DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

WillReadmore:

The so-called "Big Bang" is nothing more than a theory for which there is no supporting evidence. Neither is there any credible explanation for what could have caused the supposed "Big Bang."

Alter2Ego

 

WillReadmore:

Your argument for mutations as the driving force behind evolution is old and stale. That argument was presented decades ago by Robert Jastrow (September 7, 1925 – February 8, 2 0 0 8, by Carl Edward Sagan (9 November 1934 – 20 December 1996), and others. The speculation is that the mutations that are supposedly involved in evolution are small accidental changes that accumulate over a long period of time. Suffice it to say there is no evidence that this even occurred. The scientific evidence says (and I'm referring to legitimate science) mutations are harmful and cannot lead to anything positive in the long term.

Alter2Ego

 

In science (scientific method) "theory" refers to the best truth science has been able to produce through multiple independent tests and review - including serious attempts to prove the proposed theory is false.

So, "just a theory" doesn't really make sense when referring to something from scientific method, such as the "big bang".

In this case there are multiple independent methods of coming to the same conclusion about the "big bang".

Yes, science does not have an answer to the origin of this universe before the time that it was the size of a basketball (or so). The idea that it sprang from nothing can't be accepted by science.

In science, when something isn't known the answer is "I don't know". And the response to that is a bunch more investigation - which continues today. You've probably heard of some of the proposals that come from "theoretical physics", where ideas are developed to the point that they can be tested by scientific method Pretty much all these ideas have been far beyond the possibility of being approachable by scientific method - not surprising, as stuff like other dimensions and "before the big bang" are not places that can be easily seen!!

 

Please show your reference.

 

Bacteria populations in the lab have sometimes undergone genetic mutations that enabled them to utilize food substrates for which their species previously had no ability to metabolize.

In mitosis, the replication of DNA strands is perfect almost all of the time, but on rare occasions, something like once in a billion cell divisions, there is a random accidental copying error. The rate of mutation is increased by exposure to an increase in radiation, whether it be natural or man-made. Madam Curie didn't know she was playing with genetic fire and payed a price. So did John Wayne, for not being further away from the nuclear mushroom.

 

Nope! Some mutations result in different species.

DNA evidence indicates that birds and alligators are closely related.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141211141837.htm

In birds the DNA for the formation of teeth (dentine) is inactive while it is active in alligators and crocodiles. The beak on a turtle is closer to a bird than a crocodile but the scales and amphibious lifestyle is closer to a crocodile.

In essence all it takes is a relatively MINOR mutation in the DNA for there to be a divergence to another species over millions of years.

 

How Darwinists lie about statistics

The incredible power of mathematics continues to contradict Darwin's claims and predictions.
So his backers lie, as usual.
Point out the insuperable statistics (impossible nature) of naturalistic polypeptide (protein) synthesis, and they scream out "Millions of years! Billions of years! Trillions and gazillions of everything!"

They're oblivious to the extremes confounding them permanently. It's like Richard Dawkins claiming that all the monkeys in the world could eventually type the works of Shakespeare. That's precisely what our biology teacher *taught* us in high school.
But it's dead wrong. Proof:

The keyboard in front of you has at LEAST 100 different characters possible, including all the numbers, characters, punctuation, and upper/lower case. So for a sentence, just ONE SENTENCE, 100 keystrokes in length, the probability of an army of monkeys ever typing one sentence just 100 characters long is 1 in 100 to the 100th power, which is 1 in 10 to the 200th power.

10 to the 50th power grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. So imagine picking out ONE UNIQUE grain of sand on your first and only try, from 15 solar system-sized spheres full of sand.

If as Darwinists screech, you had many orders of magnitude attempts, that would NO LONGER BE "1 chance in 10 to the 50th" which is what they try desperately to defeat, and always unsuccessfully, because... they LIE.

Similarly, time doesn't change things. Add the next amino acid to a protein today or in 50,000 years, it's always 1 amino acid out of 20 possible choices. WHICH ONE GOES NEXT! And WHY? Nobody knows. It's undirected. It's random mutation.

If it goes very, very quickly, it's still 1 in 20. If thousands go in the same second, it's 1 in 20. Like flipping a coin rapidly or once a decade. Statistics don't change whether you work slowly or quickly.

Finally, their nonsense about a deck of cards and any hand has "the same probability." Is that why Vegas pays for royal flushes in poker? Because all hands are equally likely? A random hand is meaningless, like gibberish typed on a keyboard at random.
Words, like poker hands and bridge hands, have to be precise, NOT random.

Q.E.D. Darwinists go think this through and hopefully you'll abandon the nonsense you have clung to for much of your lives.

 

The ol' statistical argument.

Except that a googleplex can easily accomodate the numbers required for the complete works of shakespeare. A number so large you can't even conceptualize it. Of course one can't even conceptualize the numbers you yourself are using in this bogus argument since they are so ginormous themselves, at least from our ten finger/toe perspective.

 

Jonsa:

Unfortunately for you and other Atheist Religionists, googleplex required the intervention of intelligent beings (humans in this instance--and well trained humans at that) in order for googleplex to work. Simply put, googleplex did not come into existence by random chances. Likewise, our fine-tuned universe and ever living creature within it could not have resulted by accidents/random/unguided chances but required the intervention of a vastly superior intelligent being.

But since you seem to think Darwin's macroevolution is fact, tell me this: What are the statistical chances that, at random, googleplex would have created itself?

I cannot wait to hear your answer to that question.

Alter2Ego

 

http://TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

 

Derideo_Te:

You are snatching at straws in the debunked argument that mutations result in different species. Legitimate science says mutations cannot change species into anything other than what they started off as and that, in fact, mutations are often damaging and even deadly to species.

Scientist Carl Sagen declared regarding mutation: "Most of them are harmful or lethal." Similarly, scientist Peo Koller stated: "the greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It is found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousand which are harmful." In his book The Wellsprings of Life, science writer Isaac Asimov admitted: "Most mutations are for the worse." https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101985018

QUESTION #1 TO Derideo_Te: Since, according to scientist Carl Sagen, most mutations are "harmful" or deadly, explain how the high risk of harm or death could result in a "new species."

QUESTION #2 TO Derideo_Te: Since, according to scientist Peo Koller, for every useful mutation, there are thousands which are harmful, explain how a single useful mutation can overcome many thousands of harmful ones, resulting in a "new species."

QUESTION #3 TO Derideo_Te: Since, according to Isaac Asimov, "most mutations are for the worse," explain how a new species could result from that scenario.

QUESTION #4 TO Derideo_Te: You must provide scientific evidence from credible sources for your explanations to Questions 1-3.


I am looking forward to hearing your answer to my four questions listed above.


Alter2Ego

 

So the fact that a googleplex needed to be "invented" by "intelligent beings" for it to "work" is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of an intelligent designer.

By that reasoning the fact that the number 1 needed to be invented by intelligent beings for it to work is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of an intelligent designer.

Your logic is irrefutable bullshit.

As for you asking what the statistical chances of a mathematical concept inventing itself, well, I'd say considerably better than you realizing how ridiculous a question that is.

 

Alter2Ego, I have been presenting science to Darwin's Followers for many years. They simply believe in his Magic Wand of Selection. Wave it and voila! "Evolution." No, really. They believe that. Because there is trivial adaptation, they extrapolate that infinitely and anyone who disputes their Magic Wand of Selection is "stupid" and "doesn't understand evolution."
After all, it is SO COMPLICATED!

1. Random mutation followed by
2. Magic Wand of Selection.

This is also expressed by Richard Dawkins as "A1>A2 and B1>B2."

Think about it. 1 is bigger than 2, is it not? Biological "science".

 

How disingenuous can you get. Dawkins A1/A2 etc. are variables for enzymes interacting to create various chemicals. Its a discussion about evolutionary biology, not simple boolean math. Its laid out in rather fine detail in his book the Blind Watchmaker.

But hey, when the facts are not with you, I guess retreating to specious misrepresentation is a viable strategy.

 

So why don’t you get your science published and win the Nobel prize for proving evolution, and the entire field of biology is wrong?

 

Ever heard of the concept of a MISCARRIAGE?

Do you know WHY they occur?

https://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/pregnancy-miscarriage#1-3

https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book-excerpts/health-article/miscarriage-in-the-first-trimester/

https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/miscarriage-rates-by-week#causes

In essence the MAJORITY of harmful DNA mutations do NOT survive gestation which means that they never get any further than a single ZEF.

The mutations that do survive are therefore NOT harmful even if they serve no useful function at that point in time.

The environment is constantly changing and given that NON-HARMFUL mutations do survive that means that they exist when they might prove to be advantageous at some point in the future.

Are humans the same species as chimpanzees?

Are humans the same species as chickens?

Are humans the same species as bananas?

Are humans the same species as fruit flies?

We share 99.9% of our DNA with other humans.

https://www.getscience.com/biology-explained/how-genetically-related-are-we-bananas

Some of our DNA is COMMON across other species because we share common ancestry stretching back across all life forms since life originated.

Over this period of time NON-HARMFUL mutations ENABLED life to take advantage of different environments.

This is basic biology 101.



https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/science/scientists-unveil-new-tree-of-life.html

 

Not to steal Derideo's thunder, but seriously I think its your job to learn the basics of genetics and evolutionary biology not his or anyone else's to step you thru the basics.

Hint: Your questions all concern the interaction between genetic mutation and genetic expression. IOW, the difference between the "data" (genes) and the software (non-coding dna instructions for expression).

Here's an article that can substantially improve your knowledge in this fundamental area.

https://www.su.se/english/research/...n-and-adaptation-genetics-beyond-dna-1.315168

And here is a fabulous site that discusses the biology of human behavioral evolution in context. The guy is a genius of first order (I strongly recommend his videos and book)

https://www.robertsapolskyrocks.com/behavioral-evolution.html

 

Also boring.