Darwin: Molecules and Mythology

[PoliticalChic]

1.Charles Darwin based his theory of evolution on a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.


Such has not proven to be the case.
The physical evidence for his conjecture was to be found in the fossil record; unfortunately, said record has not provided such proof.

And, corollary to that bad news is this: no one, not in the laboratory nor in nature, has ever seen nor shown one species changing into another.





But this has not proven satisfactory motivation for Darwin-groupies to give up the love affair!
Instead, his fans have turned to molecular biology in search of definitive reassurance.




2. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has published the following:
"The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly. In some case, this molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence. For example, it has long been postulated that whales descended from land mammals that had returned to the sea.....[Recent genetic comparisons] have confirmed this relationship... "
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

Get that: ".... molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence."
In other words....'we don't need no stinkin' fossils!"





2. There would be no reason to say that....if the fossil record had done as Darwin said it would:

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

(For those unfamiliar with Niles, he was the co-author with Stephen Gould, of the neo-Darwinist theory, 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics






3. ...if you have been convinced in high school or university of the proven veracity of Darwin's explanation of life's diversity.....think about this:

There is neither fossil evidence nor observations of new species being formed from earlier ones.

Shortly, I'll show that there is no molecular evidence, either.

Then, I'll let you mull over why Darwin is pushed so strongly, on the uninitiated.

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. So...the vaunted U.S. National Academy of Sciences claims that "...evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly."

We'll see that this is not true.



They even throw away the argument that fossil evidence has been the staple of 'proof' of Darwinism...e.g., ".... this molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence."
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition



It must be some pretty darn strong "molecular evidence"!



5.Let's see....
"Molecular phylogenies support many of the relationships that have long been postulated from morphological [i.e., anatomical] data. These two data sets are entirely independent....so their correspondence justifies confidence that the relationships are real." Futuyma, "Evolution (college textbook, 2005)," p. 528.

Does 'support' mean 'prove'?
If not, it's a step back from the statements made by the National Academy of Sciences.

Why is that?

Maybe just style.....or is there something fishy about the quibble?


a. Molecular phylogeny means that the evolutionary relationships can be ascertained from study of DNA, RNA, i.e., genes, and the proteins they direct.

I hope you have a conversational acquaintance with what DNA and RNA are!




Well....there you are:
OK, the fossil thing didn't work out...but molecular studies prove, or at least 'support,' Darwin ...correct?



Background:
DNA is in the nucleus....and stays there.
When an enzyme is needed, a section of the DNA unwinds and makes itself available...
"A single organism may contain thousands of different enzymes, each one specific to a different chemical."
How many kinds of enzymes might one cell contain
RNA copies the blueprint for a protein, and then moves out of the nucleus, into the cytoplasm.
Why?
Because proteins are only constructed, per the information from the DNA, at the ribosomes....which are found in the cytoplasm.



Are their lies involved in stating that understanding of DNA, RNA, genes, etc. supports Darwin's thesis?
We'll see in the next panel of this thread.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Where were we...oh...right: DNA and RNA will prove Darwin where fossil evidence failed.....OK?



No, not really. Begin by considering the immense complexity of the DNA molecule,...

a. ‘[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.’
Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, New York, p. 115, 1986

He's speaking of the capacity of a DNA molecule.


Richard Dawkins, for your perspecive "... is an atheist, a vice president of the British Humanist Association, ... is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design. In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, ... I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation." Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





7. A quick tutorial: DNA is a huge molecule that holds the blueprints for every one of the thousands and thousands of enzymes, molecules, and structures that make up each different cell, and identify each organism.
I'd be happy to explain in more detail for any who need such.





8. OK, here is comes-

...the entire DNA must be complete and in the correct order of nucleotides in order, i.e., it must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity. This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.

See, one small change, and the molecule is ka-put! It is not available for a next small change.

a. 'DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.&#8217 DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com


But....gee, given millions of years, couldn't one 'good' mutation at a time account for the kind of evolution that Darwin suggests???



No...here's the basis for the 'no'....

b. "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the fiftieth power has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt&#8217. Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000.

In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."—*I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," (1984), p. 205.



Now, ask how and why the National Academy of Sciences says "The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly."



For some reason, it is very, very important for some folks to push Darwin's theory.


Why?

 

[guno]

1.Charles Darwin based his theory of evolution on a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.


Such has not proven to be the case.
The physical evidence for his conjecture was to be found in the fossil record; unfortunately, said record has not provided such proof.

And, corollary to that bad news is this: no one, not in the laboratory nor in nature, has ever seen nor shown one species changing into another.





But this has not proven satisfactory motivation for Darwin-groupies to give up the love affair!
Instead, his fans have turned to molecular biology in search of definitive reassurance.




2. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has published the following:
"The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly. In some case, this molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence. For example, it has long been postulated that whales descended from land mammals that had returned to the sea.....[Recent genetic comparisons] have confirmed this relationship... "
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

Get that: ".... molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence."
In other words....'we don't need no stinkin' fossils!"





2. There would be no reason to say that....if the fossil record had done as Darwin said it would:

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

(For those unfamiliar with Niles, he was the co-author with Stephen Gould, of the neo-Darwinist theory, 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics






3. ...if you have been convinced in high school or university of the proven veracity of Darwin's explanation of life's diversity.....think about this:

There is neither fossil evidence nor observations of new species being formed from earlier ones.

Shortly, I'll show that there is no molecular evidence, either.

Then, I'll let you mull over why Darwin is pushed so strongly, on the uninitiated.

Did your jebus and bible god get their stories crossed?

 

[edthecynic]

6. Where were we...oh...right: DNA and RNA will prove Darwin where fossil evidence failed.....OK?



No, not really. Begin by considering the immense complexity of the DNA molecule,...


In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."—*I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," (1984), p. 205.

First of all, DNA is made up of only 4 molecules. Not as complex as you pretend.

Of course, if you knew anything about atoms and molecules you would know they do not combine by random chance but by the number of electrons in their outer shell, called "Valence" electrons. That means they can only combine in certain ways, not some made up unlimited number of ways.

Try again!

 

[hortysir]

1.Charles Darwin based his theory of evolution on a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.


Such has not proven to be the case.
The physical evidence for his conjecture was to be found in the fossil record; unfortunately, said record has not provided such proof.

And, corollary to that bad news is this: no one, not in the laboratory nor in nature, has ever seen nor shown one species changing into another.





But this has not proven satisfactory motivation for Darwin-groupies to give up the love affair!
Instead, his fans have turned to molecular biology in search of definitive reassurance.




2. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has published the following:
"The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly. In some case, this molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence. For example, it has long been postulated that whales descended from land mammals that had returned to the sea.....[Recent genetic comparisons] have confirmed this relationship... "
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

Get that: ".... molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence."
In other words....'we don't need no stinkin' fossils!"





2. There would be no reason to say that....if the fossil record had done as Darwin said it would:

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

(For those unfamiliar with Niles, he was the co-author with Stephen Gould, of the neo-Darwinist theory, 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics






3. ...if you have been convinced in high school or university of the proven veracity of Darwin's explanation of life's diversity.....think about this:

There is neither fossil evidence nor observations of new species being formed from earlier ones.

Shortly, I'll show that there is no molecular evidence, either.

Then, I'll let you mull over why Darwin is pushed so strongly, on the uninitiated.

Did your jebus and bible god get their stories crossed?

In case you missed it, this is the Science sub-forum.
Religion has zero to do with the OP presented to you.

Can you address the points and/or refute them or no?

 

[hortysir]

6. Where were we...oh...right: DNA and RNA will prove Darwin where fossil evidence failed.....OK?



No, not really. Begin by considering the immense complexity of the DNA molecule,...


In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."—*I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," (1984), p. 205.

First of all, DNA is made up of only 4 molecules. Not as complex as you pretend.

Of course, if you knew anything about atoms and molecules you would know they do not combine by random chance but by the number of electrons in their outer shell, called "Valence" electrons. That means they can only combine in certain ways, not some made up unlimited number of ways.

Try again!

Dishonestly oversimplifying DNA nucleotides doesn't help your rebuttal

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.Charles Darwin based his theory of evolution on a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.


Such has not proven to be the case.
The physical evidence for his conjecture was to be found in the fossil record; unfortunately, said record has not provided such proof.

And, corollary to that bad news is this: no one, not in the laboratory nor in nature, has ever seen nor shown one species changing into another.





But this has not proven satisfactory motivation for Darwin-groupies to give up the love affair!
Instead, his fans have turned to molecular biology in search of definitive reassurance.




2. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has published the following:
"The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly. In some case, this molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence. For example, it has long been postulated that whales descended from land mammals that had returned to the sea.....[Recent genetic comparisons] have confirmed this relationship... "
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

Get that: ".... molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence."
In other words....'we don't need no stinkin' fossils!"





2. There would be no reason to say that....if the fossil record had done as Darwin said it would:

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

(For those unfamiliar with Niles, he was the co-author with Stephen Gould, of the neo-Darwinist theory, 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics






3. ...if you have been convinced in high school or university of the proven veracity of Darwin's explanation of life's diversity.....think about this:

There is neither fossil evidence nor observations of new species being formed from earlier ones.

Shortly, I'll show that there is no molecular evidence, either.

Then, I'll let you mull over why Darwin is pushed so strongly, on the uninitiated.

Did your jebus and bible god get their stories crossed?

Hallucinate much?


Where did you see any reference to religion, dope?


Science isn't your strong suit....is it.

Do you have a strong suit?

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Where were we...oh...right: DNA and RNA will prove Darwin where fossil evidence failed.....OK?



No, not really. Begin by considering the immense complexity of the DNA molecule,...


In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."—*I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," (1984), p. 205.

First of all, DNA is made up of only 4 molecules. Not as complex as you pretend.

Of course, if you knew anything about atoms and molecules you would know they do not combine by random chance but by the number of electrons in their outer shell, called "Valence" electrons. That means they can only combine in certain ways, not some made up unlimited number of ways.

Try again!

See, this is why you should have remained in school beyond the third grade.



"Quite complex. Not only is DNA made up of multiple functional unites for each base, but the bases combine together to make an extended polymer that's giant and complex. The DNA itself also folds up and takes on structure even beyond it's atomic structure."
Chat Q&A: How complex is DNA at an atomic level?



The four letters of a DNA molecule....millions of units in length....must be in a unique and specific arrangement.


Go get a note pad and pencil, ...the good news:
I 'll be explaining in greater depth later.


The bad news.....it will still be over your head.

 

[hortysir]

1.Charles Darwin based his theory of evolution on a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.


Such has not proven to be the case.
The physical evidence for his conjecture was to be found in the fossil record; unfortunately, said record has not provided such proof.

And, corollary to that bad news is this: no one, not in the laboratory nor in nature, has ever seen nor shown one species changing into another.





But this has not proven satisfactory motivation for Darwin-groupies to give up the love affair!
Instead, his fans have turned to molecular biology in search of definitive reassurance.




2. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has published the following:
"The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly. In some case, this molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence. For example, it has long been postulated that whales descended from land mammals that had returned to the sea.....[Recent genetic comparisons] have confirmed this relationship... "
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

Get that: ".... molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence."
In other words....'we don't need no stinkin' fossils!"





2. There would be no reason to say that....if the fossil record had done as Darwin said it would:

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

(For those unfamiliar with Niles, he was the co-author with Stephen Gould, of the neo-Darwinist theory, 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics






3. ...if you have been convinced in high school or university of the proven veracity of Darwin's explanation of life's diversity.....think about this:

There is neither fossil evidence nor observations of new species being formed from earlier ones.

Shortly, I'll show that there is no molecular evidence, either.

Then, I'll let you mull over why Darwin is pushed so strongly, on the uninitiated.

Did your jebus and bible god get their stories crossed?

Hallucinate much?


Where did you see any reference to religion, dope?


Science isn't your strong suit....is it.

Do you have a strong suit?

Cut him some slack, PC.

He still had that image code in his clipboard from anioher anti-religion thread and couldn't help but to spam us with his rhetoric

 

[edthecynic]

6. Where were we...oh...right: DNA and RNA will prove Darwin where fossil evidence failed.....OK?



No, not really. Begin by considering the immense complexity of the DNA molecule,...


In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."—*I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," (1984), p. 205.

First of all, DNA is made up of only 4 molecules. Not as complex as you pretend.

Of course, if you knew anything about atoms and molecules you would know they do not combine by random chance but by the number of electrons in their outer shell, called "Valence" electrons. That means they can only combine in certain ways, not some made up unlimited number of ways.

Try again!

See, this is why you should have remained in school beyond the third grade.



"Quite complex. Not only is DNA made up of multiple functional unites for each base, but the bases combine together to make an extended polymer that's giant and complex. The DNA itself also folds up and takes on structure even beyond it's atomic structure."
Chat Q&A: How complex is DNA at an atomic level?



The four letters of a DNA molecule....millions of units in length....must be in a unique and specific arrangement.


Go get a note pad and pencil, ...the good news:
I 'll be explaining in greater depth later.


The bad news.....it will still be over your head.

Determined by the valence electrons and not random chance. If you remember, Watson and Crick used simple cardboard cut-outs to assemble their models!!!

Discovering the double helix structure of DNA, James Watson, video with 3D animation and narration :: DNA Learning Center

 

[PoliticalChic]

First of all, DNA is made up of only 4 molecules. Not as complex as you pretend.

Of course, if you knew anything about atoms and molecules you would know they do not combine by random chance but by the number of electrons in their outer shell, called "Valence" electrons. That means they can only combine in certain ways, not some made up unlimited number of ways.

Try again!

See, this is why you should have remained in school beyond the third grade.



"Quite complex. Not only is DNA made up of multiple functional unites for each base, but the bases combine together to make an extended polymer that's giant and complex. The DNA itself also folds up and takes on structure even beyond it's atomic structure."
Chat Q&A: How complex is DNA at an atomic level?



The four letters of a DNA molecule....millions of units in length....must be in a unique and specific arrangement.


Go get a note pad and pencil, ...the good news:
I 'll be explaining in greater depth later.


The bad news.....it will still be over your head.

Determined by the valence electrons and not random chance. If you remember, Watson and Crick used simple cardboard cut-outs to assemble their models!!!

Discovering the double helix structure of DNA, James Watson, video with 3D animation and narration :: DNA Learning Center

Relax.....

...your tutorial will be along shortly.



In the meantime, consider this: how about the idea that aliens from outer space dropped by the lifeless earth.....and left 'wastes,'.....


And those wastes became what is now life on earth.


Know who propounded that theory?


Francis Crick.



Yup.....'scientists' concluded thate ‘aliens’ were responsible for the origin of life on earth:

“An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is “exogenesis”, the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on a nearby planet such as Mars. Such ideas have had many eminent supporters over the years, including Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle among others.” Exogenesis - The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe



So, I suppose it is no stretch for them to imagine that Darwin was correct....even with the dearth of evidence to support his theory.

 

[edthecynic]

See, this is why you should have remained in school beyond the third grade.



"Quite complex. Not only is DNA made up of multiple functional unites for each base, but the bases combine together to make an extended polymer that's giant and complex. The DNA itself also folds up and takes on structure even beyond it's atomic structure."
Chat Q&A: How complex is DNA at an atomic level?



The four letters of a DNA molecule....millions of units in length....must be in a unique and specific arrangement.


Go get a note pad and pencil, ...the good news:
I 'll be explaining in greater depth later.


The bad news.....it will still be over your head.

Determined by the valence electrons and not random chance. If you remember, Watson and Crick used simple cardboard cut-outs to assemble their models!!!

Discovering the double helix structure of DNA, James Watson, video with 3D animation and narration :: DNA Learning Center

Relax.....

...your tutorial will be along shortly.



In the meantime, consider this: how about the idea that aliens from outer space dropped by the lifeless earth.....and left 'wastes,'.....


And those wastes became what is now life on earth.


Know who propounded that theory?


Francis Crick.



Yup.....'scientists' concluded thate ‘aliens’ were responsible for the origin of life on earth:

“An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is “exogenesis”, the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on a nearby planet such as Mars. Such ideas have had many eminent supporters over the years, including Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle among others.” Exogenesis - The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe



So, I suppose it is no stretch for them to imagine that Darwin was correct....even with the dearth of evidence to support his theory.

Nice deflection.

The fact remains that valence electrons destroy your random chance bullshit.

Try again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Determined by the valence electrons and not random chance. If you remember, Watson and Crick used simple cardboard cut-outs to assemble their models!!!

Discovering the double helix structure of DNA, James Watson, video with 3D animation and narration :: DNA Learning Center

Relax.....

...your tutorial will be along shortly.



In the meantime, consider this: how about the idea that aliens from outer space dropped by the lifeless earth.....and left 'wastes,'.....


And those wastes became what is now life on earth.


Know who propounded that theory?


Francis Crick.



Yup.....'scientists' concluded thate ‘aliens’ were responsible for the origin of life on earth:

“An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is “exogenesis”, the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on a nearby planet such as Mars. Such ideas have had many eminent supporters over the years, including Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle among others.” Exogenesis - The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe



So, I suppose it is no stretch for them to imagine that Darwin was correct....even with the dearth of evidence to support his theory.

Nice deflection.

The fact remains that valence electrons destroy your random chance bullshit.

Try again.

It is hardly a 'deflection'......it is adding to your limited store of knowledge....


After all...who brought up Crick?

You did.



I'm simply alerting you to the thinking of your icon.

 

[edthecynic]

Relax.....

...your tutorial will be along shortly.

In the meantime, consider this: how about the idea that aliens from outer space dropped by the lifeless earth.....and left 'wastes,'.....

And those wastes became what is now life on earth.

Know who propounded that theory?

Francis Crick.

Yup.....'scientists' concluded thate ‘aliens’ were responsible for the origin of life on earth:

“An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is “exogenesis”, the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on a nearby planet such as Mars. Such ideas have had many eminent supporters over the years, including Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle among others.” Exogenesis - The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe

So, I suppose it is no stretch for them to imagine that Darwin was correct....even with the dearth of evidence to support his theory.

Nice deflection.

The fact remains that valence electrons destroy your random chance bullshit.

Try again.

It is hardly a 'deflection'......it is adding to your limited store of knowledge....

After all...who brought up Crick?

You did.

I'm simply alerting you to the thinking of your icon.

The more you continue to deflect, the more you expose the fact that you can't rebut the unassailable fact that atoms and molecules do not combine by random chance, but form specific arrangements based on their valence electrons.

Thank you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nice deflection.

The fact remains that valence electrons destroy your random chance bullshit.

Try again.

It is hardly a 'deflection'......it is adding to your limited store of knowledge....

After all...who brought up Crick?

You did.

I'm simply alerting you to the thinking of your icon.

The more you continue to deflect, the more you expose the fact that you can't rebut the unassailable fact that atoms and molecules do not combine by random chance, but form specific arrangements based on their valence electrons.

Thank you.

You idiot.....you're attempting to produce an argument against what I assume you support.....the very pillar of Darwin's theory....a natural randomness.


If it was 'forced' by some law of physics,......than why has no one been able to reproduce it in a laboratory setting????????



This is the problem when folks like you....folks with both limited intellect and limited education, attempt to explain phenomenon.


On the other hand, those traits make you the perfect candidate as a reliable Democrat voter.

 

[edthecynic]

It is hardly a 'deflection'......it is adding to your limited store of knowledge....

After all...who brought up Crick?

You did.

I'm simply alerting you to the thinking of your icon.

The more you continue to deflect, the more you expose the fact that you can't rebut the unassailable fact that atoms and molecules do not combine by random chance, but form specific arrangements based on their valence electrons.

Thank you.

You idiot.....you're attempting to produce an argument against what I assume you support.....the very pillar of Darwin's theory....a natural randomness.


If it was 'forced' by some law of physics,......than why has no one been able to reproduce it in a laboratory setting????????



This is the problem when folks like you....folks with both limited intellect and limited education, attempt to explain phenomenon.


On the other hand, those traits make you the perfect candidate as a reliable Democrat voter.

Again you show your complete ignorance!!!

There is no randomness to the formation of molecules. Darwin is not referring to the formation of molecules, he refers to random MUTATIONS.

But thank you again for showing that you are too stupid to know the difference between molecules and mutations.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The more you continue to deflect, the more you expose the fact that you can't rebut the unassailable fact that atoms and molecules do not combine by random chance, but form specific arrangements based on their valence electrons.

Thank you.

You idiot.....you're attempting to produce an argument against what I assume you support.....the very pillar of Darwin's theory....a natural randomness.


If it was 'forced' by some law of physics,......than why has no one been able to reproduce it in a laboratory setting????????



This is the problem when folks like you....folks with both limited intellect and limited education, attempt to explain phenomenon.


On the other hand, those traits make you the perfect candidate as a reliable Democrat voter.

Again you show your complete ignorance!!!

There is no randomness to the formation of molecules.

But thank you again for showing that you are too stupid to know the difference between molecules and mutations.

I'll post another panel shortly, and even you will be laughing at yourself.



And to prepare all for the jocularity to follow, let's point out that you have no understanding of the the terms "molecule" and "mutation."


"....you are too stupid to know the difference between molecules and mutations."

Did you really post this????
"...Darwin is not referring to the formation of molecules, he refers to random MUTATIONS."


Mutations are changes in molecules, you junior high school drop-out.


Mutation: the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.
https://www.google.com/search?q=mut....13821j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8




"A gene is the molecular unit of heredity...."
Gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Dolt.

 

[edthecynic]

You idiot.....you're attempting to produce an argument against what I assume you support.....the very pillar of Darwin's theory....a natural randomness.


If it was 'forced' by some law of physics,......than why has no one been able to reproduce it in a laboratory setting????????



This is the problem when folks like you....folks with both limited intellect and limited education, attempt to explain phenomenon.


On the other hand, those traits make you the perfect candidate as a reliable Democrat voter.

Again you show your complete ignorance!!!

There is no randomness to the formation of molecules.

But thank you again for showing that you are too stupid to know the difference between molecules and mutations.

I'll post another panel shortly, and even you will be laughing at yourself.



And to prepare all for the jocularity to follow, let's point out that you have no understanding of the the terms "molecule" and "mutation."


"....you are too stupid to know the difference between molecules and mutations."

Did you really post this????
"...Darwin is not referring to the formation of molecules, he refers to random MUTATIONS."


Mutations are changes in molecules, you junior high school drop-out.


Mutation: the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.
https://www.google.com/search?q=mut....13821j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8




"A gene is the molecular unit of heredity...."
Gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Dolt.

A mutation is just a rearrangement of the base pairs, but the SAME bases are still paired. The enormous number that your source fabricated as an impossibility for evolution was based on the false assumption that any base or any molecule can combine in any possible arrangement. You keep trying to change the subject, but there are no random arrangements of atoms or molecules, all are arranged according to the electrons in their outer shell.

Let me remind you of the bullshit you have to defend:

No...here's the basis for the 'no'....

b. "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the fiftieth power has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000.

In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."—*I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," (1984), p. 205.

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK....I promised a tutorial.....comin' right up:



9. How exactly, could we use the molecular structure of DNA to compare organisms for evolutionary relationships?

Well, the idea is to compare the sequences of the nucleotide subunits: tiny differences in sequence mean closer relationship, larger differences, less close connections.
Makes sense?

a. And...the beauty of this kind of study is that it uses quantitative measurement. Think how much easier this is than looking at two skulls and judging degrees of similarity.

It's a homerun.......right?






10. Not quite:
first of all, it is not easy to decide how to line up two different molecules of such immense length....I mean, at what point along the DNA do we consider similarities?


Secondly, it is not true that an alteration of one subunit in one place has a similar effect as an alteration in another.

Quick example of what changing a single nucleotide will do the genetic message:



a. The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."


Simple, easily understood.....

b. That sentence represents a gene, OK?..I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon.
The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.
How do Cells Read Genes?







So....a mutation would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, and then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst!


Let me show you how: drop the first letter, and watch what that message becomes:

"hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."




Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would produce a new species, doesn't do that at all.

Remember: the National Academy of Sciences says "The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly."

Hardly.


Who's zoomin' who?