Questions for Creationists (page 12)

ThiChi

Here is an example. Hey write him (respectfully) and ask your questions:

The article you sent said:

>The UCSD team, which included Matthew Ronshaugen and Nadine McGinnis,
showed
in its experiments that this could be accomplished with relatively simple
mutations in a class of regulatory genes, known as Hox, that act as master
switches by turning on and off other genes during embryonic development.
Using laboratory fruit flies and a crustacean known as Artemia, or brine
shrimp, the scientists showed how modifications in the Hox gene Ubxwhich
suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of
fruit flies, but only 15 percent in Artemiawould have allowed the
crustacean-like ancestors of Artemia, with limbs on every segment, to lose
their hind legs and diverge 400 million years ago into the six-legged
insects.<

Without reading the article I cannot really say what is going on. I am
traveling at a fast pace on a lecture tour in India and it is difficult
for me to get on the web right now. One would have to ask the following
questions. 1. How did these "regulatory genes" come into existence. 2. What
is the exact mechanism by which this particular operation takes place, on
the biomolecular level. 3. what are these ancestors to the brine shrimp? 4.
how likely is it that the proposed modifications of the Hox gene could have
occurred in nature? One would like to know how many modifications there
were. How many individuals would these have occurred in? What is the
likelihood that these modifications would have spread throughout a
population.

To me, the existence of a set of switches that allows small changes in one
part of the system to produce significant changes in the whole system seems
to require some explanation. It seems like something that is designed into
the system. One would have to explain just how this system works, and how
it could have arisen by normal genetic evolutionary processes, as opposed
to design.

Anyways, this sounds like typical Darwinist propaganda that when closelyexamined will leave them further from a Darwinian explanation than when they started. But without seeing the whole paper, I can't say too much more.

Sincerely yours,
Michael A. Cremo

9701 Venice Blvd. #5
Los Angeles, CA 90034 USA
310-837-5283, fax 310-837-1056
www.mcremo.com
[email protected]

rem

ThiChi,

You have provided no evidence - only abstracts. The underlying data needs to be examined to corroborate Mr. Weekly World New's story. Perhaps if we can see all of the data we can see that there is another side of the story.

rem

ThiChi

This seems very reasonable:

"Could Life Arise by Chance?" By Michael Cremo, with Richard L. Thompson To give some idea of what exactly is involved in supposing that life could have emerged by random combination of chemicals in a primordial soup, let us imagine that this soup covered the entire surface of the earth to a depth of one mile. We shall divide this volume into tiny cubes measuring one angstrom unit on each side. (An angstrom unit is about the size of a single hydrogen atom.) Let's also assume that the soup is extremely concentrated, so that reactions are taking place within each of the cubes within the soup.
Now, in the expectation of obtaining the simplest possible self-reproducing organism, let the reactions take place abillion times per second in each cube. And let's further assume that the reactions have been going on for 4.5 billion years, the estimated age of the earth.
As we have seen in the acompanying article, scientists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have estimated that the chance of obtaining the simplest self-reproducing system by random combination of molecules is at best somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 in 10 40,000 attempts. But if out of extreme generosity we reduce the required number of proteins from 2,000 to only 100, then the probability is still 1 in 10 2,000 .
Now, if you add up all the possible attempted billion-per-second combinations in our hypothetical promordial soup, you wind up with only 10 74 throws of the chemical dice. That means the odds of getting the required self-reproducing system out of our soup would be in 1 in 10 1,926 . We wouldn't expect that to happen in the entire course of the earth's history!
Of course, a diehard gambler might say it's highly unlikely but it just could happen by chance. But this is a completely meaningless use of the word chance. In order for a statement about an event with a nonzero probability of happening to be meaningful, we would have to observe enough repetitions of the event to establish a statistical pattern. Only this would allow us to say, "This event has probability p of happening."
For example, we say that when we toss a coin there is one chance in two that it will turn up heads. This probability is established by examining the behavior of the coin over several hundred trials. Now, if you have an event with a probability of one ina million, it would take hundreds of millions of trials to establish this. And if the event has an estimated probability of 1 in 10 2,000 , you would need many times that number of trials. The basic point is this: What is meant by a probability of 1 out of 10 2,000 is that a certain statistical pattern corresponding to this figure will be observed over the required vast number of trials. If there is no possibility of performing these trials (as is certainly the case here), then there is no meaning to saying an event happens with that very small probability.
On this planet, as we have seen, you can only have a maximum of 10 74 trials. Now, we can be extremely generous and grant the chemical evolutionists that the trials can be taking place in primordial soups on as many planets as there are atoms in the entire universe - about 10 80 . Then you get a grand total of 10 154 trials - still an infinitesimal number compared to 10 20,000 . The conclusion is simple. It's meaningless to talk about the origin of life in terms of chance. To say it happened by chance is just the same as saying it happened, and we already know that. In that case, all we can say is that life is a unique event.

This article was originally published in Origins: Higher Dimensions in Science, a publication of the Bhaktivedanta Institute (pp. 34-35) .

Edited by - thichi on 5 November 2002 15:50:55

SixofNine

LOL,

Thi chi said this:

. I have corresponded with him and have never, ever felt that he has an agenda because of his beliefs.

And then posted Michael Cremo saying this:

Anyways, this sounds like typical Darwinist propaganda that when closelyexamined will leave them further from a Darwinian explanation than when they started.

Agenda's can make the smartest man turn into a blathering idiot. Total brutal honesty is the only antidote, and few people will be brutal with themselves. Pussies.

ThiChi

Six o Nine:

His term is correct, from his viewpoint. Your viewpoint has an agenda. If you would read the posts, the point made is that he is not defrauding or hiding evidence to achieve his agenda. Are you?

Gedanken

Thi Chi,

I'm still waiting examples to support to your claims of scientific purges etc. Someone posted that reply (maybe you) from Cremo a long time ago - I'm sure he's back from India now.

What about a man who quotes Weekly Wordl News as a source. Is that honest? Should peer review journals allow such quotes?

So far you have refused to provide evidence for your outlandish claims.

Gedanken

SixofNine

LOL @ thi chi....

just watch me and take lessons buddy.

ThiChi

G:

Look, I have gave you info to look into the papers I cite. I have provided credible reviews that state there are questions to be answered that has merit.

I have given you his e-mail address, write him! I dont think you have the balls, but it is worth a try.........publish his, your reply...I gave you an example of one question I had.

I will not sit here and breast feed you. Get off your ass and go with what I have provided. If you want to rely on that vague article, be my guest!

Edited by - thichi on 5 November 2002 16:9:13

ThiChi

"So far you have refused to provide evidence for your outlandish claims."

what claims were those? I only offered other viewpoints to the debate that have merit to explore. Shoot me! How much evidence have you ignored here? Better yet, look at what you have provided....ha hah.wooooha

Six o Nine no, no, you do not need to!

Edited by - thichi on 5 November 2002 16:11:15

Edited by - thichi on 5 November 2002 16:13:29

Edited by - thichi on 5 November 2002 16:22:7

Gedanken

Thi Chi,

You stated that there have been "scioentifc purges." Now, can you give me examples or not? Do you know what a "purge" is by the way or are you just parrotting Cremo and the Weekly World News?

I'm not writing to anybody - you made the claim so put up or shut up.

Gedanken

Questions for Creationists

Share this