[OOC] Myriad Reality

[whizzball1]

DarkwolfX37 said
*Sigh* I'm beating you over the head with a science book if I end up going to texas at some point.

While mutations may add new information to the genome, so far, no beneficial mutation ever observed has added information to the genome.

[Etcetera]

DarkwolfX37 said
*Sigh* I'm beating you over the head with a science book if I end up going to texas at some point.

Enjoy that.

[Etcetera]

whizzball1 said
While mutations add new information to the genome, so far, no beneficial mutation ever observed has added information to the genome.

Untrue. A mutation changes a sequence of existing genes, but cannot create new ones.

[whizzball1]

Etcetera said
Untrue. A mutation changes a sequence of existing genes, but cannot create new ones.

It isn't adding information, per se. Only re-arranging the current information.

[Etcetera]

whizzball1 said
It isn't adding information, per se. Only re-arranging the current information.

That's what I'm saying. Any mutation that seems to create "new" information is just an activation of existing information. For example, scientists induced a mutation in a bacteria that allowed it to live on citrus. But the information was already there, in an existing gene, but in a sort of "off" position.

[whizzball1]

Etcetera said
That's what I'm saying. Any mutation that seems to create "new" information is just an activation of existing information. For example, scientists induced a mutation in a bacteria that allowed it to live on citrus. But the information was already there, in an existing gene, but in a sort of "off" position.

Exactly. Any information activated is information God already placed in the genes so that living beings could adapt.

[Etcetera]

whizzball1 said
Exactly. Any information activated is information God already placed in the genes so that living beings could adapt.

Just like the genome-rich species immediately after the flood.

[whizzball1]

Etcetera said
Just like the genome-rich species immediately after the flood.

Yeah.
woo for science lectures

[Etcetera]

whizzball1 said
Yeah.woo for science lectures

People are so dumb sometimes.

[whizzball1]

Etcetera said
People are so dumb sometimes.

The glaring facts are right in front of them.

[DarkwolfX37]

whizzball1 said
I've actually been listening to lectures on the things I just said in that post. :P

Then the people you're listening to are idiots.
Life from non life is a given fact. There is nothing that comes from itself. Ever. Not only that, but that's abiogenesis, which is completely separate from evolution.
The things created in that environment are the fundamentals of life, not necessarily a living thing. Even so, what would come to be in that environment would be able to survive there. It's not like a human just sprung out of the ground in a primordial earth.
You statement on the Cambrian explosion is entirely false. It was not "most evolution" that happened then, nor has it "slowed down" afterwords.

[whizzball1]

DarkwolfX37 said
Then the people you're listening to are idiots. Life from non life is a given fact. There is nothing that comes from itself. Ever. Not only that, but that's abiogenesis, which is completely separate from evolution.The things created in that environment are the fundamentals of life, not necessarily a living thing. Even so, what would come to be in that environment would be able to survive there. It's not like a human just sprung out of the ground in a primordial earth.You statement on the Cambrian explosion is entirely false. It was not "most evolution" that happened then, nor has it "slowed down" afterwords.

Life cannot come from non-life. It is a scientific law which has never been disproved. All experiments trying to show that life could have come from non-life, first of all, came up with left-handed and right-handed amino acids, while it's only one type to make proteins. Besides that, if life were to somehow form when lightning struck and created uncountable amino acids that formed into uncountable proteins that all just formed together to make a cell, the leftover amino acids would be poisonous to the organism. Besides that, the environment it was in would also be poisonous to the new organism, for certain atmospheric reasons. Even worse, the experiments were specifically fixed to create these amino acids, and the environment fixed was different from the environment according to the theory.

Cambrian Explosion: Before the Cambrian explosion, we only see rare scattered marine organisms throughout the fossil record. Suddenly, in the layers of the Cambrian Explosion, we get an explosion of new, complex life, in a far evolutionary stage from what we see before the explosion. As it seems, evolution had a sudden growth spurt during this short period. After the Cambrian Explosion, we go back to rare fossils that don't seem to show an evolutionary process. The Cambrian Explosion could be far better explained by a worldwide flood mass-killing sea, air, and land creatures, burying them in sediments quickly with the rushing water and then fossilising them just as quickly.

[Etcetera]

whizzball1 said
Life cannot come from non-life. It is a scientific law which has never been disproved. All experiments trying to show that life could have come from non-life, first of all, came up with left-handed and right-handed amino acids, while it's only one type to make proteins. Besides that, if life were to somehow form when lightning struck and created uncountable amino acids that formed into uncountable proteins that all just formed together to make a cell, the leftover amino acids would be poisonous to the organism. Besides that, the environment it was in would also be poisonous to the new organism, for certain atmospheric reasons. Even worse, the experiments were specifically fixed to create these amino acids, and the environment fixed was different from the environment according to the theory.Cambrian Explosion: Before the Cambrian explosion, we only see rare scattered marine organisms throughout the fossil record. Suddenly, in the layers of the Cambrian Explosion, we get an explosion of new, complex life, in a far evolutionary stage from what we see before the explosion. As it seems, evolution had a sudden growth spurt during this short period. After the Cambrian Explosion, we go back to rare fossils that don't seem to show an evolutionary process. The Cambrian Explosion could be far better explained by a worldwide flood mass-killing sea, air, and land creatures, burying them in sediments quickly with the rushing water and then fossilising them just as quickly.

Coupled with the fact that the chances of one protein forming randomly are roughly the same as a blind man wandering through the Sahara for two years, and picking up a specific grain of sand, marked before the two year period, this occurring three times in a row. And that is only for one protein, not the sixteen necessary for basic life.

[whizzball1]

Etcetera said
Coupled with the fact that the chances of one protein forming randomly are roughly the same as a blind man wandering through the Sahara for two years, and picking up a specific grain of sand, marked before the two year period, this occurring three times in a row. And that is only for one protein, not the sixteen necessary for basic life.

An article I read in accompaniment with one lecture had this analogy:
Imagine 18 people standing in line. The amount of possible combinations for them to be arranged is 18! (18 factorial), which is 6402373705728000 (6.4 quadrillion). If the people switched to a different combination every minute, it would take them 12.18 billion years to try them all. Now, there are 18 amino acids that form one of the basic proteins. If it takes 12.18 billion years to try the combinations, one per minute, then how much more to make all the other proteins and arrange them into the right shapes for all the different parts of a cell?

[Etcetera]

whizzball1 said
An article I read in accompaniment with one lecture had this analogy:Imagine 18 people standing in line. The amount of possible combinations for them to be arranged is 18! (18 factorial), which is (6.4 quadrillion). If the people switched to a different combination every minute, it would take them 12.18 billion years to try them all. Now, there are 18 amino acids that form one of the basic proteins. If it takes 12.18 billion years to try the combinations, one per , then how much more to make all the other proteins and arrange them into the right shapes for all the different parts of a cell?

It's just not possible.

[whizzball1]

Etcetera said
It's just not possible.

Even given infinite time, evolution just couldn't happen. Even if the universe didn't succumb to heat death within infinite time, life couldn't even ever come from non-life.

[Etcetera]

whizzball1 said
Even given infinite time, evolution just couldn't happen. Even if the universe didn't succumb to heat death within infinite time, life couldn't even ever come from non-life.

And in more abstract terms, life also can never be made of purely nonlife. Nonlife has no possible ability to ever comprehend, regardless of how it's arranged.

[DarkwolfX37]

whizzball1 said
Life cannot come from non-life. It is a scientific law which has never been disproved. All experiments trying to show that life could have come from non-life, first of all, came up with left-handed and right-handed amino acids, while it's only one type to make proteins. Besides that, if life were to somehow form when lightning struck and created uncountable amino acids that formed into uncountable proteins that all just formed together to make a cell, the leftover amino acids would be poisonous to the organism. Besides that, the environment it was in would also be poisonous to the new organism, for certain atmospheric reasons. Even worse, the experiments were specifically fixed to create these amino acids, and the environment fixed was different from the environment according to the theory.Cambrian Explosion: Before the Cambrian explosion, we only see rare scattered marine organisms throughout the fossil record. Suddenly, in the layers of the Cambrian Explosion, we get an explosion of new, complex life, in a far evolutionary stage from what we see before the explosion. As it seems, evolution had a sudden growth spurt during this short period. After the Cambrian Explosion, we go back to rare fossils that don't seem to show an evolutionary process. The Cambrian Explosion could be far better explained by a worldwide flood mass-killing sea, air, and land creatures, burying them in sediments quickly with the rushing water and then fossilising them just as quickly.

Life comes from non life literally every day.
Cambrian explosion: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIB1cCambrian.shtml
What you're doing is literally the exact same as throwing out most of the pieces of a puzzle, putting the rest into place, and then claiming that the puzzle can't possibly form what it says it does on the box because by looking at these pieces, it's not possible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events
Your flood is not only impossible, but is irrelevant.

whizzball1 said
An article I read in accompaniment with one lecture had this analogy:Imagine 18 people standing in line. The amount of possible combinations for them to be arranged is 18! (18 factorial), which is 6402373705728000 (6.4 quadrillion). If the people switched to a different combination every minute, it would take them 12.18 billion years to try them all. Now, there are 18 amino acids that form one of the basic proteins. If it takes 12.18 billion years to try the combinations, one per , then how much more to make all the other proteins and arrange them into the right shapes for all the different parts of a cell?

That implies a false scenario. In order for that statement to be correct, there would have to be one set of 18 in existence, rather than the countless individual ones that would form a more accurate scenario.

[DarkwolfX37]

Etcetera said
That's what I'm saying. Any mutation that seems to create "new" information is just an activation of existing information. For example, scientists induced a mutation in a bacteria that allowed it to live on citrus. But the information was already there, in an existing gene, but in a sort of "off" position.

You keep implying that things that aren't closed systems are.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask358

[Etcetera]

DarkwolfX37 said
You keep implying that things that aren't closed systems are. http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask358

When it comes to gene creation, before any viruses existed, it was closed.