Fallacies of Evolution - Part 2

Discussion in 'Science' started by ChemEngineer, Oct 27, 2019.

  1. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,129
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Big Boss closed down Fallacies of Evolution when the "posting limit" was exceeded. He said to start Part 2 if we wished to continue the discussion.

    Consider the odds off linking 150 amino acids and getting a specific working protein, which (biochemist Douglas) Axe estimates is about 1
    in 1077. – Counting to God, by Douglas Ell, page 107

    Yale physicist Harold Morowitz calculated the likelihood of life arising by chance as one in 10 to the one hundred billionth power. – p 111

    [Yeah but Darwin! DARWIN! And “A>B>C>D” Darwin’s Magic Wand of Selection and Dawkins’
    Alphabeticization trump science and mathematics. Whassamatter wif you?]
     
  2. Diablo

    Diablo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    954
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We bow to your superior knowledge, oh great one! You're smarter than all the others! Darwin is nothing compared to you!
     
  3. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,129
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's analyze your ignorance compounded by snarky sarcasm, shall we?

    1. Nobody said I have "superior knowledge." Those are your words, not mine.
    2. I didn't call myself "great." You did.
    3. I didn't say I'm "smarter than all the others." Again, you did, and then you have the temerity to ascribe your words to me.
    4. Darwin was a very mediocre student. He admitted as much and expressed his own doubt as to the validity of his two-step tautology, viz., random mutation followed by magic selection.

    Wow. Animals are "fit" if they survive and they survive if they're "fit." Science in an 1859 two-step dance.

    Now, since you presume to be so smug that you can snark and try to blast me, for posting remarks from a biochemist and a physics professor, why don't you say something you deem profound and useful. Make it original as well, if you can. You do that and I will follow. In fact, even if you do not and cannot, I will provide a biochemistry lesson nobody here has ever heard much less considered. All original.
     
    usfan likes this.
  4. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    17,150
    Likes Received:
    6,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Micro evolution is certain.

    Macro is an assumption given it is not observable.

    Personally I think life manifests from some kind of field and is not mere randomness and chance. This field is also involved with macro evolution for the field is coherent.

    That is more reasonable than the astronomical odds involved that must repeat and repeat in tremendous numbers.
     
    usfan likes this.
  5. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,129
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Micro evolution" (sic) is NOT evolution. Not remotely. It is adaptation.

    The original synthesis of polypeptides is statistically insuperable. Titin is the largest protein in your body.
    What is 1 in 20 to the 34,350th power? Just for that one protein?
     
    william kurps likes this.
  6. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    17,150
    Likes Received:
    6,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Both micro and macro are under the term evolution. You are making your own distinctions up imo

    It is claimed that the mechanisms seen in micro when stretched out over time gives us all species. I am skeptical in regards to this belief.

    I think philosophical materialism has dictated this theory of evolution.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2019
    WillReadmore likes this.
  7. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    17,150
    Likes Received:
    6,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You cannot question the certainty of the believers. They at times get snarky. Ha ha

    This theory is settled and must not be questioned. Not different from religious belief in that respect.

    I think the theory should be taught given it is a theory of biology.

    What must go is the arrogance of certainty for this creates an environment that makes it hard to question this field. An open mind is frowned upon when this theory is cconcerned . ha ha
     
    usfan and ChemEngineer like this.
  8. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    27,831
    Likes Received:
    8,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So called "Micro" evolution is merely Evolution broken down to very short timeframes. The changes in one generation after another accumulate into larger changes over very long periods.
     
  9. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,129
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And @Diablo has yet to post something for everyone to read which he purports to be profound and useful. I'll give @Diablo some more time.
     
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    28,637
    Likes Received:
    5,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is ridiculous.

    There are millions of sites and documents that explain evolution at a general level and down to a microscopic level, showinng the methods of change of dna.

    Evolution is a foundation of all biology.

    Yet, you think this hinges on prompt response to your total nonsense??
     
    Derideo_Te, tecoyah and roorooroo like this.
  11. Ernest T.

    Ernest T. Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2019
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Darwinism has come under some serious academic scrutiny in recent years.
     
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    28,637
    Likes Received:
    5,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would suggest there has never been a time when evolution hasn't been a hot topic!

    After all, it's a foundation of all modern biology. It's a constant presence in any study of life - from ancient times of first life to modern medicine and agriculture.
     
  13. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,129
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And that scrutiny continues to lean heavily against old Charlie. Science is like that. Dawkins' "A>B>C>D" crap doesn't cut it any more, any more than his childish pretense that monkeys can type Shakespeare.
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    28,637
    Likes Received:
    5,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think there is frustration that comes from the constant rehashing of failed attempts at refutation of evolution as a whole and with the total absence of scientific alternatives.

    Large numbers of scientists study evolution all the time. The idea that there aren't questions or that questions aren't allowed is just plain nonsense. Science advances through questions. And, there are large numbers of questions, so that's not going to change.

    Still, evolution survives as the foundation of all modern biology - even though everyone is free to ask any question they want. And, there aren't even recognized alternative scientific theories covering what evolution clearly explains.
     
    Derideo_Te and Cosmo like this.
  15. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,129
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here is my original analysis of human hemoglobin, and its statistically insuperable odds of Darwinian synthesis.
    It consists of 528 amino acid residues, which have a space (the number of possible combinations) of 20 to the 528th power, not counting folding combinations.
    Only one of these 20 to the 528th power polypeptides is human hemoglobin. Only one. Utterly impossible that it made itself by the Magic Wand of "selection."

    What's more, hemoglobin defies LeChatelier's Principle. How? Well, whereas polyprotic acids, such as sulfuric acid, have orders of magnitude higher ionization constants for the first dissociation, as compared with the second or any later dissociations. This is to be expected since the sulfate base, SO4, holds the first hydrogen ion much more strongly than the second.

    Hemoglobin does exactly the opposite with oxygen. It holds each of four successive oxygen molecules more strongly than the previous one.

    Little short of a miracle. Is this the "Argument From Incredulity" as snarky Darwinists giggle? Not remotely. They didn't even know this before I explained it to them. Moreover, knowledgeable scientists are frequently taken back by their findings.
     
  16. Ernest T.

    Ernest T. Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2019
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Elites and academia have made the subject of evolution a closed case for the last 50 years. Hardly a "hot topic". More like an "entrenched doctrine closed to debate."
     
    usfan likes this.
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    28,637
    Likes Received:
    5,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There isn't any opposition within science to evolution theory.

    But, there are lots of areas where specifics are not fully known. For example, there was quite a while when the idea of dinosaurs progressing to birds was debateable.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  18. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    5,770
    Likes Received:
    3,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, it’s obvious you have never read the book Origin of the Species. Nor understood Darwin didn’t arrive at his explanation narrative for his observations from some spontaneous leap of insight, but was influenced by an existent body of work of others across multiple disciplines that provided corroborative evidence and observation... and in at least one person, Wallace, had developed a similar, independent framework of understanding but never received the same recognition because Darwin published first. Then too, others like Mendel, had experimentally demonstrated examples of speciation that men had been influencing for millennia, and still do today.
    Speciation through a selection process, whether natural or artificial has been both observed and directed.

    But, I understand, it’s the Devil’s design, he/she/it (pick your pronoun) planed evidence to deceive man from the ‘true word of God’.

    A few questions for consideration. Which of the following are true?

    Nothing can travel faster than light.
    Superman can fly.
    Einstein wasn’t a good student of mathematics.
    Dinosaurs and man lived at the same time in the past.
    The God of Christians, Judaism, Islam and Ra is the same God.
    God reveals in revelation to certain special people.
    You exist
    1+1 always = 2.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  19. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,129
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pretend intellectualism by snark. How anti-scientific and unintelligent of you. tsk, tsk

    Have you read:
    Evolution - Theory in Crisis
    Problems of Evolution
    Edge of Evolution
    Undeniable - How Biology Confirms That Life is Designed
    Climbing Mount Improbable
    The Blind Watchmaker

    I've read all of them, and many more besides. I have copious notes on each one. I critiqued Richard Dawkins' mistakes and misrepresentations and sent them to his publisher. He had no answer for them, of course. This is standard fare for the godless Left. Simply attack the messenger, while ignoring their message.


    Your sophistication is obvious to the world. And the crucial connections to all of your questions to the subject of "fallacies of evolution" are so important and illustrative, n'est-ce pas? Well done, sir. Well done.

    I ask in kind:

    What is the space of human hemoglobin?
    Explain how human hemoglobin defies LeChatelier's Principle.
    Name THE most successful new species "evolved" in biological laboratories throughout America made by irradiating bacteria and insects over the past five decades.
    What is the proportion of functional proteins in the space of a 150 amino acid long polypeptide?
    Name the factors which mitigate against the naturalistic synthesis of a new and functional polypeptide.
    Provide a mechanism by which some human protein - ANY human protein - "evolved" from a previous function to a new function, and compare the structures of old and new.

    All of this SHOULD be child's play for someone as incredibly brilliant and Darwinian as you...…...

    On a much more elementary note, will water freeze at standard pressure and exactly zero degrees Celsius? (Hint: That is defined as its freezing point.)
     
    usfan likes this.
  20. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    5,770
    Likes Received:
    3,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Typical. Don’t answer questions, but attempt to dazzle with your own.
    You labeled me as a Darwinian without know knowing what that means.
    You assume I am godless and Left in allegiance, baseless, assumptions and labels meant to denigrate.
    Anti-Scientific? Really? How’d you make that assessment? What do you know of my work, my methodologies, my publications, my reputation in my discipline, and etc. to declare me so?
    So you wrote criticisms of Richard Dawkins. What credentials do you think that gives you?

    You obviously have an alternative narrative to explain life. Care to share? Or, want to do a bit more razzle?
    Child’s play? Lol
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  21. Monash

    Monash Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    With some trepidation but here goes ......

    Firstly your statistical calculations are way off - IF you assume you are calculating the probability of ONE molecule of a particular complexity being randomly generated on a single occasion then fine, the odds of it occurring are enormous.

    But this is not the process evolution talks to. Firstly biochemistry involves the growth of complex units from smaller less complex sub blocks which then combine according to the laws of chemistry and random chance into larger, more complex units. Secondly these combinations aren't simply in a single linear progression. The entire process leading to the development of life as we currently seem to understand it was occurring in parallel billions or trillions of times per second wherever conditions were right for these processes to occur across the entire surface of the globe. Thirdly these biochemical reactions occurred at high speed - hundreds of times a second (wherever there were the right background conditions such as pressure and temperature). This means multiple combinations can develop, bind and break down rapidly (in sub second times frames). And nature had a BILLION years to run the process.

    You seem to think of the odds of the entire process working as being driven by an abacus. I have news for you - it was a global supercomputer.

    Your second mistake seems to be logical. Identifying a flaw (imagined or otherwise) in a scientific theory in NOT by default proof that a competing theory is correct - it simply proves that there are potential flaws in the theory being criticized. For example for some time some physicists have been pointing to certain astronomical anomalies that seem to contradict the current prevailing theories of gravity. Those theorists then present different models of gravity that match all or most of the existing data. Further studies and arguments ensue. Creationists never do this. They point to what they perceive to be (increasingly minute) flaws in evolutionary theory and then say 'evolution is wrong'. What they don't do is then provide countervailing, scientifically valid or testable evidence that supports Creationism. Note;- quoting the Bible is NOT scientifically testable evidence in support of Creationism.

    Thirdly, in order to criticize evolution in the manner you are doing you have to separate evolution as a Scientific Theory from ALL other currently existing scientific theories governing the laws of nature. That includes all the laws of chemistry and the underlying laws of physics as we currently understand them. Simply put biochemistry is a subset of chemistry, the laws of which are governed by well understood theories of physics relating to the interaction of atoms. They in turn are supported by the laws of physics governing thermodynamics, particle physics and astrophysics. You want to argue that God created the world or universe X thousands of years ago, fine. You then have to show why the same laws that govern the performance of the computer you are using to post that argument also appear to tell us the Universe as we understand it came into existence several billion years ago.

    Lastly ALL scientific theories are subject to review. So criticize the theory of evolution as much you want - using scientifically valid methods that are reproducible, mathematically sound and compatible with all other know scientific laws.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2019
    roorooroo likes this.
  22. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,040
    Likes Received:
    2,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    New proteins appear when the DNA for the old ones are mutated a little bit and don't just pop out of a random shuffling of amino acids.

    And he is right. Life coming about by pure chance is extremely unlikely. That is why scientists are considering the possibility it came from chemical reactions that by their nature produce life.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  23. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    739
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Exactly.. open inquiry is not allowed in the Hallowed Halls of Progresso World, but mandated conformity of belief.

    Pseudoscience, propaganda, and blatant lies pass for 'Science!', in the world of progressive indoctrinees..
     
    Ernest T. likes this.
  24. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    739
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. Post ONE Experiment of this observable phenomenon. This is an unevidenced belief, it is not experimental science.
    2. Agreed. That is only a fear from implication, by True Believers, who have abandoned scientific methodology in favor of mandated belief.
    3. Disagree. A theory, to have credibility, must work in conjunction with proven laws of physics, with no exceptions for pop beliefs. Critiquing the big bang theory, or common ancestry, does not invalidate the law of gravity, or thermodynamics. Finding flaws in common descent is not an attack on 'Science!', as the jihadists like to pretend. It affirms scientific methodogy and critical thinking, refusing to suspend skepticism to comply with Elite Mandates.
     
  25. Monash

    Monash Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Can you please put a sentence together in simple English that actually explains what it is you are trying to say?
     
    Derideo_Te and WillReadmore like this.

Share This Page