Some questions about evolution.

[painted wolf]

pc pp. 9-10 pars. 3-4 "Evolutionists acknowledge that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is about 1 in 10113, or 1 followed by 113 zeros. In other words, it could take 10113 chances for the event to occur once. But any event that has one chance in 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.
4However, far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life to occur. For a cell to maintain its functions, some 2,000 different proteins are needed. What, then, is the probability of all of these happening at random? It is estimated that it is 1 in 1040,000, or 1 followed by 40,000 zeros! Are you willing to rest your faith on such an outrageously remote probability?"
Basic chemistry? I don't think so.​

Source? Quoting without giving a source is a no-no.
The first big flaw of your source is that no one suggests that a large modern protein just popped into existence randomly.

The second big flaw is that we have these basic structures forming spontaneously in the lab and self replicating... How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time
Thanks to basic chemistry.

Just a little on why your source is mistaken about math.
Good Math/Bad Math: Studying Bad Probability: the Creation Science Research Center
Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (Addendum B to Review of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists)

wa:do

ps... I had no idea that my bad eyes were death. It says the wages of sin is death... no that the wages of sin is poor eyesight.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Yes, I think evidence is very important, and no, you don't have the evidence to back up your assertions.

Um... Yes, I do.
Would you like to learn about it?

 

[rusra02]

Source? Quoting without giving a source is a no-no.
The first big flaw of your source is that no one suggests that a large modern protein just popped into existence randomly.

The second big flaw is that we have these basic structures forming spontaneously in the lab and self replicating... How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time
Thanks to basic chemistry.

Just a little on why your source is mistaken about math.
Good Math/Bad Math: Studying Bad Probability: the Creation Science Research Center
Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (Addendum B to Review of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists)

wa:do

ps... I had no idea that my bad eyes were death. It says the wages of sin is death... no that the wages of sin is poor eyesight.

Bad eyesight, arthritis, cancer, etc. are all part and parcel of the aging and eventual death to which we are all subject.
I would suggest that "a large modern protein just popped into existence randomly" is substantially what ToE proponents say. Or are "modern" proteins different from "old timey" proteins.
Finally, I did give the source for my quote.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Finally, I did give the source for my quote.

Really?
Where did you acknowledge Elbert Spears, the Jehovah's Witness contributor at AllExperts.com? (Who has no expertise at all in biology.)

Jehovah`s Witness: moral life, protein molecule, atoms and molecules

 

[rusra02]

Really?
Where did you acknowledge Elbert Spears, the Jehovah's Witness contributor at AllExperts.com? (Who has no expertise at all in biology.)

Jehovah`s Witness: moral life, protein molecule, atoms and molecules

I did not quote Elbert Spears. And nice try at redirecting attention from the issue at hand. The fact is the basic tenets of ToE are statistically impossible.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I did not quote Elbert Spears. And nice try at redirecting attention from the issue at hand. The fact is the basic tenets of ToE are statistically impossible.

Not redirecting, just pointing out a little dishonesty. (So where did that quote of yours come from then?)

As for your "statistical imposable" claim, it has already been pointed out many times how your claim is flawed, yet you dogmatically repeat it over and over.
Why is this?

 

[Alceste]

My perfectly designed eyes .... why do I wear glasses again?

wa:do

I think it's because we read too many books.

 

[Alceste]

Are you ever going to show your math?
I have asked fr you to.
On numerous occasions and I do believe in more than one thread.

You cling to this "odds are against it" argument, yet you are unwilling to support the argument by showing any of the math for it.
Why is that?

Can't do math, I imagine.

 

[johnhanks]

I did not quote Elbert Spears.

I came into this debate quite late, but unless I'm mistaken the person you did quote was Fred Hoyle - another non-biologist, whose grasp of protein chemistry and ToE was shaky at best. Hoyle's fallacy was based on calculating the odds of a single, functional pre-specified protein assembling itself from an amino acid soup by chance - which, of course, are astronomical. Fortunately, neither abiogenesis nor ToE rests on the requirement for this to happen.

The fact is the basic tenets of ToE are statistically impossible.

An assertion frequently encountered, and as frequently refuted.

 

[camanintx]

I would suggest that "a large modern protein just popped into existence randomly" is substantially what ToE proponents say.

And you would be wrong. The ToE explains the diversity we see in all of the life around us. It does not explain how the first life forms may have come to be.

Or are "modern" proteins different from "old timey" proteins.

Yes, they are. Proteins exist in a variety of configurations from simple to complex. While humans and other complex organisms may require more complex proteins, there are many simple organisms which get by with simple proteins.

Finally, I did give the source for my quote.

"pc pp. 9-10 pars. 3-4" doesn't count as a source unless you first explain what "pc" stands for.

 

[painted wolf]

Bad eyesight, arthritis, cancer, etc. are all part and parcel of the aging and eventual death to which we are all subject.

Wow, I aged quick then! How convenient.

I would suggest that "a large modern protein just popped into existence randomly" is substantially what ToE proponents say. Or are "modern" proteins different from "old timey" proteins.

You could suggest that, but you would be wrong. I could suggest that the Bible says that monkeys can fly, but I actually bothered to learn what's in the Bible.

We know proteins change over time because we can observe them do so.

Finally, I did give the source for my quote.

I seem to have missed it.

pp. 9-10 pars. 3-4

Is not a source.... care to try again? What is the title of this book and who is the author.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

The fact is the basic tenets of ToE are statistically impossible.

You have not extablished it as a fact.
You have made quite a few unsubstantiated claims, but you have NOT established that it is a fact.

Nice try though.

 

[Belief Show]

With regards to one of his many responses... Rusra02 needs to watch the Richard Dawkins documentary 'The Blind Watchmaker' free on Google Video (~45 minutes long). In it Dawk clearly explains how cumulative selection works.

 

[rusra02]

With regards to one of his many responses... Rusra02 needs to watch the Richard Dawkins documentary 'The Blind Watchmaker' free on Google Video (~45 minutes long). In it Dawk clearly explains how cumulative selection works.

You mean the Dawkins that said ??

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane."

and
"The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. "


Uh, no... I don't think so. Biased contempt for those whose views differ from Dawkins as quote 1 reveals does not deserve respect nor consideration.

Any person who claims to be an objective scientist that can only explain organized complexity by so-called 'natural selection' has blinders on.
And when you follow a blind man, you fall into the pit with him. But I do understand why such a person would be the darling of ToE proponents.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You mean the Dawkins that said ??

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane."

and
"The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. "


Uh, no... I don't think so. Biased contempt for those whose views differ from Dawkins as quote 1 reveals does not deserve respect nor consideration.

Any person who claims to be an objective scientist that can only explain organized complexity by so-called 'natural selection' has blinders on.
And when you follow a blind man, you fall into the pit with him. But I do understand why such a person would be the darling of ToE proponents.

Would you say that it is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe that the Earth is round, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane?

Would you say that it is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe that bacteria and viruses can make you sick, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane?

Would you say that it is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe that the Holocaust took place, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane?

 

[McBell]

You mean the Dawkins that said ??

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane."

and
"The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. "


Uh, no... I don't think so. Biased contempt for those whose views differ from Dawkins as quote 1 reveals does not deserve respect nor consideration.

Any person who claims to be an objective scientist that can only explain organized complexity by so-called 'natural selection' has blinders on.
And when you follow a blind man, you fall into the pit with him. But I do understand why such a person would be the darling of ToE proponents.

Statement number one is the truth.
Get over yourself.

Now I understand that some people have issues with the truth when it hits so close to home. I also understand that some people rally on and on about truth but then completely ignore it when it threatens their beliefs.

You have demonstrated a thorough ignorance of evolution on this very site.
And I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you do not fall into one or both of the other categories from statement one.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You mean the Dawkins that said ??

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane."

and
"The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. "


Uh, no... I don't think so. Biased contempt for those whose views differ from Dawkins as quote 1 reveals does not deserve respect nor consideration.

Any person who claims to be an objective scientist that can only explain organized complexity by so-called 'natural selection' has blinders on.
And when you follow a blind man, you fall into the pit with him. But I do understand why such a person would be the darling of ToE proponents.

I love the juxtaposition of these two sentences here:

Biased contempt for those whose views differ from Dawkins as quote 1 reveals does not deserve respect nor consideration.

Any person who claims to be an objective scientist that can only explain organized complexity by so-called 'natural selection' has blinders on.

You owe me a new irony meter.

 

[Valjean]

What are the alternatives? If not ignorant, stupid or mad, how would you characterize them?

 

[outhouse]

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane."

really though, that sums it up.



If you dont do the work and remain ignorant to the facts because it goes against your religion, well its your own fault.

If one only goes to religious biased sources, you will remain ignorant and again, its your own fault.

 

[outhouse]

What are the alternatives? If not ignorant, stupid or mad, how would you characterize them?

ancient mans myths that claim magic because they had no real grasp on the world around them?