The Evolution Fraud

[ChemEngineer]

1. The opponent of a theory has no burden to come up with a replacement theory. If you believe the Moon is made of green cheese, I do not have no obligation to propose a different material.

2. Archeological records do not support the theory of gradual evolution from one species to another. They merely indicate the extinction of some species and appearance of other species. There is no evidence of a causal relationship between them.

3. Your reference to intelligent design is a straw man argument. I have merely pointed out that the currently popular theory of gradual evolution is fatally flawed, both in concept and physical evidence. For example, it was widely hailed when Copernicus suggested that everything in the universe revolved around the Sun, despite the fact that the Moon didn't seem to behave itself. Let us not assume we have all the answers.

I do not pretend to understand the mysteries of the universe, and am hesitant to attribute them to anthropological explanations. However, I am more inclined to support interventional events in the Earth's history (e.g., asteroids killing the dinosaurs) rather than highly unlikely statistical hypotheses (e.g., it just happens over millions of years).

Casting pearls...

jwoodie, you did indeed cast pearls. Well done, Friend.

The Magic Wand of Selection has been snapped and the magicians are very angry.

 

[ChemEngineer]

1. Throw the baby out with the bath water? ... if we find a flaw in a theory, we tweek the theory ... we don't throw out the Big Bang theory just because the universe's expansion is still accelerating ... we adjust the theory to match what is observed …

Biologists have been tweeking and continue to tweek Darwinism for 150 years and still it fails.
You simply cannot "adjust" his magic tautology to explain the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.

3. Are you a biochemist? ... do you know what an enzyme is? ...
4. We just need few enzymes to produce all manner of polypeptides ... an enzyme is the same as a catalyst ... whatever roll it plays in the chemical reaction, it is returned whole to be used again for the next reaction ...

Oh please. Enzymes do NOT produce new polypeptides. Your vaunted random mutations are supposed to do that. They can't and they don't. I know more about biochemistry than you ever will and it is still very little.
It's a big world. Darwin's Magic Wand doesn't do anything. "A1>A2 and B1>B2" are garbage from Richard Dawkins. They're meaningless but his sycophants eat them up and call it "science."

 

[ReinyDays]

1. The opponent of a theory has no burden to come up with a replacement theory. If you believe the Moon is made of green cheese, I do not have no obligation to propose a different material.

2. Archeological records do not support the theory of gradual evolution from one species to another. They merely indicate the extinction of some species and appearance of other species. There is no evidence of a causal relationship between them.

3. Your reference to intelligent design is a straw man argument. I have merely pointed out that the currently popular theory of gradual evolution is fatally flawed, both in concept and physical evidence. For example, it was widely hailed when Copernicus suggested that everything in the universe revolved around the Sun, despite the fact that the Moon didn't seem to behave itself. Let us not assume we have all the answers.

I do not pretend to understand the mysteries of the universe, and am hesitant to attribute them to anthropological explanations. However, I am more inclined to support interventional events in the Earth's history (e.g., asteroids killing the dinosaurs) rather than highly unlikely statistical hypotheses (e.g., it just happens over millions of years).

1. My claim that the Moon was made of green cheese is taken completely out of context ... I was explaining why Kraft Foods pulled their financial support from NASA once the fake Moon rocks got analysed ... you're not obligated to refute my claim, but if you do, you can't cover your ears and chant "You're wrong, na na na, I can't hear you, na na na" ... you have to say which kind of cheese the Moon really is made of ...

2. Archeology is about humans, you mean paleontology? ... DNA sequencing has confirmed the causal relationships we deduced from fossils ... sometimes slow, sometimes fast ... not that all steps in all organisms are clear, but a few are ... and that's loads better than your complete lack of proof to the contrary ...

3. That's a rather piss-poor example ... Copernicus feared for his life with these ideas, and only agreed to the publication on his deathbed ... Galileo narrowly escape hangin' and was sentenced to house arrest for all of his remaining days ... funerals shmerals, we had to split the entire church ... again ... to get Copernicus' ideas in common dialogue ...

We absolutely don't have all the answers to Evolution, nowhere close ... every time we answer one question, the answer asks twenty more ... and I'm fine basing this on a rather clever use of the statistical arts, for now, but I do expect a humble and respectable acknowledgement of these problems ... science only requires that this can be shown, not that we have to show it, at least until technology allows us to ... gravity waves were strictly theoretical until we turned on LIGO ...

 

[jwoodie]

2. Archeological records do not support the theory of gradual evolution from one species to another. They merely indicate the extinction of some species and appearance of other species. There is no evidence of a causal relationship between them.

It's not 'archeological' but I know what you meant and you're still wrong. The biology of the extinct species and the biology of the new species it the evidence of their relationship. New species don't just appear with no precursors. If they did we'd have vertebrates with any number of fingers or limbs. The wing of a bat and your arm has more than a causal relationship.

Good point, but why are there so few intermediate species in the fossil record? Could it be that external events, such as bursts of solar radiation, caused mass genetic mutations? I think that the mere passage of time ("millions of years") is a poor excuse for entirely new species to arise.

 

[gtopa1]

No one really knows where we came from, or how we got here.

Anyone who thinks they have The Answer is delusional and egotistical.

A lot of truth in that.

Greg

 

[ReinyDays]

Biologists have been tweeking and continue to tweek Darwinism for 150 years and still it fails.
You simply cannot "adjust" his magic tautology to explain the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.

We've been tweeking Newtonian physics a lot longer ... and still an active area of research ... wait until we discover life elsewhere ... perhaps a top-to-bottom re-write ... that's perfectly acceptable in science ... after so many funerals ...

Oh please. Enzymes do NOT produce new polypeptides. Your vaunted random mutations are supposed to do that. They can't and they don't. I know more about biochemistry than you ever will and it is still very little.

At least I took a class ... fucking teacher made us memorize anaerobic glycolysis with the damn enzymes for each reaction for the final ... I walked away with a deep appreciation how important enzymes are to everything that happens inside a cell ... including protein production ... we only need to form the enzyme once, and that's assumed to be enough ...

It's a big world. Darwin's Magic Wand doesn't do anything. "A1>A2 and B1>B2" are garbage from Richard Dawkins. They're meaningless but his sycophants eat them up and call it "science."

There's some actual truth to the urban legend that farmers save the seeds from their best plants for next year's sowing ... we've known this increases crop yields since perhaps the agricultural revolution ... if evolution is wrong, then how do you explain this? ... is Richard Dawkins a friend of yours, I'll try to avoid his company then ...

 

[ChemEngineer]

At least I took a class ... fucking teacher made us memorize anaerobic glycolysis with the damn enzymes for each reaction for the final ... I walked away with a deep appreciation how important enzymes are to everything that happens inside a cell ... including protein production ... we only need to form the enzyme once, and that's assumed to be enough ...

Five thousand or so proteins in the human body alone, and you think an enzyme works magic, making them all?
Your vulgarity is compounded by your simplistic nonsense.

There's some actual truth to the urban legend that farmers save the seeds from their best plants for next year's sowing ... we've known this increases crop yields since perhaps the agricultural revolution ... if evolution is wrong, then how do you explain this? ... is Richard Dawkins a friend of yours, I'll try to avoid his company then ...

Ask someone to explain the difference between adaptation and change in kind. You clearly don't understand.
I read several of Dawkins' books and sent notes to his publisher, exposing one error after another. The best hateful Dawkins could do was call me names. That's what passes for intellectualism in Leftist circles.
Now since you have nothing to say that is remotely worthwhile, you will be third on my Ignore List.
ciao

 

[ReinyDays]

Wow ... thank you for to honor of being on your ignore list ... I'll cherish this moment for all eternity ...

Someone quote me so he has to read this ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow ... thank you for to honor of being on your ignore list ... I'll cherish this moment for all eternity ...

Someone quote me so he has to read this ...

Wow ... thank you for to honor of being on your ignore list ... I'll cherish this moment for all eternity …

He showed you...….

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Okay here goes one more thing. If it was all a random event that proper proteins came together, we would look like a Picasso picture not some organized event where we have almost prefect proportions along with symmetry. Some type of intelligent design had to have a hand in the creations.

 

[luchitociencia]

If evolution was to be true, then right now we should have super vision rather than more people in need of prescribed lenses.

Evolution is a fraud.

 

[Hollie]

If evolution was to be true, then right now we should have super vision rather than more people in need of prescribed lenses.

Evolution is a fraud.

That's nonsensical. Biological evolution is not directed toward a subjective interpretation of "better". The only direction evolution always moves is towards "more fit." And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.

Ignorance is not a fraud, it's a choice.

 

[alang1216]

Good point, but why are there so few intermediate species in the fossil record? Could it be that external events, such as bursts of solar radiation, caused mass genetic mutations? I think that the mere passage of time ("millions of years") is a poor excuse for entirely new species to arise.

Every creature that ever lived is 'intermediate' between its' parents and offspring.
I guess that 'mass genetic mutations' are better for ending a species than starting a new one.
It is not time that creates new species, it is change in the environment. Think how many environmental changes the planet has seen in the last million years: ice ages, sea level changes, climatic changes, volcanic eruptions, etc.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Okay here goes one more thing. If it was all a random event that proper proteins came together, we would look like a Picasso picture not some organized event where we have almost prefect proportions along with symmetry. Some type of intelligent design had to have a hand in the creations.

Well stated, Friend. Speaking of dreck....

Hundreds of millions of dollars squandered

 

[ChemEngineer]

luchitociencia: "Evolution is a fraud."

That's nonsensical. Biological evolution is not directed toward a subjective interpretation of "better". The only direction evolution always moves is towards "more fit." And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.

Ignorance is not a fraud, it's a choice.

It's "more fit" because it survives. And it survives because it's "more fit." Oh the sublime *science* underlying Darwin's Magic Selection Wand. Simply marvelous. When it needs to go fast, it does! When it needs to freeze and go nowhere, it does! Ceolocanth, thought to be extinct for 350 million years, but found alive off the African coast. Alligators and other reptiles, claimed to be unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. No prob for Uncle Charles. He's got everything *explained* (wink, nudge). His is a constantly moving explanation. Just wave his magic Selection Wand.

 

[ReinyDays]

Why does the evolution debate always center on the cute doe-eyed woodland creatures? ... I feel like I'm talking to preteen girls ...

We should be discussing bacteria, viruses and such ... and looking how these organisms change over time ... I know they're icky, and dirty, but c'mon girls, grow up ...

 

[progressive hunter]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Science is based on Theory until it is PROVEN factual. We keep seeing the dinosaur evolve from a slow moving reptile to a faster sauropod. Until we can figure out how to travel back in time, we will always have a theory of evolution, no facts.

no human alive or dead has ever seen a dino evolve into anything,,,to say they did makes you a liar,,,

 

[Hollie]

luchitociencia: "Evolution is a fraud."

That's nonsensical. Biological evolution is not directed toward a subjective interpretation of "better". The only direction evolution always moves is towards "more fit." And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.

Ignorance is not a fraud, it's a choice.

It's "more fit" because it survives. And it survives because it's "more fit." Oh the sublime *science* underlying Darwin's Magic Selection Wand. Simply marvelous. When it needs to go fast, it does! When it needs to freeze and go nowhere, it does! Ceolocanth, thought to be extinct for 350 million years, but found alive off the African coast. Alligators and other reptiles, claimed to be unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. No prob for Uncle Charles. He's got everything *explained* (wink, nudge). His is a constantly moving explanation. Just wave his magic Selection Wand.

Typically, it's the hyper-religious / Henry Morris groupies who are the most anti-science. Religious extremists tend not to understand some very basic definitions. While it is certainly true that survival can be a measure of fitness, what is actually observed are adaptive traits or favourable characteristics.

The relevant sciences have clear examples in living organisms that show how random mutation plus selection can lead to improved "fitness."

The magical wand waving/ bible thumping "the gawds did it" screamers have no valid alternate explanation for the diversity of life on the planet.

 

[Hollie]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Science is based on Theory until it is PROVEN factual. We keep seeing the dinosaur evolve from a slow moving reptile to a faster sauropod. Until we can figure out how to travel back in time, we will always have a theory of evolution, no facts.

no human alive or dead has ever seen a dino evolve into anything,,,to say they did makes you a liar,,,

Well,,,, actually,,,, observed instances of speciation are plentiful,,,,

Has any human ever seen any of the gods do magic,,,,?,,,, you know,,,,,, like pull a pregnant virgin out of a hat,,,,,?,,,,,,

 

[rightwinger]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Evolution is a FACT
God is a theory