Is the Universe an effect of a prior cause?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Since when has statistics been a new science?

This is unanswerable without a reference. I'd guess he assumed that the base materials were at an even concentration throughout the oceans, that way the dilution would be enough to stop anything happenning. If you ignore volcanos and other events like meteorite strikes or lightening that generate all so ...[text shortened]... can't supply a reference here either, it was a documentary probably Horizon) and guess what...

Try this one it was done in 1953

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment

Originally posted by chinking58
Come on DeepThought! Apply some!
Address the point, instead of the cop-out route.
The science of probability virtually disproves the whole card-house of evolutionary theory. It's that simple.

I would love to run through this argument that putatively shows that evolutionary theory is likely false. Let's go through it together. I think this will be a valuable service to the RHP community. Since you are more familiar with the manner in which the science of probability virtually disproves evolutionary theory (I had no idea it did so!), perhaps you should get us started. What is the first premise of the argument that shows evolutionary theory to likely be false?

Originally posted by chinking58
Come on DeepThought! Apply some!
Address the point, instead of the cop-out route.
The science of probability virtually disproves the whole card-house of evolutionary theory. It's that simple.

No it doesn't. Dj2becker said that Dr. James Coppedge had done the probability analysis and came to the conclusion that evolutionary theory was nearly impossible, and I showed why Dr. Coppedge was wrong after looking at his book (which is completely online and free).

Do you have a better argument than Dr. Coppedge's? Please present it.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Since when has statistics been a new science?

This is unanswerable without a reference. I'd guess he assumed that the base materials were at an even concentration throughout the oceans, that way the dilution would be enough to stop anything happenning. If you ignore volcanos and other events like meteorite strikes or lightening that generate all so ...[text shortened]... can't supply a reference here either, it was a documentary probably Horizon) and guess what...

Fox later found proteinoids similar to those he had created in his laboratory in lava and cinders from Hawaiian volcanic vents and determined that the amino acids present polymerized due to the heat of escaping gases and lava.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinoid

and this site is useful as an overview of evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Here's a quote from his book:

Dr. Harold J. Morowitz of Yale University has done extensive research for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to discover the theoretical limits for the simplest free-living thing wh I gave above.

http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c04.htm

This logic is flawed. The simplest free living thing which could duplicate itself is a single RNA molecule. Unless this guy is playing word games and defines "living" as a cell or something composed of cells. If this is the case, then any claims that such a cell would arise spontaneously without evolving from earlier non cellular molecules is a misrepresentation of the mechanism by which most scientists today believe life came to be without a designer.

The building blocks of life are cells. Thus cells are "living". It is general knowledge that cells can replicate.

Originally posted by dj2becker
This logic is flawed. The simplest free living thing which could duplicate itself is a single RNA molecule. Unless this guy is playing word games and defines "living" as a cell or something composed of cells. If this is the case, the ...[text shortened]... are "living". It is general knowledge that cells can replicate.

Consider the creation of life. Darwin repeatedly refered to the single simple cell. With the crude microscopes available at that time, the single cell looked a bit like a tiny basketball with a seed in the middle of it. But now the human cell is known to be fantastically complex, made up of hundreds of thousands of smaller protein molecules, and Harvard University paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson tells us that a single protein molecule is the most complicated substance known to mankind. A single cell is so infinitely complex that it boggles the minds of scientists who have studied it.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No it doesn't. Dj2becker said that Dr. James Coppedge had done the probability analysis and came to the conclusion that evolutionary theory was nearly impossible, and I showed why Dr. Coppedge was wrong after looking at his book (which is completely online and free).

Do you have a better argument than Dr. Coppedge's? Please present it.

Do you mean to say Dr Coppedge is wrong about the assertion that cells are the building blocks of life? Would you like to explain how life can be formed if not by the replication of cells?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you mean to say Dr Coppedge is wrong about the assertion that cells are the building blocks of life? Would you like to explain how life can be formed if not by the replication of cells?

I mean to say exactly what I said. This statement

In order to account for the [fact that all biological amino acids have left handed chirality], chance alone, unaided by natural selection, would have to arrange at least one complete set of 239 proteins with all-left-handed amino acids of the universal 20 kinds.

is wrong.

The first cell could have been formed through an evolutionary process (mutation combined with natural selection) acting on self replicating molecules - most likely RNA.

Since that statement is part of Dr. Coppedge's probability analysis, his probability analysis is wrong.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you mean to say Dr Coppedge is wrong about the assertion that cells are the building blocks of life? Would you like to explain how life can be formed if not by the replication of cells?

That's silly

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The first cell could have been formed through an evolutionary process (mutation combined with natural selection) acting on self replicating molecules - most likely RNA.

Since that statement is part of Dr. Coppedge's probability analysis, his probability analysis is wrong.

Do you have any proof of this that is not based on assumptions?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I mean to say exactly what I said. This statement

[b]In order to account for the [fact that all biological amino acids have left handed chirality], chance alone, unaided by natural selection, would have to arrange at least one complete set of 239 proteins with all-left-handed amino acids of the universal 20 kinds.

is wrong.

The first cel ...[text shortened]... at statement is part of Dr. Coppedge's probability analysis, his probability analysis is wrong.[/b]

Now, 20 years after the discovery of the splicing in the RNA of the tetrahymena thermophila, scientists know of 1,500 self-splicing RNAs. Since the ability to reproduce is one of the characteristics that is common to all "life" forms, some have even speculated that this ability of RNA to act as a catalyst might be a clue to how the first self-replicating organism developed and the world moved from" primordial soup" to the repository of the many life forms to be found today

http://www.bowdoin.edu/news/archives/1bowdoincampus/001245.shtml

"When you're talking about the origin of life on earth, you're talking about a historical question, not a scientific question, If somebody doesn't believe it, you can't prove it, you can only prove that it was possible.",,,Nobel Laureate Thomas Cech

Originally posted by frogstomp
Now, 20 years after the discovery of the splicing in the RNA of the tetrahymena thermophila, scientists know of 1,500 self-splicing RNAs. Since the ability to reproduce is one of the characteristics that is common to all "life" forms, some have even speculated that this ability of RNA to act as a catalyst might be a clue to how the first self-replicating ...[text shortened]... you can't prove it, you can only prove that it was possible.",,,Nobel Laureate Thomas Cech

A good way to prove it was possible is to do more than talk. Make me some life, dang it!

Originally posted by Darfius
A good way to prove it was possible is to do more than talk. Make me some life, dang it!

you make a God in the lab ,,,,, show some PROOF!!!

Originally posted by frogstomp
Now, 20 years after the discovery of the splicing in the RNA of the tetrahymena thermophila, scientists know of 1,500 self-splicing RNAs. Since the ability to reproduce is one of the characteristics that is common to all "life" forms, some have even speculated that this ability of RNA to act as a catalyst might be a clue to how the first self-replicating ...[text shortened]... you can't prove it, you can only prove that it was possible.",,,Nobel Laureate Thomas Cech

Thomas Huxley said: "The primary and direct evidence in favor of evolution can only be furnished only by paleontology... If evolution has taken place, its marks will be left, if it has not taken place, there will be its refutation."

Professor Louis T. Moore says, "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone."