's tilt and the resulting stabilization of climate. It might be impossible or very unlikely for complex land-based creatures to evolve on a planet without a large, single moon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.