On May 3, 8:01=A0am, "IlBeBa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <IlBeBa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 2, 9:02=A0pm, c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
<5aa53b76-ccb0-4f42-8265-2e082ba6b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "IlBeBa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <IlBeBa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
> > > On May 2, 1:15=3DA0pm, c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Cary Kittrell)
wrote=
:
> > > > In article
<9b8fa6e7-dca9-4acb-af5a-d5d225a5a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > m> "IlBeBa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <IlBeBa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
> > > > > On May 1, 4:49=3D3DA0pm, Budikka666 <budik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:=
> > > > > > Grrl Scientist
atwww.scienceblogs.com/grrlscientisthttp://tinyur=
l.com/=3D
> > > 5la6=3D3D
> > > > > lh
> > > > > > re****ts on: "five male and five female Italian wall lizards,
Pod=
arcis
> > > > > > sicula, were translocated from the islet of Pod Kopiste to the
n=
earby
> > > > > > islet of Pod Mrcaru, both of which belong to Croatia and are
loc=
ated
> > > > > > in the southern Adriatic Sea"
>
> > > > > > War erupted and scientists never got back to see the lizards
unt=
il
> > > > > > relatively recently. =3D3DA0What they found was an amazing
examp=
le of ju=3D
> > > st
> > > > > > how fast evolution can work its wiley ways.
>
> > > > > > Footnote to idiot creationists: Yeah, they're still lizards,
and=
no,
> > > > > > no scientist has ever claimed they're not. =3D3DA0But what
you'r=
e too st=3D
> > > upid
> > > > > > to grasp no matter how many times you're hit over your stupid
he=
ads
> > > > > > with it, evolution isn't just about speciation (which leads to
> > > > > > everything else) and nothing more. =3D3DA0Evolution is about
cha=
nge with=3D
> > > in aas=3D3D
> > > > > e
> > > > > > gene pool. =3D3DA0That's what it's rooted in and that's how it
w=
orks its=3D
> > > ion
> > > > > > magic.
>
> > > > > > It really is that simple. =3D3DA0And if you cannot grasp this
ba=
sic,
> > > > > > demonstrated fact, then you too are really simple.
>
> > > > > > Budikka
>
> > > > > REPLY: =3DA0By what mechanism or evolutionary process does new
inf=
ormation=3D
>
> > > > > become a part of the genome (which is needed for Darwinnian
Evolut=
ion
> > > > > to be viable) ?
>
> > > > Overall? =3DA0Multiple copies of a coding gene, followed by
mutation=
of
> > > > one of the copies. =3DA0The organism now produces two different
> > > > proteins, the original and a new variant.
>
> > > > In a given organism? =3DA0Acquisition of genes from other species,
> > > > most commonly via viruses.
>
> > > > Not to metion that after a certain level of complexity is
> > > > reuiached, new information is no longer necessary. =3DA0It's
> > > > not new genes any longer, it's different switch settings
> > > > (sed "evo-devo");
>
> > > > REPLY: =A0That is quite remarkable indeed. =A0Has any scientist(s)
=
=A0calculated=3D
> > > =A0the chances that new life forms came about by this mutated
process =
? =A0 than=3D
> > > ks.
>
> > By any single event of this type? =A0I'm not sure.
>
> > By ac***ulations of these changes? =A0Well, that's what evolution
> > is all about.
>
> > Incidentally, I don't know if you'd consider this "new information" or
> > not, but I can think of an example where repeated copies of a single
gen=
e
> > seem related to fitness: =A0it's been found recently that humans
> > living in cultures which eat a lot of starch have more copies of
> > the gene which produces the starch-digesting enzyme amalyze.
>
> > Multiple copies can be bad too, as in Huntington's chorea or
> > fragile-X syndrome.
>
> > -- cary- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> REPLY: =A0 Well, lets see what staunch atheist / co-discoverer of the
> DNA structure , Dr. Francis Crick, has to say on the mathematical
> probability that life formed in this way by accident. (and before I
> do, just let me say : 'Case closed !' ....based on the worlds foremost
> leading Biologist =A0,and atheist at that) . =A0So, could you tell us
what=
> your personal ulterior motive would be for rejecting God ?
> Thanks. =A0 :
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-=AD-----
>
> Mathematical Probabilities
>
> The next stop would be to delve into the mathematical probabilities
> that vastly complex organs such as the brain, the eyes, etc., could
> have developed by themselves. =A0But before we begin, I'd like you to be
> able to fathom what the numbers that we will be giving you represent.
> It has been estimated that in 30 billion years there would only be
> 1018 seconds. =A0Scientists estimate that in our entire universe there
> are only 1080 electrons (that's a 1 with 80 zeros after it). =A0So I
> guess we would agree that 10100 is a number that's pretty much
> impossible for us to truly comprehend. =A0With this introduction,
> hopefully we'll be able to properly appreciate the upcoming
> quotations.
>
> Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes
inchemist=
ry, wrote: "The statistical probability that organic structures
>
> and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living
> organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."(1) =A0That's right -
> zero!
>
> Professor Francis Crick, awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of
>
> DNA, wrote:
>
> An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could
> only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the
> moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would
> have had to have been satisfied to get it going.(2)
>
> The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
> chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in
> (1020)2,000=3D1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not
> be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.(3)
>
> In terms of complexity, an individual cell is nothing when compared
> with a system like the mammalian brain. =A0The human brain consists of
> about ten thousand million nerve cells. =A0Each nerve cell puts out
> between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibers by
> which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain.
> Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain
> approaches 1015 or a thousand million million. =A0Numbers in the order
> of 1015 are of course completely beyond comprehension. =A0Imagine an
> area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered
> in a forest of trees containing ten thousand trees per square mile.
> If each tree contained one hundred thousand leaves the total number of
> leaves in the forest would be 1015, equivalent to the number of
> connections in the human brain! =A0Despite the enormity of the number of
> connections, the ramifying forest of fibers is not a chaotic random
> tangle but a highly organized network in which a high pro****tion of
> the fibers are unique adaptive communication channels following their
> own specially ordained pathway through the brain. =A0Even if only one
> hundredth of the connections in the brain were specifically organized,
> this would still represent a system containing a much greater number
> of specific connections than in the entire communications network on
> Earth.(4)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
P.S. The number above, which is what atheists rest thier FAITH on ,
thereby eliminating the need for God....is 10 to the 40,000 th
power. Just wanted to make this number clear to all. (Are you
certain you dont have a personal ulterior motive for not wanting God
to be real ???).
|
