(October 14, 2013 at 6:22 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Can you answer these simple questions?

Yes, on page two: you still haven't bothered to go back and read my answers, hmm?

(October 14, 2013 at 7:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: Yes, on page two: you still haven't bothered to go back and read my answers, hmm?

Nuh-uh, don't you know that we are here at the whim of Grace, she's the master of her threads! If your answers are inaccurate or inadequate according to her standards, they do not count. She's got rules and demands! Try not to tell her otherwise, she's got god on her side!

(October 14, 2013 at 7:22 am)Kayenneh Wrote: Nuh-uh, don't you know that we are here at the whim of Grace, she's the master of her threads! If your answers are inaccurate or inadequate according to her standards, they do not count. She's got rules and demands! Try not to tell her otherwise, she's got god on her side!

It's amazing she hasn't been the victim of a blanket ignore from everyone yet. By all rights, she should be having her rules and standards all on her lonesome by now.

(October 14, 2013 at 7:34 am)Esquilax Wrote: It's amazing she hasn't been the victim of a blanket ignore from everyone yet. By all rights, she should be having her rules and standards all on her lonesome by now.

What can I say, people here are like frenzied terriers, they do like to hear their chewing toys squeal

(October 14, 2013 at 7:49 am)Kayenneh Wrote:

(October 14, 2013 at 7:34 am)Esquilax Wrote: It's amazing she hasn't been the victim of a blanket ignore from everyone yet. By all rights, she should be having her rules and standards all on her lonesome by now.

What can I say, people here are like frenzied terriers, they do like to hear their chewing toys squeal

Funny thing is, I started calling her Grace and everyone has just taken it up.

She's probably a shemale. Unless she corrects me, we can call her Graham.

(October 14, 2013 at 8:04 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Funny thing is, I started calling her Grace and everyone has just taken it up.

She's probably a shemale. Unless she corrects me, we can call her Graham.

Don't flatter yourself, I did it on my own too (great minds think alike, eh?)

And does it matter? The person behind the keyboard might be either or, or somewhere in between, but Grace is a female name, so until she corrects me, I'm going to continue calling Grace 'her'.

The issue here is that Grace (again, how do you guys know its a 'she') isn't really having a discussion. Discussion is to present your idea, taking into account what others say and in the case of disagreement, make a rebuttal, and so on, so forth.

The arguments themselves are old canards used by theists, rebutted many times, yet Grace continues to do the "lalala, I can't hear you" routine. But it is good that people put up their efforts responding to her, because there might be others that can benefit from those. But its getting ridiculous, members start to get frustrated over such idiocy.

I for one don't have the time or patience to answer so much bullshit and I find it hard that this day and age, there are people that believe that crap so fervently and are capable of using a computer. It truly baffles me.

(October 14, 2013 at 7:49 am)Kayenneh Wrote: What can I say, people here are like frenzied terriers, they do like to hear their chewing toys squeal

But Grace isn't squealing so much as she's going "you're not biting me, I'm biting you! Nya nya!" over and over. Chew toys are only fun when they have the good sense to be wary of the terriers.

By all means, let's answer your questions like you answer ours... maybe you'll like the answers better that way.

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Questions

What was the first living thing?

I don't know.

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Was it made of just proteins?

Most likely no... there must have been some water involved and a few other minerals... but I don't know for sure.

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: If so, how many amino acids did it have and what was their sequence?

There is no fossil record of that first. There is, however, fossil record of bacterial life on this planet dated back to some 4 billion years...

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: What are the odds of that happening?

Like many have told you, 100%, provided that it happened.
Provided that we are on a planet similar to Earth 4 billion years ago and no life yet exists, I don't know.
A few steps are required to happen in a given order... it mustn't have been something that happened all the time, but may have happened in a few locations sooner or later... it did have a lot of time to sort out the correct order... and, once it's done, it's done.

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Please show real calculations.

1 + 1 = 2

I'm not aware that anyone knows what were the conditions that gave rise to life on Earth, but my guess is it started underwater, near a volcanic vent, so those are the requirements: Liquid water and volcanic activity.

There are approximately 10 billion galaxies in the known Universe. Each of those has approximately 10 billion stars. Each of those stars can harbor a solar system.
In our vicinity, quite a few solar systems have been spotted, but most planets discovered are not on the habitable zone, where water is liquid (requirement #1). So, just there we have something like ~1% of solar systems displaying a planet in the habitable zone... about half of which are telluric, that is solid, like ours, instead of gaseous like Jupiter.
Early in it's formation, any telluric planet must undergo some form of heavy volcanism... so requirement #2 is acquired.

If a telluric planet has formed then it has Iron to work with. If it has iron, it has all the elements between Hydrogen and Iron, much like our Earth. There include Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon, Helium, etc.
The building blocks are there, now they just have to bind in a few particular patterns...
Energy, they can get from the vent's heat... perhaps they can build upon some crystalline mineral structure... perhaps... given enough time, they'll come to be self-replicating, like the crystals they molded upon... just some chains of carbon-hydrates...self replicating carbon-hydrates.
So far, I see this as very simple, so I'm going for a 50% chance of this happening on a telluric planet in the sweet spot.
Give them more time and they find a nice shell... let's call the result a cell... some cells contain a few extra nutrients and it works well... some parts of the cell's wall become permeable to useful nutrients and impermeable to harmful ones...
More 50%.

A more efficient self-replicating chain of carbon-hydrates comes along, RNA., another 50%.
Then DNA, another 50%.

Let's do the math, shall we?
10billion * 10billion = 10^9 * 10^9 = 10 ^18 stars
10^18 * 1% = 10^16 planets in the sweet spot
10^16 * 0.5 = 5*10^15 telluric planets

5*10^15 * 0.5 = 2.5*10^15 planets with self-replicating carbon-hydrates
2.5*10^15 * 0.5 = 1.25*10^15 planets with cells containing RNA.


that's about 10^15, out of 10^18 stars in the whole Universe!... or, 0.1%.
There you go, enjoy.

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: How did it then make the jump to RNA and DNA?

I don't know, but I'm sure someone has replicated that process... google it.

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: What are the odds of that happening?

It seems all you need is a special kind of protein to come around and lend a hand...
So... 50%?

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Please show real calculations.

I just did...
1.25*10^15 * 0.5 = 6.25*10^14 planets with DNA based life.

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Was it made of just RNA and proteins?

Weren't we already with the DNA?

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: If so, how many nucleotides for the RNA and amino acids for the proteins?

You know?.... those details haven't become written in stone... the fossilization process does not store that information... It is a shame, I agree. Heck, even finding dinosaur skin is bloody hard!... how do you expect to find proteins from the earliest of lifeforms of the planet?

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: What were the sequences for both?

No record of that available, Don't know.

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: What are the odds of that happening?

6.25*10^14 / 10^18 =~ 0.06%

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: How did it then make the jump to DNA?

Weren't we already here?... I must have time traveled...

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: What are the odds of that happening?

again, ~0.06%

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Please show real calculations.

I just did!

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Did it actually use DNA?

If we're talking about the cells which evolved to use DNA, then yes.

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: If so, how many nucleotides for the DNA?

Again, that didn't get stored in the fossilization process.... the people at that time were a bit sloppy with their record keeping...

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: What was the DNA code sequence?

No record of it has been found. Don't know!

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: What are the odds of that happening?

~0.06%, still...

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Please show real calculations.

I did!

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: What was the 2nd living creature?

Oh... back in time, again, huh?
It must have been extremely similar to the first and probably none of them survived to bear children. I'm going with a massive buildup of similar "organisms", all under similar conditions... most didn't make it... a few did... evidently.

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: The 3rd, 4th ... up the actual first cell?

yeah..... look above.

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: What are the odds of each of those jumps?

Still ~0.06%

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Please show real calculations.

I did!

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Upward evolution

Could man have evolved from an apelike creature in just 5 million years?

5 million years is far too long for my mind to grasp, so I see no reason why not... let's just make a rough estimate here... Except for the past few centuries, a generation takes something like 10~20 years, so let's average it to 15 years. 5 million years can harbor something like 333 thousand generations. Still too large a number for my tiny head... so... yeah... it could!
Look at how many generations it takes for a certain dog breed to become another... ~5~10... extrapolate to 300 thousand generations...

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: What are the odds based on the fact that there would be about 30 million base code differences in a 3 billion base code DNA between the 2 creatures, only 500,000 generations in that time, and only at most several million individuals for each of most of those generations?
What are the odds?

I... don't understand your question...
What are the odds that... what?
What is a "base code"? Between which 2 creatures? Where did you get the 500,000 generations? at what time?

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: How did that happen since higher-level creatures use sexual reproduction?
Please show real calculations.

How did what happen?
The first reproductions? asexual. Some reptiles can still do that, you know? Are they not "higher-level creatures"?

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Now repeat that feat for the over 100 million species that have been supposedly on the Earth. What are the odds of that?

Many extinctions...

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Please show real calculations.

I still don't get what I'm supposed to be calculating by now...

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Given the fact that mutations in general corrupt the DNA code, why is the DNA code of all species not completely corrupted after the long line of progression over hundreds of millions of years?

Apparently, it isn't because those individuals who get their DNA that corrupted sort of don't propagate their genes.
And sexual reproduction helps a bit here, by having two possible blueprints from where to "choose" the phenotype. Usually, the most apt gets chosen.

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: The fossil record

Why does the fossil record show distinct species fully formed throughout?

Would you say you were fully formed, when you were a child?
At which point did you become fully formed?
12?
15?
18?
30?

What did you expect? to find animals with only one leg? then 2... then 3 then 4, then 5... then back to 4, because that was more efficient?

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Why has not a single chain of missing links of one disparate species becoming another ever been found in the entire fossil record?

Because many are links to the next, while some are dead ends.
Like Neanderthals were a dead end sub-genre of the homo species.

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: There are millions of chains of missing links still missing. None have been found.

Fossilization is a rare process. Finding fossils is a difficult task.
Be glad for all the ones that have been found, for they already provide a very complex picture!

(October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Provide one set of dates for one supposed intermediate species. Give the dates of the ancestor, the intermediate and the descendent species for one intermediate species.

A species evolves slowly.
Like you said above, it took humans some 5 million years to pass from chimp-like to our current form.
Within each particular population at any given time, you can find individuals who are a bit ahead, evolutionary speaking, and a few who are behind. Overall, the ones who are that bit ahead become more proficient at surviving and manage to breed more. Thus, they pass on that slight evolutionary edge. In the meantime, the others breed less. As time and generations passes, more tiny variations are introduced... And only once every few hundreds of generations does one individual get fossilized...

So, now, the year 2013 sees the ancestor (my grandma), the intermediate (my mum) and the descendant (me). Each slightly better than the previous... so slightly we can't tell how much... but it's there.
Or, if you prefer, the descendant, you, the intermediate can be our co-forummonger, catfish, and the descendant, Esquilax.

I do think there is a sort of progress being shown here. There was probably a time when "Grace" would have promoted the existence of god by asking "so who makes the lightning?" As each of those questions was answered and there was no god behind them, "Grace" would shift the goalposts.

Note where those goalposts are today: Grace wants answers regarding what happened shortly after the planet was formed, and she wants DNA evidence to go with it. I'm thinking that in a hundred years or so, "Grace" will demand to know what existed prior to the 'big bang' and if we can produce physical evidence from the previous universe's existence. Otherwise she will insist that god lit the fuse on the 'big bang.'

The gaps aren't just becoming fewer and smaller, they're moving further and further back in time.