Printable View
__________________________________________________ _____________________Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_guy_75
Well.....I may have had a drink or 3. lol
Still, My arguement still stands and I don't care if you don't like it.
My arguement of Evolution (primate to modern day man) being an UNPROVEN theory, it IS FACT.
Any arguement to the contrary is conjecture.
I win........Sorry.
*shrug*
*goes back to the porn room*
That`s great.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Let`s take a step back to the beginning Trish ol` gal,
how did the first protein invent itself ?
The Bible doesn't tell us how the first protein was formed. Why not? Because it's not a religious question. So if and when it is finally understood in some detail, there will be nothing in the Bible to confirm or contradict that understanding. Are you threatened by this question? Why?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experimentQuote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
It`s all science and evolution, so describe to us how the first protein ever, invented and constructed itself.
What's all science and evolution?
You`re kidding right ? Using purified water/dumping in ampicillin/super heating to 80C/centrifuging/adding reagents/SEEDING/non-conclusive "potentials for sequentional evolution" ! ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogers
Cassette mutagenesis experiments suggest that the probability of attaining (at random) the correct sequencing for a short protein 100 amino acids long is about 1 in 10 to the 65 power.Recent mutagenesis research has provided additional support for the conclusion that functional proteins are exceedingly rare among possible amino acid sequences. The probability of finding a functional protein among the possible amino acid sequences corresponding to a 150-residue protein is similarly 1 in 10 to the 77 power.
I don’t know how the first protein was formed on Earth or found it’s way to Earth. Neither do you. I take it you’re hinting that God made it. I’m guessing there are no gods. But neither of those two propositions (in the forms I just gave them) are very meaningful hypothesis when it comes to explaining what we want to know about the appearance of the first proteins. To say that God made the first protein may or may not be correct, but it doesn’t tell me anything about how that protein was made or how it got here. Neither does the simple assumption that it occurred without supernatural aid. Obviously I’m not the one who’s going to tell everyone how the first proteins formed. It’s no great triumph to point your finger and shout, “You can’t explain the appearance of the first proteins,” because you don’t have an explanation either. In the race to find an explanation, it does seem the Urey-Miller experiments point in a promising direction. I’m not up on the directions toward which the god hypothesis is pointing. Maybe you can fill us in on the chemical pathways the Christians are proposing.
As far as the evolution of man goes (which was the initiating question of this thread), the case is quite different. The mechanisms are understood and the evidence is well documented and still mounting. Man evolved from primates.
To repeat myself:Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
You`re kidding right ? Using purified water/dumping in ampicillin/super heating to 80C/centrifuging/adding reagents/SEEDING/non-conclusive "potentials for sequentional evolution" ! ?
To repeat myself without shouting,
Maybe you can fill us in on the chemical pathways the Christians are proposing.