YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Ask them.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The metric expansion of space is a very hard concept to grasp. I will admit that. Space is not "expanding into" anything. That is a concept from our limited perspective. The distance between objects is growing. If one can think of it only as a mathematical concept it is easier to get one's mind around.
Huh?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No. This doesn't even reach the basic pop-science level of understanding. I'd explain if I thought you were going to take any notice...
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Can anyone explain the origin of any gene?
Can anyone explain how all the new genes came into being with evolution?
A copy of a gene cannot be the answer to the first question as no gene would have existed before the first gene to copy.
A copy of a gene cannot be the answer to the second question as it is just a copy and not a new gene. And a gene transferred from another species cannot be the answer because it is still the same gene. A new allele is not a new gene. So that is not the answer. And a mutation is does not create a new gene. Also note that mutations are either deadly, disadvantageous, or have no effect at all. So that will not lead to survival of the fitness. There are no beneficial mutations. Some say sickle cell anemia, but that is a disease, and they are looking for a cure. So, a copy of a gene that is slowly mutated into a new gene cannot be the answer.
Also note that genes come in widely carrying sizes. Those in mankind range from 14 to 2,300,000 base pairs. So even a copy with a mutation or 2 will not lead to the diversity of gene sizes. Further the codes of genes are mostly very dissimilar, not just a copy and with a mutation or 2. The odds against even a single beneficial mutation are very much against. The odds against a large number are extremely against that.
Almost all genes are large enough that just randomly happening by chance is a miraculous event. The median size of a gene is about 25,000 base pairs. The odds against that coming into being is 8^25,000 to 1 or 10^22,500 to 1. It is estimated that there are 8.7 million species in the world. It is also estimated that 99.9% of all species have become extinct. Thus, there have been about 870 million species that have ever lived. With an average of about 20,000 genes per species that comes to about 17.4 trillion genes that have ever existed. Assuming that 95% is the average duplication rate across all species, that comes to almost 1 trillion unique genes that have ever existed. Thus, that is almost 1 trillion incredible miracles to account for all unique genes that have ever existed. However, sexual reproduction does present a significant obstacle as only the individual receiving the miraculous new gene can only donate one copy, and no one else has that copy. This would probably be detrimental in any offspring. But even if by some miracle that offspring survives it only has one copy to donate, so only ½ of its offspring receives the new gene. And it still must mate with another individual without the new gene. It would take a number of generations before that new gene could take a foothold in the species population. Thus, it would also take a number of miraculous events for this to happen. The odds against this are greater than 10^20,000 trillion to 1.
So, all genes in all living creatures would require about a trillion miracles. And for each of these miracles, there are about maybe 100 mini miracles. This is so preposterous.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I could but you would have to be willing to learn the basics of science first. You will probably just run away again.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Can anyone explain the origin of any gene?
Can anyone explain how all the new genes came into being with evolution?
A copy of a gene cannot be the answer to the first question as no gene would have existed before the first gene to copy.
A copy of a gene cannot be the answer to the second question as it is just a copy and not a new gene. And a gene transferred from another species cannot be the answer because it is still the same gene. A new allele is not a new gene. So that is not the answer. And a mutation is does not create a new gene. Also note that mutations are either deadly, disadvantageous, or have no effect at all. So that will not lead to survival of the fitness. There are no beneficial mutations. Some say sickle cell anemia, but that is a disease, and they are looking for a cure. So, a copy of a gene that is slowly mutated into a new gene cannot be the answer.
Also note that genes come in widely carrying sizes. Those in mankind range from 14 to 2,300,000 base pairs. So even a copy with a mutation or 2 will not lead to the diversity of gene sizes. Further the codes of genes are mostly very dissimilar, not just a copy and with a mutation or 2. The odds against even a single beneficial mutation are very much against. The odds against a large number are extremely against that.
Almost all genes are large enough that just randomly happening by chance is a miraculous event. The median size of a gene is about 25,000 base pairs. The odds against that coming into being is 8^25,000 to 1 or 10^22,500 to 1. It is estimated that there are 8.7 million species in the world. It is also estimated that 99.9% of all species have become extinct. Thus, there have been about 870 million species that have ever lived. With an average of about 20,000 genes per species that comes to about 17.4 trillion genes that have ever existed. Assuming that 95% is the average duplication rate across all species, that comes to almost 1 trillion unique genes that have ever existed. Thus, that is almost 1 trillion incredible miracles to account for all unique genes that have ever existed. However, sexual reproduction does present a significant obstacle as only the individual receiving the miraculous new gene can only donate one copy, and no one else has that copy. This would probably be detrimental in any offspring. But even if by some miracle that offspring survives it only has one copy to donate, so only ½ of its offspring receives the new gene. And it still must mate with another individual without the new gene. It would take a number of generations before that new gene could take a foothold in the species population. Thus, it would also take a number of miraculous events for this to happen. The odds against this are greater than 10^20,000 trillion to 1.
So, all genes in all living creatures would require about a trillion miracles. And for each of these miracles, there are about maybe 100 mini miracles. This is so preposterous.
Also note that some genes produce a protein that requires a specific enzyme that itself comes from a gene. So, for these 2 simultaneous miracles are needed either for copy and mutate or come from nothing. A copy of a gene with several mutations would require a matching copy of the gene that produces the enzyme, and that gene itself would have miraculously randomly mutated to work with the new protein from the new gene. And both would still be stopped by the requirement of sexual reproduction.
And then there is the differences in chromosome counts for mammal species.
Quoted from
With interspecies hybrids, it makes a difference who's the dad and who's the mom - Berkeley News
New research from Berkeley looks at why some closely related species interbreed and produce viable young – like the mules and hinnies that come from the mating of horses and donkeys – while others don't
While mammals with different numbers of chromosomes cannot produce fertile offspring – which is the case with offspring of donkeys and horses – amphibians, fish, plants and yeast sometimes can.
Therefore all mammal species should have the same number of chromosomes. But they do not. Some have over 100 and some less than 10.
Call the first mammal, Great Mamma Mammal. And assume that Great Mamma Mammal had 50 chromosomes. Then none of Great Mamma Mammal’s descendants can stray from the 50 count. Assume that there is an offspring that had 49 or 48. Then any offspring of that offspring will either not live, or not produce any fertile offspring, or if there are any fertile offspring that offspring has no one to mate with that has the new chromosome count. Then the aberrant different count will end soon or return to the 50 count. That is what is observed.
So, all the fossils of all mammal species with different chromosome number in the rock layers are not descended from each other. That proves that there was no macro evolution of any mammal species ever. So, that proves they were created that way. It also eliminates the supposed 225 million years in the rock layers that contain mammal fossils. It thus proves that those rock layers were laid down in a short time.
But that also eliminates any evolution of any species whatsoever in all of those rock layers too.
Thus, that falsifies macro evolution for mammals and all other species.
But that also falsifies the long ages of the rock layers.
But that also falsifies macro evolution for all other species.
That also falsifies the dating techniques used to date the rock layers and the fossils, which was just circular reasoning anyway. The dates were not even scientific because they contained no error range and no calculation as to how any error range was determined.
That also proves that uniformitarianism is a false science. And catastrophism is true science.
That then proves the worldwide flood indeed happened about 4500 years ago.
But that also proves 6-day recent creation about 6000 years ago is true and that the word of God is true.
And that falsifies the big hoax of the Big Bang.
Evolution and billions of years is just a house of cards. It is built on the no God assumption, which has been proved false, and whole bunch of other false assumptions and circular reasoning. It is just false assumptions and circular reasoning built on top of false assumptions and circular reasoning, ad nauseum.
But wait there is much more that refutes macro evolution. First has never been observed ever nor has it ever been observed in the past. The idea that small changes eventually accumulate and become large changes is projecting beyond the measured or observed range. That is pseudo-science.
Evolution cannot jump as it requires simultaneous changes with vast odds against. Sexual reproduction ends any such event.
But if evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links in the fossil. All are missing. Not a single chain of links has been found. Why? They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?
There should also be partially developed organs, etc. in all individual creatures right now and that have ever lived. There are not why?
The odds against these 2 things are mind boggling. Just for the missing links, I estimate odds against of about 10^10 million to 1. The odds against the missing partially developed organs and functions are way vaster than that. I estimate odds against of about 10^10 billion billion billion to 1.
Of course, the odds against all the ordered sequences in all the DNA, RNA, and proteins in all creatures that ever lived is more than 10^(10^43) to 1.
And then there is the evidence against abiogenesis.
DNA based first living creature
What about the first living creature composed of just DNA and proteins?
Please note that the evolution of RNA could not happen.
The smallest free-living creature has over 1.3 million base pairs.
Assume 100,000 base pairs for the first living creature, a mere 1/13 of that size.
The odds against that sequence is 8^200,000 to 1 (8 kinds of nucleotides counting handedness and 2 per pair).
That comes to more than 10^180,000 to 1.
Now the proteome would have at least as many aminos as nucleotides since the body of all creatures are really made of proteins.
The odds against all those sequences of amino acids is more than 39^200,000 to 1 or more than 10^320,000 to 1.
The combined odds against it are more than 10^500,000 to 1.
But this was so very generous. Where did all these nucleotides and aminos come from?
Now the total number of atoms in one base pair is 30 and in about 20 in the average amino acid.
So, the total number of atoms in such a first living creature would be greater than that, but that still comes to over 7 million atoms.
Now each atom must be in a certain 3D arrangement with certain elements at each spot. Assume just 100 possibilities per atom.
The odds against that are over 100^7 million to 1 or greater than 10^14 million to 1.
The number of chances maybe 10^250 reduces those odds against to 10^13,999,750 to 1.
That is just absurd.
RNA based first living creature.
What about the first living creature composed of just RNA and proteins?
Please, note the evolution of DNA could never happen.
The smallest free-living creature has over 1.3 million base pairs. But assume just 1.3 million nucleotides.
Assume 100,000 nucleotides for the first living creature, a mere 1/13 of that size.
The odds against that sequence is 8^100,000 to 1 (8 kinds of nucleotides counting handedness and 2 per pair).
That comes to more than 10^90,000 to 1.
Now the proteome would have at least as many aminos as nucleotides since the body of all creatures are really made of proteins.
The odds against all those sequences of amino acids is more than 39^100,000 to 1 or more than 10^160,000 to 1.
The combined odds against it are more than 10^250,000 to 1.
But this was so very generous. Where did all these nucleotides and aminos come from?
Now the total number of atoms in one nucleotide is 15 and in about 20 in the average amino acid.
So, the total number of atoms in such a first living creature would be greater than that, but that still comes to over 3.5 million atoms.
Now each atom must be in a certain 3D arrangement with certain elements at each spot. Assume just 100 possibilities per atom.
The odds against that are over 100^3.5 million to 1 or greater than 10^7 million to 1.
The number of chances maybe 10^250 reduces those odds against to 10^7,999,750 to 1.
That is just absurd.
Can you??????
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I could explain it to you if you could be honest enough to learn the basics of science. Otherwise, no one could explain it to you. When you refuse to learn you cannot demand explanations.Can anyone explain the origin of any gene?
Can anyone explain how all the new genes came into being with evolution?
A copy of a gene cannot be the answer to the first question as no gene would have existed before the first gene to copy.
A copy of a gene cannot be the answer to the second question as it is just a copy and not a new gene. And a gene transferred from another species cannot be the answer because it is still the same gene. A new allele is not a new gene. So that is not the answer. And a mutation is does not create a new gene. Also note that mutations are either deadly, disadvantageous, or have no effect at all. So that will not lead to survival of the fitness. There are no beneficial mutations. Some say sickle cell anemia, but that is a disease, and they are looking for a cure. So, a copy of a gene that is slowly mutated into a new gene cannot be the answer.
Also note that genes come in widely carrying sizes. Those in mankind range from 14 to 2,300,000 base pairs. So even a copy with a mutation or 2 will not lead to the diversity of gene sizes. Further the codes of genes are mostly very dissimilar, not just a copy and with a mutation or 2. The odds against even a single beneficial mutation are very much against. The odds against a large number are extremely against that.
Almost all genes are large enough that just randomly happening by chance is a miraculous event. The median size of a gene is about 25,000 base pairs. The odds against that coming into being is 8^25,000 to 1 or 10^22,500 to 1. It is estimated that there are 8.7 million species in the world. It is also estimated that 99.9% of all species have become extinct. Thus, there have been about 870 million species that have ever lived. With an average of about 20,000 genes per species that comes to about 17.4 trillion genes that have ever existed. Assuming that 95% is the average duplication rate across all species, that comes to almost 1 trillion unique genes that have ever existed. Thus, that is almost 1 trillion incredible miracles to account for all unique genes that have ever existed. However, sexual reproduction does present a significant obstacle as only the individual receiving the miraculous new gene can only donate one copy, and no one else has that copy. This would probably be detrimental in any offspring. But even if by some miracle that offspring survives it only has one copy to donate, so only ½ of its offspring receives the new gene. And it still must mate with another individual without the new gene. It would take a number of generations before that new gene could take a foothold in the species population. Thus, it would also take a number of miraculous events for this to happen. The odds against this are greater than 10^20,000 trillion to 1.
So, all genes in all living creatures would require about a trillion miracles. And for each of these miracles, there are about maybe 100 mini miracles. This is so preposterous.
Also note that some genes produce a protein that requires a specific enzyme that itself comes from a gene. So, for these 2 simultaneous miracles are needed either for copy and mutate or come from nothing. A copy of a gene with several mutations would require a matching copy of the gene that produces the enzyme, and that gene itself would have miraculously randomly mutated to work with the new protein from the new gene. And both would still be stopped by the requirement of sexual reproduction.
And then there is the differences in chromosome counts for mammal species.
Quoted from
With interspecies hybrids, it makes a difference who's the dad and who's the mom - Berkeley News
New research from Berkeley looks at why some closely related species interbreed and produce viable young – like the mules and hinnies that come from the mating of horses and donkeys – while others don'tnews.berkeley.edu
While mammals with different numbers of chromosomes cannot produce fertile offspring – which is the case with offspring of donkeys and horses – amphibians, fish, plants and yeast sometimes can.
Therefore all mammal species should have the same number of chromosomes. But they do not. Some have over 100 and some less than 10.
Call the first mammal, Great Mamma Mammal. And assume that Great Mamma Mammal had 50 chromosomes. Then none of Great Mamma Mammal’s descendants can stray from the 50 count. Assume that there is an offspring that had 49 or 48. Then any offspring of that offspring will either not live, or not produce any fertile offspring, or if there are any fertile offspring that offspring has no one to mate with that has the new chromosome count. Then the aberrant different count will end soon or return to the 50 count. That is what is observed.
So, all the fossils of all mammal species with different chromosome number in the rock layers are not descended from each other. That proves that there was no macro evolution of any mammal species ever. So, that proves they were created that way. It also eliminates the supposed 225 million years in the rock layers that contain mammal fossils. It thus proves that those rock layers were laid down in a short time.
But that also eliminates any evolution of any species whatsoever in all of those rock layers too.
Thus, that falsifies macro evolution for mammals and all other species.
But that also falsifies the long ages of the rock layers.
But that also falsifies macro evolution for all other species.
That also falsifies the dating techniques used to date the rock layers and the fossils, which was just circular reasoning anyway. The dates were not even scientific because they contained no error range and no calculation as to how any error range was determined.
That also proves that uniformitarianism is a false science. And catastrophism is true science.
That then proves the worldwide flood indeed happened about 4500 years ago.
But that also proves 6-day recent creation about 6000 years ago is true and that the word of God is true.
And that falsifies the big hoax of the Big Bang.
Evolution and billions of years is just a house of cards. It is built on the no God assumption, which has been proved false, and whole bunch of other false assumptions and circular reasoning. It is just false assumptions and circular reasoning built on top of false assumptions and circular reasoning, ad nauseum.
But wait there is much more that refutes macro evolution. First has never been observed ever nor has it ever been observed in the past. The idea that small changes eventually accumulate and become large changes is projecting beyond the measured or observed range. That is pseudo-science.
Evolution cannot jump as it requires simultaneous changes with vast odds against. Sexual reproduction ends any such event.
But if evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links in the fossil. All are missing. Not a single chain of links has been found. Why? They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?
There should also be partially developed organs, etc. in all individual creatures right now and that have ever lived. There are not why?
The odds against these 2 things are mind boggling. Just for the missing links, I estimate odds against of about 10^10 million to 1. The odds against the missing partially developed organs and functions are way vaster than that. I estimate odds against of about 10^10 billion billion billion to 1.
Of course, the odds against all the ordered sequences in all the DNA, RNA, and proteins in all creatures that ever lived is more than 10^(10^43) to 1.
And then there is the evidence against abiogenesis.
DNA based first living creature
What about the first living creature composed of just DNA and proteins?
Please note that the evolution of RNA could not happen.
The smallest free-living creature has over 1.3 million base pairs.
Assume 100,000 base pairs for the first living creature, a mere 1/13 of that size.
The odds against that sequence is 8^200,000 to 1 (8 kinds of nucleotides counting handedness and 2 per pair).
That comes to more than 10^180,000 to 1.
Now the proteome would have at least as many aminos as nucleotides since the body of all creatures are really made of proteins.
The odds against all those sequences of amino acids is more than 39^200,000 to 1 or more than 10^320,000 to 1.
The combined odds against it are more than 10^500,000 to 1.
But this was so very generous. Where did all these nucleotides and aminos come from?
Now the total number of atoms in one base pair is 30 and in about 20 in the average amino acid.
So, the total number of atoms in such a first living creature would be greater than that, but that still comes to over 7 million atoms.
Now each atom must be in a certain 3D arrangement with certain elements at each spot. Assume just 100 possibilities per atom.
The odds against that are over 100^7 million to 1 or greater than 10^14 million to 1.
The number of chances maybe 10^250 reduces those odds against to 10^13,999,750 to 1.
That is just absurd.
RNA based first living creature.
What about the first living creature composed of just RNA and proteins?
Please, note the evolution of DNA could never happen.
The smallest free-living creature has over 1.3 million base pairs. But assume just 1.3 million nucleotides.
Assume 100,000 nucleotides for the first living creature, a mere 1/13 of that size.
The odds against that sequence is 8^100,000 to 1 (8 kinds of nucleotides counting handedness and 2 per pair).
That comes to more than 10^90,000 to 1.
Now the proteome would have at least as many aminos as nucleotides since the body of all creatures are really made of proteins.
The odds against all those sequences of amino acids is more than 39^100,000 to 1 or more than 10^160,000 to 1.
The combined odds against it are more than 10^250,000 to 1.
But this was so very generous. Where did all these nucleotides and aminos come from?
Now the total number of atoms in one nucleotide is 15 and in about 20 in the average amino acid.
So, the total number of atoms in such a first living creature would be greater than that, but that still comes to over 3.5 million atoms.
Now each atom must be in a certain 3D arrangement with certain elements at each spot. Assume just 100 possibilities per atom.
The odds against that are over 100^3.5 million to 1 or greater than 10^7 million to 1.
The number of chances maybe 10^250 reduces those odds against to 10^7,999,750 to 1.
That is just absurd.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The evidence against evolution and billions of years is ponderous.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then why can't you post any? The last time that I checked you did not even understand the concept of evidence.
It is almost impossible to post evidence for or against something if one does not understand the concept of evidence.
So what is your tediously ponderous "evidence" that the universe isn't billions of years old, given there are about two trillion galaxies in the observable universe and the speed of light is ~300,000 km/sec, and the distance from the sun to the nearest star is ~4 light years?
And is your evidence against evolution also tedious and dull, or just ponderous
Last edited:
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
God created all things and when He created all these very far away stars and galaxies, he created the light to reach the earth at the same time.
But the finite speed of light invalidates the Big Bang and there is no god almighty to rescue it.
IOW the universe is billions of years old since the speed of light is ~300,000 km/sec and there are ~2 trillion visible galaxies, and there is no god.
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yes. You've been given multiple links that explain the various proceses and you've ignored them.
Another irrefutable proof that you're scared of real science.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
And they were all dismissed as no real answer at all,
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No. You just asserted, without the slightest hint of evidence or reasoning, that they were not real answers and went back to pointlessly repeating yourself..
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Really? He lied again, at least that is what it sounds like.
How does the finite speed of light refute the Big Bang? I want to hear this. Let me give you fair warning. Space is expanding. That is what the Big Bang was, extremely rapid expansion, the universe is not expanding as fast, but it is still doing so today.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
That is simply because you decided they are not good enough answers for you.
Which is no surprise given you ignore everything that does not fit nicely in your little box.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
No.
The word of God is crystal clear how and when God created everything.
Scientists just have some false assumptions.