Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[Subduction Zone]

So how did evolution do this?

Figure 6-63, A comparison of the structures of procaryotic and eucaryotic ribosomes - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Ask an expert in the field. You are now using arguments from ignorance. Another classic logical fallacy.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Ask an expert in the field. You are now using arguments from ignorance. Another classic logical fallacy.

No I and also using your own experts to disprove your own theories like in the movie the Verdict.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I and also using your own experts to disprove your own theories like in the movie the Verdict.

Wrong again. You chose that article. You claimed it made evolution impossible. That means it is your burden of proof.

You are running away again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So how did evolution do this?

Figure 6-63, A comparison of the structures of procaryotic and eucaryotic ribosomes - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Read the book it comes from. it's explained there.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Read the book it comes from. it's explained there.

It is not explained in any book written by men how evolution could even make an living creature.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is not explained in any book written by men how evolution could even make an living creature.

You might want to read a book on reproduction for that

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You might want to read a book on reproduction for that

Well the Biology book I am using for links will probably address that in another chapter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the Biology book I am using for links will probably address that in another chapter.

It is never wise to use a source that is miles beyond your understanding

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It is never wise to use a source that is miles beyond your understanding

Actually it is easy to understand that evolution could not have made this come into being.

Figure 6-70, A possible reaction mechanism for the peptidyl transferase activity present in the large ribosomal subunit - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually it is easy to understand that evolution could not have made this come into being.

Figure 6-70, A possible reaction mechanism for the peptidyl transferase activity present in the large ribosomal subunit - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And yet you cannot do that.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

And yet you cannot do that.

And the detail of your theory are?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the detail of your theory are?

Sorry, you need to learn the basics of science first. Once you get that down then, maybe, you can ask questions.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Sorry, you need to learn the basics of science first. Once you get that down then, maybe, you can ask questions.

What amino acids and what sequences of amino acids were present in the first living creature ?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is not explained in any book written by men how evolution could even make an living creature.

Of course not. The theory of evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. I would expect you to know this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What amino acids and what sequences of amino acids were present in the first living creature ?

Do you really want answers to these questions or does asking them serve some other purpose?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually it is easy to understand that evolution could not have made this come into being.

Figure 6-70, A possible reaction mechanism for the peptidyl transferase activity present in the large ribosomal subunit - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What are we looking at and why does it indicate that it could not have evolved? Please provide the details and the explanation of what it is you are inviting us to look at and that it could not have evolved.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What are we looking at and why does it indicate that it could not have evolved? Please provide the details and the explanation of what it is you are inviting us to look at and that it could not have evolved.

It is just as plain as can be.

For example, evolution could never have produced this. Way to complex and yet orderly and functional.

Figure 6-79, Steps in the creation of a functional protein - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is just as plain as can be.

For example, evolution could never have produced this. Way to complex and yet orderly and functional.

Figure 6-79, Steps in the creation of a functional protein - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Sorry. That isn't good enough. Someone that claims something is such and such not only should be able to explain it, but has a duty to explain it.

Avoiding answering your questions is not a good witness and leads to doubt of your word. Is that what you want here or do you care and are merely here to campaign and proselityze?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is just as plain as can be.

For example, evolution could never have produced this. Way to complex and yet orderly and functional.

Figure 6-79, Steps in the creation of a functional protein - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And yes, explain this link too. What are we looking at and what it is about it that demonstrates it could not evolve.

You wouldn't just post links to technical material you don't understand and claim it says something you don't have any understanding of would you?

 

[ratiocinator]

For example, evolution could never have produced this. Way to complex and yet orderly and functional.

How do you know?

Personal incredulity is a fallacy, not an argument. A fallacy is s silly mistake in reasoning.