"A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan

[Niya]

If you look at the DNA alone, the evidence is undeniable.

When I look at DNA I see something that looks a lot like a program. And I know a lot about programs, having spent the better part of the last three decades creating them. And I know something about probabilities since I have a degree (with honors) in mathematics. Things like DNA are obviously designed. And randomly messing with the bits can only, in the end, degrade the system.

I don't want you to take my word for it but I would recommend spending a year studying evolution, in detail.

Here's a link to a page about the mathematics of evolution: http://www.darwinsmaths.com/ .  Perhaps you should spend just twenty minutes looking at that: it doesn't matter how enticing a story is if it's a mathematical impossibility.

It is not a question of being designed Gerry.

Consider a lion, do you think it's jaws are designed to eat grass? There is enough space between those teeth to break an animal's spine. But unless the lion eats tree bark, I don't see how that's "designed".

And please tell me why the dental structure of a Goat and a shark and a lion are not alike? Why do predators and prey show opposites similarities, like hoofs and claws?, sharp teeth, flat teeth?

As far as DNA is concerned, you are talking about abiogenesis and evolution. I am talking about evolution. DNA show common ancestry beyond doubts. I gave you scientific papers on it, did you not read it? Do you understand the term genetic marker and mitochondrial DNA?

If you going to stand at the gate and have a look at the store and then based on your experience decid which truth matters to you then by all means be happy with it, but is this any different than many folks you see reading bibles anyway they like and then decide what it should mean?

I fail to see a difference in your approach here and that is disappointing, the idea that you are not even open to research but a handful of creationist sources.

A theory doesn't have to be aesthetically or morally good to be true. What it should be is that a theory should always be opened to the possibility of correction and improvement and second that it should always make predictions.

You want to prove evolution is wrong, then address the scientific propositions in this regard, citing math papers and irrelevant and wrong analogies will not help anyone here.

Here are ten predictions of evolution and if any is wrong, then it will throw a wrench in the evolutionary theory.


1. We should not find any early hominid fossils (such as Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, or Kenyanthropus) in Australia, North America, South America, Antarctica, Siberia, or on any oceanic islands removed from Africa.

2. No birds will have mammary glands or hair.

3. No mammals will have feathers (even though feathers are an excellent means of insulation).

4. No fish or amphibians will have differentiated or cusped teeth, since these are only characteristics of mammals.

5. We should never find mammalian or bird fossils in or before Devonian deposits, before reptiles had diverged from the amphibian tetrapod line. This excludes Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, and
Silurian deposits, encompassing 92% of the earth's geological history.

6. We will never find a living or fossilized true chimera such as Pegasus, Mermaid or Griffin.

7. We will never find birds with both wings and arms, since the evolution of wings necessarily means the loss of arms.

8. No marine mammal (such as dolphins, porpoises and whales) will have gills despite the fact that gills would be very beneficial.

9. No reptile or mammal will have eyes without retinal blind spots. This is because poor design cannot be "fixed" by evolutionary processes, even if correcting the problem would be beneficial for the organism. The only "fixing" that is allowed evolutionarily is relatively minor modification of what already exists.

10. All living things on Earth will share the same nucleic acid genetic material.

And all of this is supported by what has been found.

[Siz]

So how come some animals and plants are made of food if they weren't designed?

[xSilverPhinx]

If I might add, Niya,

11. Humans, being apes, will have fused chromosomes. Our closest relatives the chimpanzee (we did not evolve from them) have chromosome 2A and 2B. They have an extra pair compared to us. If fused chromosomes had not been relatively recently found, evolutionary theory would have been in some serious trouble. How is that not aesthetically pleasing, Gerry? All these predictions and confirmations.

* Edited to  correct auto correct .

[Niya]

If I might add, Niya,

11. Humans, being apes, will have fused chromosomes. Our closest relatives the chimpanzee (we did not evolve from them) have chromosome 2A and 2B. They have an extra pair compared to us. If fused chromosomes had not been relate lively recently been found, evolutionary theory would have been in some serious trouble. How is that not aesthetically pleasing, Gerry? All these predictions and confirmations.

Correct indeed!

And if I may say Intelligent design theory makes no predictions and it can't be falsified...both traits are non-scientific and the latter is fully based in God of the gaps. its not even a theory or a model to begin with. Do you agree?

[Asmodean]

Some homework for you: "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens

I must admit, the title made me curious, so I went in. I must say, I was surprised, and in a very positive way, by how comprehensive that paper is, what with presenting the information in a bite-sized, for-the-uninitiated way.

It's a good primer on the strengths and shortcomings of radiometric dating methods. Some advances have been made since it was written, but in my opinion that doesn't detract very much from its usefulness. Young Earth Creationists tend to dismiss it, though.

Of course, they do! Do you think if they were the kind of people to be persuaded by reason that we would even have Young Earth Creationists?

...And me, I'll never learn not to engage. *sigh* 

[Recusant]

I have no interest in details until I'm convinced regarding the overall plausibility of a theory; whether that theory is consistent with what I already know about myself, other people, the world, and the universe at large; whether the theory appears to be philosophically and artistically and emotionally and aesthetically and morally appealing (as well as scientifically accurate, a determination that is typically made at a later stage). What does it matter if a theory has all its detailed ducks in a row if there's a fatal flaw in the overall idea?

What is the "fatal flaw in the overall idea" of a planet that is billions of years old?

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Actually here's one study that proposes that ATP synthase came about by modular evolution. That is, non related proteins evolved and combined to form the enzyme, it wasn't "designed" in one go. 

The thing that's always missing in such imaginative narratives is the probability of such a sequence of events actually happening. Show me the math. What are the chances of all that stuff happening at just the right times in just the right ways?

And again, this kind of "evidence" is utterly inaccessible to the average man and is thus suspicious when offered as proof for a theory that is to be accepted by the average man. From the article: "The Atp10p and Atp23p chaperones have previously been reported to interact with Atp6p and to be required for assembly of F0." That kind of stuff is meaningless to the vast majority of people on the planet. On the other hand, show them an ATP simulation like the one I posted earlier (http://www.iubmb-nicholson.org/swf/ATPSynthase.swf) and the whole will easily be seen by any unbiased observer to be the result of design.

I recommend William Steig's Yellow and Pink (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0374386714) as a good summary of the whole affair at a level that is accessible (and convincing) to "the rest of us".

[Bluenose]

Actually here's one study that proposes that ATP synthase came about by modular evolution. That is, non related proteins evolved and combined to form the enzyme, it wasn't "designed" in one go. 

The thing that's always missing in such imaginative narratives is the probability of such a sequence of events actually happening. Show me the math. What are the chances of all that stuff happening at just the right times in just the right ways?

And again, this kind of "evidence" is utterly inaccessible to the average man and is thus suspicious when offered as proof for a theory that is to be accepted by the average man. From the article: "The Atp10p and Atp23p chaperones have previously been reported to interact with Atp6p and to be required for assembly of F0." That kind of stuff is meaningless to the vast majority of people on the planet. On the other hand, show them an ATP simulation like the one I posted earlier (http://www.iubmb-nicholson.org/swf/ATPSynthase.swf) and the whole will easily be seen by any unbiased observer to be the result of design.

I recommend William Steig's Yellow and Pink (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0374386714) as a good summary of the whole affair at a level that is accessible (and convincing) to "the rest of us".

Firstly, science doesn't deal with "proof" and even if it did, what might be considered convincing by the average man is entirely beside the point. Frankly, I see no point in trying to convince someone such as yourself who is not open to objective evidence. That you are not convinced speaks only about you, not about the abundant evidence for evolution. I don't care of you don't understand the science, but please lay off arguing about it with those that do.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Show me the math. 

The math comes from the size and age of the universe.  Do you realize how big it is, how vast, how many stars and planets there are?  Add that to 13.5 billion years and just about anything is possible.  It was going to happen somewhere, and it happened here, and we are the beneficiaries because we are here. 

[Niya]

The only thing imaginary here is math, we are showing you direct evidence, Gerry.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

It doesn't matter how enticing a story is if it's a mathematical impossibility.

Consider a lion... a Goat... a shark...  hoofs... claws... teeth... fossils... birds... mammals... fish... amphibians... wings... arms... gills... eyes...

I don't see anything in there about math.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

How is that not aesthetically pleasing, Gerry? All these predictions and confirmations.

Mathematically impossible trumps aesthetically pleasing.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

And if I may say Intelligent design theory makes no predictions and it can't be falsified...both traits are non-scientific... Do you agree?

No, I don't agree. See http://www.ideacenter.org/content1156.html for the kind of responses I might formulate if I cared. But I don't care if Intelligent Design is classified as a "science" or not because I know that much of the knowledge I have -- and certainly most of what I live by, every day, all day -- is not scientific in the sense you are suggesting. Let me illustrate with some pertinent but very "unscientific" questions for you:

1. Do you think posting on this forum is a meaningful activity? Why or why not?

2. The signature in your posts reads, in part, "The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations." Is that a scientific fact? If so, please show your research. If not, why post it?

3. Your signature also says, "When I stand before God at the end of my life, I would hope that I would not have a single bit of talent left and could say, I used everything you gave me." On what (predictive and falsifiable) grounds do you think God exists? On what grounds do you base your belief that you will "stand before God" at the end of your life? Aren't you standing before God now, since He is omnipresent and omniscient? On what grounds do you believe that your talents were given to you by God (as opposed to being developed by chance mutation and a non-intelligent selection process)? What makes you think that using up every bit of talent you have would be pleasing to God?

Get the point? Most of what really matters to us doesn't fall within the purview of the "scientific method". Most of what really matters to us is perceived through senses far above the famous five. Senses that, if stories like Smullyan's, and Wells', and Abbott's are any indication, can easily be mistaken for lunacy (or worse) by those who choose to ignore them.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

What is the "fatal flaw in the overall idea" of a planet that is billions of years old?

The fatal flaw isn't in the idea that a planet might be billions of years old. The fatal flaw I had in mind is thinking that billions of years is enough time for random mutation and natural selection to do what it is claimed they have done.

[xSilverPhinx]

Actually here's one study that proposes that ATP synthase came about by modular evolution. That is, non related proteins evolved and combined to form the enzyme, it wasn't "designed" in one go.

The thing that's always missing in such imaginative narratives is the probability of such a sequence of events actually happening. Show me the math. What are the chances of all that stuff happening at just the right times in just the right ways?

And again, this kind of "evidence" is utterly inaccessible to the average man and is thus suspicious when offered as proof for a theory that is to be accepted by the average man. From the article: "The Atp10p and Atp23p chaperones have previously been reported to interact with Atp6p and to be required for assembly of F0." That kind of stuff is meaningless to the vast majority of people on the planet. On the other hand, show them an ATP simulation like the one I posted earlier (http://www.iubmb-nicholson.org/swf/ATPSynthase.swf) and the whole will easily be seen by any unbiased observer to be the result of design.

I recommend William Steig's Yellow and Pink (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0374386714) as a good summary of the whole affair at a level that is accessible (and convincing) to "the rest of us".

I agree that that's the main problem with more advanced science these days is that it alienates the vast majority of people, but if you really wanted to understand an article from a real scientific  journal,  which is peer reviewed by other people who deeply understand the science, you could, Gerry. Chaperones, as the name suggests, are proteins that aid other proteins in their proper folding. F0 is one of the enzyme's (ATP synthase) subunits. The DNA used to assemble this enzyme is located in two different parts, one in nuclear DNA and the other in mitochondrial DNA.  

Read this at least:

The modules and the proposed pathway for ATP synthase assembly may recapitulate some of the evolutionary events that gave rise to this enzyme. There is compelling evidence that F1 evolved from an ATP-dependent helicase (Gomis-R?th et al, 2001) while the Atp9p ring has been proposed to have been derived from an ion channel (Walker and Cozens, 1986; Mulkidjanian et al, 2007). The F1/Atp9p ring intermediate could be the product of an evolutionary event, which enabled a passive channel to be converted to an active ion transporter. The function of the ancestral protein from which the Atp6p/Atp8p/stator complex evolved is more difficult to envision. Its function may have been adapted to further modify the ATP-dependent ion pump into the present day energy transforming mechanochemical machine.

ATP is the energy "currency" of a cell.

Helicase is another family of enzymes, important in DNA replication.

F1 is another subunit of the ATP synthase complex.

Ion channels are proteic structures found in membranes which allow charged atoms (ions) to pass to the other side.

Passive channels do not require ATP to work.

Active ion transporters require ATP to work.

It's also important to mention that ATP synthase makes ATP (which has three phosphate groups) from ADP (which has two) and a phosphate.  

The fact that you don't understand the science does not mean that it isn't valid. You seem like an intelligent person, Gerry. You have to at least understand that.

On the other hand, creationist propaganda is specifically tailored for the scientifically illiterate. I don't mean to be harsh but that's simply the truth. What they spew is wrong, and if you don't even know the basics you don't have the knowledge or critical thinking skills necessary to know it. It's a bit like the Dunning Kruger Effect.  

As for the math, Bruce already answered that one. People's intuition are limited but you have to understand on some abstract level just how large the universe is at minimum, and how long it's been around.

If you want to learn more about how proteins fold (not all the details are known) and self assemble into complexes then I suggest you study molecular biophysics as well, though  not from creationist sources, pick up a good textbook or Google the latest peer reviewed articles instead.