If we evolved from apes, how come apes still exist?

We didn't evolve from the apes you see today. We merely have common ancestors. Each species has its own specialty.Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Evolution decided. How? By pure random chance the first ancestor of all life on earth used L-amino acids to form all of its proteins. Thus the only information regarding protein synthesis it could pass on to its decendants was how to use L-amino acids. It couldn't say how to make D amino acids because it didn't know how. As a result, all of its decendants (read: all life currently on Earth) can only use L-amino acids.

It's more than possible, perhaps even probable, that there has been life on Earth that used D-amino acids. However, those life forms went extinct a long time ago and no longer have any living decendants. As a result all that's left is life that uses L-amino acids.

Thessassin

If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of conscious intervention.

Darwinism has broken down in the light of modern science. Science has disproved Darwinism

On the contrary.

Life is possible in both right and left in theory but only left handed life has been produced on earth. There could be right handed life out their in the inverse but mix the 2 and life fails. The chances are 10^240 where as the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 10^79. The probability of these amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would generate much larger numbers. If we add these probabilities to each other, and if we go on to work out the probabilities of even higher numbers and types of proteins, the calculations become inconceivable.

Key branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy, and biophysics, indicate one after another that natural laws and chance effects proposed by the theory cannot explain the origin of life. Life turns out to be infinitely more complex than Darwin imagined in his time demonstrating that his theory has absolutely "broken down."

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html

teddyrob

[QUOTE="Thessassin"]

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of conscious intervention.

teddyrob

Darwinism has broken down in the light of modern science. Science has disproved Darwinism

Also 'darwinism' as you like to call it has nothign to do with abiogenesis. Which is what we have been talkign about for the last page or two.

Darwinism has broken down in the light of modern science. Science has disproved Darwinismteddyrob

Darwinism has broken down in the light of modern science. Science has disproved Darwinism

teddyrob

Which is why after 150 years of being rigorously tested the Scientific Theory of Evolution still is the cornerstone of modern biology.

I'm not quite sure what this "Darwinism" you're talking about is.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

Impossible if just one right handed amino acids mix with the left, no life.

A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can never be explained by chance.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html

If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of conscious intervention.

teddyrob

The fact that a lifeform that uses L-amino acids dies when trying to use D-amino acids is only further support for evolution. If evolution wasn't true we would expect that lifeforms would exist that can use both D and L conformers. However, because all the lifeforms that had a mutation that resulted in them trying to use D-amino acids in their biochemical reactions died very quickly they werent able to reproduce and thus weren't able to pass on their genes. If they can't pass on their genes that means the mutation for the use of D-amino acids doesn't get passed on and the next generation's gene pool is made up entirely of genes that code only for L-amino acids.

Thanks for supporting evolution.

On the contrary.

Life is possible in both right and left in theory but only left handed life has been produced on earth. There could be right handed life out their in the inverse but mix the 2 and life fails. The chances are 10^240 where as the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 10^79. The probability of these amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would generate much larger numbers. If we add these probabilities to each other, and if we go on to work out the probabilities of even higher numbers and types of proteins, the calculations become inconceivable.

Key branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy, and biophysics, indicate one after another that natural laws and chance effects proposed by the theory cannot explain the origin of life. Life turns out to be infinitely more complex than Darwin imagined in his time demonstrating that his theory has absolutely "broken down."

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html

You didn't refute my argument at all. All you did was rephrase your old argument agian. Thus my previous refutation still stands.

Also, I'm a neuroscience major. Unlike you I've taken a lot of upper level science cIasses. Unlike you, I have a 3.84 GPA as said neuroscience major at one of the nation's most prestigious universities. Unlike you, I work in a lab and am currently doing research. In other words, unlike you, I know my **** when it comes to chemistry, biology, and behavioral science. And sorry to say but evolution is about as proven as a theory can be, and it only continues to gain even more support as learn more about biology. The only people who think it has been disproven by science are people who know nothing about science other than what websites and other materials written by other people who don't know jack about science tell them to think.

Impossible if just one right handed amino acids mix with the left, no life.

A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can never be explained by chance.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html

If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of conscious intervention.

teddyrob

This is the problem with most any supporter of the idea that life could not have come from non-life: the moment they encounter something currently unexplained, they immediately just stop there and say "aha, couldn't have been natural, must have been intelligently designed!" This is nonsense; just because we don't know how something happened doesn't mean that there was some intelligent being guiding the process. If we had made that conclusion every time we were faced with a then-unsolved mystery, we would still be living in the dark ages.

No, what you describe is not explained by chance. But neither is it necessarily explained by an intelligent designer, either. See here for a paper that discusses one way that seems quite viable as a mechanism to produce homochirality in compounds necessary for life, purely through natural means.

yeah i mean its almost impossible to get that result, it must be god!

Thessassin

Don't be taken in by trying to directly cast aside the arguments from probability - if it is indeed a 1 in 10^(whatever huge number) chance for life to come up from non-life, then it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that this simply could not have happened.

That is, however, not the case. Every single argument from probability is plagued by various problems.

[QUOTE="Thessassin"]

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of conscious intervention.

teddyrob

Darwinism has broken down in the light of modern science. Science has disproved Darwinism

Darwinism Refuted.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html

teddyrob

See, now we're going to use this little thing called logic to see why this site is not a valid source of information.

"But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids."

REALLY? It's almost like they would have all had to descended from a common ancestor in order for it to be that way....

"In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature."

And yet, after 5 minutes of research I found this: Linky. Sites like these should at least make it difficult to refute them.

"The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists."

"In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components."

See, now we've even gotten to the point where your source is refuting itself.

Also, sure enough, looking around on the site it's a gold mine for logical fallacies. Misleading analogies, irreducible complexity, false ideas of thermodynamics.... It's all there.

[QUOTE="Steameffekt"]

The theory of evolution states that we humans, evolved from primates or apes. But today, apes are still here. How come they didn't evolve?

super_mario_128

Yupp!