Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

[Hollie]

Enzymes are easy to make from basic chemicals ... one of the more profound pieces of evidence that supports evolution ... just two methanes and an ammonia

Apparently, not this enzyme as it could only be produced in the ovaries of a hen.

Besides, the egg with the chick inside is a complex system similar to the eye. It would have to be developed as a fully functional organic system.

Ah. The all-knowing, all-seeing eye. Only the gods could have developed the eye. That's one of the classically retrograde arguments of the ID creationer ministries.

CB301: Eye complexity

Claim CB301:
The eye is too complex to have evolved.

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.

Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
2. All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

You posted this before. Not only is my argument is from incredulity, but argument that the eye or ear just can't happen from parts lying around. The chances of it are practically zero as we do not know how it happened except that animals have complex parts such as eyes to see and ears to hear. Your side hasn't been able to produce even a photosensitive cell from chemicals or primordial soup. Not even a protein from amino acids.

You are retreating to the stereotypical ID'creationer "it's complicated, therefore the odds are it didn't happen'', meme.

So, lets look at an example. The odds of you winning the lottery are 1 in 100 million,. If you win, and are convinced that the incredible odds against your winning are evidence that there was some sort of 'intelligent design' acting on you behalf, that would be a rather nonsensical explanation, and irrational.

I have to note that the example above is pretty meaningless because biological organisms interact in complex ways and all those interactions are taking place simultaneously so the ''odds'' are greatly in favor of natural, biological evolution as opposed to various gods you can't hope to demonstrate.

More importantly, any true calculation of ''odds'' carry some obvious limitations. The most obvious limitation is that for any calculation of chance, you must assume that all present functional life forms are the goal, and not the result of the process, and then calculate backwards.

 

[ReinyDays]

The proof is in on the eggshell of the egg that the adult hen produced.

Again, the egg is too complex an organism to form by itself. It has to start from the inside out that only the hen can do. Furthermore, you argument loses because a rooster has to exist to fertilize it in order to have a baby chick.

I claim another abiogenesis and evolution fail as it can't produce life from non-life nor can it have sexual reproduction from an egg .

Only on chicken eggs ... what about red junglefowl eggs? ... wait, WHAT ... is the first chicken a hen or a rooster? ... do you know the difference? ... hate to break your bubble, but chickens are developed into embryos long before the shell forms ... open up a laying hen and you'll find 6 or 8 eggs in different stages of development within the birth canal ... the eggs you buy in the supermarket are not fertilized ... are you some manner of city-slicker who doesn't know anything about raising chickens? ...

I asked for proof that chicken eggs couldn't have occurred after 800 million years ... you don't seem to know what the word means ...

 

[Hollie]

He fooled two homosexual atheists. How impressive.

You have never provided anything that supports your claimed non-zero probability.

It wasn't me who said it first. I just pointed out > non-zero probability means the chances are really small as in no chance and slim chance. It's all about chances, remember? This is why we get these close to infinite type examples such as aliens exist because of near infinite number of planets, etc. Or near infinite conditions where life could pop up. Instead, we observe it doesn't happen. What I did say was if your professor writes on the whiteboard "It's all about chances," then leave the class. He's gonna be BS'ing you.

Let's look at Hawking's final paper on the multiverse. Surprisingly, he admits the universe is finite like the creation scientists claim (he doesn't mention edge nor boundaries). Maybe you can explain what he means. I haven't read much on string theory.

'"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," said Hawking in an interview last autumn. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested. "

In their new paper, Hawking and Hertog say this account of eternal inflation as a theory of the big bang is wrong. "The problem with the usual account of eternal inflation is that it assumes an existing background universe that evolves according to Einstein's theory of general relativity and treats the quantum effects as small fluctuations around this," said Hertog. "However, the dynamics of eternal inflation wipes out the separation between classical and quantum physics. As a consequence, Einstein's theory breaks down in eternal inflation."

"We predict that our universe, on the largest scales, is reasonably smooth and globally finite. So it is not a fractal structure," said Hawking."'

Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang

Professor Stephen Hawking's final theory on the origin of the universe, which he worked on in collaboration with Professor Thomas Hertog from KU Leuven, has been published today in the Journal of High Energy Physics.

phys.org

I have to question why you bother ''quoting'' anything from scientists when the science text of the Bible answers all questions about existence. The fact is, Hawking's hypothesis is no more valid than some others. There are still unknowns about the universe that are being studied. There lies the great divide between science and religious claims. Science will explore and discover where religion is forever constrained by dogma that supports the religious ideology.

Now you are complaining because your side died agreeing with their opponents about the universe being finite based on general relativity. This is what gaining truth and knowledge is. It doesn't always turn out the way you think it will. What you should start to see is the design in some of the things we are discussing as this is what observation provides us. Fort Fun Indiana mentioned the spherical type of objects that "formed" due to evolutionary thinking. Actually, they were designed that way because if they were formed, then we would not see nice spherical objects. There would be all types of malformed objects such as asteroids and meteors. This demonstrates there was an intelligence behind it.

When did any side agree with their opponents about the universe being finite based on general relativity? Who are the opponents? You're making some rather odd claims that you can neither explain nor support.

While you see ''design'' in things that you insist is of supernatural origin, I'll note that nothing in all of human history has shown any indication of supernaturalism.

Please identify what spherical objects are formed due to evolutionary thinking. But first, please identify what constitutes ''evolutionary thinking'' and second, how that affects spherical objects.

Please identify a single event, circumstance or instance, at aby time in human history that has had a supernatural cause.

 

[ReinyDays]

It wasn't me who said it first. I just pointed out > non-zero probability means the chances are really small as in no chance and slim chance.

You need to stay away from anything mathematical ... 1 is non-zero, and expresses certainty ... 99% is also non-zero, near certainty ...

Two methanes make an ethane ... 0.00001% = 10,000,000,000,000,000 per 16 grams ... ten quadrillion is slim? ... in every half ounce? ... that's nuts ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Please identify a single event, circumstance or instance, at aby time in human history that has had a supernatural cause.

The eye structures in hurricanes defy all know natural laws ... it's unknown why they exist ... no other vortex structure has been observed to have eyes ... just hurricanes ...

Supernatural today ... above and beyond our understanding so far ... we can assume someday we'll understand why, but then again, maybe not ...

 

[deanrd]

Instead of asking opinion questions on a messageboard, perhaps go take a couple of college courses on evolution? You would be surprised what you could learn.

 

[Hollie]

Please identify a single event, circumstance or instance, at aby time in human history that has had a supernatural cause.

The eye structures in hurricanes defy all know natural laws ... it's unknown why they exist ... no other vortex structure has been observed to have eyes ... just hurricanes ...

Supernatural today ... above and beyond our understanding so far ... we can assume someday we'll understand why, but then again, maybe not ...

I'm going to grab a handful of snakes and go to church. A vision will come to me. It may be induced by the venom but I'll come to an understanding.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm going to grab a handful of snakes and go to church. A vision will come to me. It may be induced by the venom but I'll come to an understanding.

That would work in the United States ... but I wouldn't try that in Australia ... [shivers] ...

 

[james bond]

The proof is in on the eggshell of the egg that the adult hen produced.

Again, the egg is too complex an organism to form by itself. It has to start from the inside out that only the hen can do. Furthermore, you argument loses because a rooster has to exist to fertilize it in order to have a baby chick.

I claim another abiogenesis and evolution fail as it can't produce life from non-life nor can it have sexual reproduction from an egg .

Only on chicken eggs ... what about red junglefowl eggs? ... wait, WHAT ... is the first chicken a hen or a rooster? ... do you know the difference? ... hate to break your bubble, but chickens are developed into embryos long before the shell forms ... open up a laying hen and you'll find 6 or 8 eggs in different stages of development within the birth canal ... the eggs you buy in the supermarket are not fertilized ... are you some manner of city-slicker who doesn't know anything about raising chickens? ...

I asked for proof that chicken eggs couldn't have occurred after 800 million years ... you don't seem to know what the word means ...

The creation scientists can repeat the experiment on another adult hen and egg and get the same results. Moreover, one needs a hen to fertilize it for a chick. One needs more than asymmetric reproduction, different reproductive glands, a complex egg structure, etc. Yet, after 23 pages, we haven't even got past how a single cell happened nor what was there before the big bang.

I'm ready to call victory and say it is what it is in scientific method terms. While you're struggling with possibility >= zero and sound gleeful about that, it is the evolutionists who can't have life appear from non-life. Nor how an object in place becomes spherical as the norm instead of asymmetrical. It would have to end up in just the right location or life could not happen.

Who can't face the music in this experiment? Just look in the mirror.

 

[james bond]

Please identify what spherical objects are formed due to evolutionary thinking. But first, please identify what constitutes ''evolutionary thinking'' and second, how that affects spherical objects.

Ask Fort Fun Indiana. That was his claim with no further evidence provided and request for it ignored.

 

[james bond]

I'm going to grab a handful of snakes and go to church. A vision will come to me. It may be induced by the venom but I'll come to an understanding.

I knew you having to face design and intelligence behind it would make you go haywire.

 

[james bond]

Instead of asking opinion questions on a messageboard, perhaps go take a couple of college courses on evolution? You would be surprised what you could learn.

I use evolution.berkeley.edu to keep up. Here is where they state now that intelligent life is rare -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/astrobio_habitat_04. Notice they're not admitting life, i.e. any kind of living organism such as plants, is rare.

 

[james bond]

Please identify a single event, circumstance or instance, at aby time in human history that has had a supernatural cause.

I already have . On the first day of creation, "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." Genesis 1:3. This had to be the electromagnetic spectrum because it says he created the sun later. This is enough for all the energy we have in our universe.

Where did the energy come from evolution's big bang?

 

[Hollie]

I'm going to grab a handful of snakes and go to church. A vision will come to me. It may be induced by the venom but I'll come to an understanding.

I knew you having to face design and intelligence behind it would make you go haywire.

What supernatural design and intelligence would that be?

 

[Hollie]

Please identify a single event, circumstance or instance, at aby time in human history that has had a supernatural cause.

I already have . On the first day of creation, "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." Genesis 1:3. This had to be the electromagnetic spectrum because it says he created the sun later. This is enough for all the energy we have in our universe.

Where did the energy come from evolution's big bang?

Everything in that cartoon is explained by natural mechanisms. I don't see any indications that the gods were involved.

The gods never said, “Let there be light,” Your gods didn't write the Bible.

 

[ReinyDays]

The proof is in on the eggshell of the egg that the adult hen produced.

Again, the egg is too complex an organism to form by itself. It has to start from the inside out that only the hen can do. Furthermore, you argument loses because a rooster has to exist to fertilize it in order to have a baby chick.

I claim another abiogenesis and evolution fail as it can't produce life from non-life nor can it have sexual reproduction from an egg .

Only on chicken eggs ... what about red junglefowl eggs? ... wait, WHAT ... is the first chicken a hen or a rooster? ... do you know the difference? ... hate to break your bubble, but chickens are developed into embryos long before the shell forms ... open up a laying hen and you'll find 6 or 8 eggs in different stages of development within the birth canal ... the eggs you buy in the supermarket are not fertilized ... are you some manner of city-slicker who doesn't know anything about raising chickens? ...

I asked for proof that chicken eggs couldn't have occurred after 800 million years ... you don't seem to know what the word means ...

The creation scientists can repeat the experiment on another adult hen and egg and get the same results. Moreover, one needs a hen to fertilize it for a chick. One needs more than asymmetric reproduction, different reproductive glands, a complex egg structure, etc. Yet, after 23 pages, we haven't even got past how a single cell happened nor what was there before the big bang.

I'm ready to call victory and say it is what it is in scientific method terms. While you're struggling with possibility >= zero and sound gleeful about that, it is the evolutionists who can't have life appear from non-life. Nor how an object in place becomes spherical as the norm instead of asymmetrical. It would have to end up in just the right location or life could not happen.

Who can't face the music in this experiment? Just look in the mirror.

Moreover, one needs a hen to fertilize it for a chick.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

You haven't taken high school health class have you? ...

Yet, after 23 pages, we haven't even got past how a single cell happened

This starts with two methane molecules colliding and forming an ethane molecule ... do I need to back up and explain why carbon is common in the universe? ...

 

[james bond]

Please identify a single event, circumstance or instance, at aby time in human history that has had a supernatural cause.

I already have . On the first day of creation, "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." Genesis 1:3. This had to be the electromagnetic spectrum because it says he created the sun later. This is enough for all the energy we have in our universe.

Where did the energy come from evolution's big bang?

Everything in that cartoon is explained by natural mechanisms. I don't see any indications that the gods were involved.

The gods never said, “Let there be light,” Your gods didn't write the Bible.

Please explain how that happened by "natural mechanisms?" How can ancient people write that kind of stuff up when they had no idea? Yet, we end up finding science backs the energy up; It's enough there to power our entire universe.

We can't match the power of a supernova explosion -- The Incomprehensible Power of a Supernova | RealClearScience. Some evos think we'll die when our sun explodes, but no it will be something more powerful.

 

[james bond]

Moreover, one needs a hen rooster to fertilize it for a chick.

There. Corrected it for you haha.

So what else have you got? Nothing to cause time to start and space to follow it. That's beyond our science.

We can go forward in time by going out into space and then coming back years later according Einstein's Special Theory, but we can't go backward in time. Do you believe that BS, too? Hawking believed it. If he changed his mind before death, then he didn't admit that error.

 

[Hollie]

Please identify a single event, circumstance or instance, at aby time in human history that has had a supernatural cause.

I already have . On the first day of creation, "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." Genesis 1:3. This had to be the electromagnetic spectrum because it says he created the sun later. This is enough for all the energy we have in our universe.

Where did the energy come from evolution's big bang?

Everything in that cartoon is explained by natural mechanisms. I don't see any indications that the gods were involved.

The gods never said, “Let there be light,” Your gods didn't write the Bible.

Please explain how that happened by "natural mechanisms?" How can ancient people write that kind of stuff up when they had no idea? Yet, we end up finding science backs the energy up; It's enough there to power our entire universe.

We can't match the power of a supernova explosion -- The Incomprehensible Power of a Supernova | RealClearScience. Some evos think we'll die when our sun explodes, but no it will be something more powerful.

Please identify what ancient people you believe wrote some stuff up. What stuff? You posted a new cartoon similar to one you posted earlier. What was the point?

Are you suggesting your gods assembled transistor radios?

Science backs the energy up? What does that mean?

What's an evos?

Why will the sun explode? I thought the universe was fine tuned for life.

 

[ReinyDays]

There. Corrected it for you haha.

So what else have you got? Nothing to cause time to start and space to follow it. That's beyond our science.

We can go forward in time by going out into space and then coming back years later according Einstein's Special Theory, but we can't go backward in time. Do you believe that BS, too? Hawking believed it. If he changed his mind before death, then he didn't admit that error.

... and about methane? ... are you admitting you wouldn't understand abiogenesis even if it was explained to you? ...