|
ridery99 (OP)
|
 |
July 18, 2017, 05:41:27 AM |
|
Evolution is a hoax. If evolution is the truth, then we can see a similarity from other apes, they should bore a human-like baby. We should think critically before accepting other peoples belief.
The problem is that most people are conditioned to it at an early age so that they can't develop critical thinking. |
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
July 18, 2017, 09:07:07 AM |
|
These sites and others like them talk around rebuttal of scientific proof that evolution is impossible. Then they claim that they offered rebuttal.  And you claim what you claim, how is that an argument against it? They explain the creationists argument and then they refute it with evidence. You obviously cannot say anything because you know they are right. Just admit that you lost and evolution is real. Stop your stupid propaganda. Don't embarrass yourself any further. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3976
Merit: 1382
|
|
July 18, 2017, 12:08:40 PM |
|
These sites and others like them talk around rebuttal of scientific proof that evolution is impossible. Then they claim that they offered rebuttal. And you claim what you claim, how is that an argument against it? They explain the creationists argument and then they refute it with evidence. You obviously cannot say anything because you know they are right. Just admit that you lost and evolution is real. Stop your stupid propaganda. Don't embarrass yourself any further. You are so fearful of my supposed propaganda! Does it make you uncomfortable? Good! Maybe you will wake up and see that all scientific theory that is believed to be factual is a religious application of science. Blab talking make-believe rebuttals to the proof that evolution is impossible, only serves to drag the blab talker and his adherents further into science fiction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xester
|
|
July 18, 2017, 12:39:17 PM |
|
Evolution is a hoax. If evolution is the truth, then we can see a similarity from other apes, they should bore a human-like baby. We should think critically before accepting other peoples belief.
It has always been a hoax. Basically because it was just a theory and nothing but a theory. There is no scientific evidence to back it up as it was all assumption. They just considered some similarities of our features with the apes. There is nothing to believed in. I think schools now should make alternative views on the evolution or just use evolution as part of the studies but not to emphasize as to where we came. |
|
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 18, 2017, 12:42:10 PM |
|
http://www.reasons.org/articles/harvard-scientists-write-the-book-on-intelligent-design-in-dnaHarvard Scientists Write the Book on Intelligent Design—in DNA One of the most provocative arguments for intelligent design focuses on the recognition that DNA is an information-based system. Yet skeptics argue that biochemical information is not genuine information. Instead, they assert that when scientists refer to biochemical information, it is merely a scientific metaphor. New research by a team from Harvard and Johns Hopkins University—in which researchers encoded an entire book into DNA—raises questions about this objection and helps to powerfully advance the case for a Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
July 18, 2017, 12:46:46 PM |
|
Evolution is a hoax. If evolution is the truth, then we can see a similarity from other apes, they should bore a human-like baby. We should think critically before accepting other peoples belief.
It has always been a hoax. Basically because it was just a theory and nothing but a theory. There is no scientific evidence to back it up as it was all assumption. They just considered some similarities of our features with the apes. There is nothing to believed in. I think schools now should make alternative views on the evolution or just use evolution as part of the studies but not to emphasize as to where we came. Are you stupid? Why do people talk about things they know nothing about? There is no scientific evidence to back it up? You people make me laugh. A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. Let that sink in big boy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory In case you want to read more so you don't like like a retard next time. |
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 18, 2017, 12:50:28 PM |
|
You and your science guys all over this thread arent addressing actual questions, you are merely offended by the fact, that somebody even has audicity to question Mr. Darwins theory. Darwin was anglican christian by the way.
I just did man! And there is no problem with evolution and religion as long as you're not dumb enough to think that god created all species. You can believe that god created the world AND the evolution process. And we're offended by the fact that you reject this scientifically proved theory without giving any argument :/ I don't think that religion and science are in conflict. After all, when you read first book in Bible, Genesis, you see perfectly scientific explanation about the beginning of universe and planet earth. From day 1 to 7 God created sky, earth, water, land, animals... How people 5000 or 6000 years ago could know such facts? You can think that God couldn't create everything in just 6 days but do you really think that we are talking here about literal 6 days with 24 hours? In other place in the bible, Peter said: Don't you know that for God one day is like 1000 years and 1000 years as one day? So, if we change term 6 days with 6 periods of development of the universe, than God's creation and evolution have no difference. Just, evolution can't answer question about the beginning of universe. Religion can answer it. It's only difference between evolution and religion. Just bouncing on this  The "days" of Genesis cannot be "earth day" because the first day happen before the sun & planet were created  |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3976
Merit: 1382
|
|
July 18, 2017, 12:52:39 PM |
|
Your probability website ( http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/) starts out backward. The first paragraph... the introduction: Both traditional creationists and intelligent design scholars have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, “random” process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakepeare. Note that billions of years are mentioned with the idea that a long time makes probability work in ones favor. The reverse is true. Simple rusting iron shows that over a longer period of time, the iron rusts more. Translated into evolution, this means that the longer the time, the more degradation of any naturally occurring chemical reaction, even one in the direction of climbing the evolutionary ladder. Since this whole article is laid out based on false ideas like this one, how can there be any truth in any of it? There essentially isn't. Until the author corrects his basic idea that the improbable can overcome the probable in the tremendous odds that are against the improbable, there is no way that the article has any practical value. The rest of the articles are the same. The point is that evolutionists show exactly the opposite of the thing that they want. They constantly prove that evolution is impossible, and then ignorantly (many knowingly) suggest that evolution is fact. Believe them, if you like. But understand that you are following a religion if you believe them. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3976
Merit: 1382
|
|
July 18, 2017, 12:53:25 PM |
|
You and your science guys all over this thread arent addressing actual questions, you are merely offended by the fact, that somebody even has audicity to question Mr. Darwins theory. Darwin was anglican christian by the way.
I just did man! And there is no problem with evolution and religion as long as you're not dumb enough to think that god created all species. You can believe that god created the world AND the evolution process. And we're offended by the fact that you reject this scientifically proved theory without giving any argument :/ I don't think that religion and science are in conflict. After all, when you read first book in Bible, Genesis, you see perfectly scientific explanation about the beginning of universe and planet earth. From day 1 to 7 God created sky, earth, water, land, animals... How people 5000 or 6000 years ago could know such facts? You can think that God couldn't create everything in just 6 days but do you really think that we are talking here about literal 6 days with 24 hours? In other place in the bible, Peter said: Don't you know that for God one day is like 1000 years and 1000 years as one day? So, if we change term 6 days with 6 periods of development of the universe, than God's creation and evolution have no difference. Just, evolution can't answer question about the beginning of universe. Religion can answer it. It's only difference between evolution and religion. Just bouncing on this The "days" of Genesis cannot be "earth day" because the first day happen before the sun & planet were created The first day was a day because God was holding it as a day. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3976
Merit: 1382
|
|
July 18, 2017, 12:56:52 PM |
|
Evolution is a hoax. If evolution is the truth, then we can see a similarity from other apes, they should bore a human-like baby. We should think critically before accepting other peoples belief.
It has always been a hoax. Basically because it was just a theory and nothing but a theory. There is no scientific evidence to back it up as it was all assumption. They just considered some similarities of our features with the apes. There is nothing to believed in. I think schools now should make alternative views on the evolution or just use evolution as part of the studies but not to emphasize as to where we came. Are you stupid? Why do people talk about things they know nothing about? There is no scientific evidence to back it up? You people make me laugh. A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. Let that sink in big boy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory In case you want to read more so you don't like like a retard next time. Repeatedly testing and making a thing happen doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether or not it happens by itself in nature. That's why evolution is and will remain a theory... until someone shows that only evolutionary causes are making changes in nature. This will never happen until someone shows that there is some kind of natural random that operates outside of cause and effect programming. |
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 18, 2017, 01:33:35 PM |
|
You and your science guys all over this thread arent addressing actual questions, you are merely offended by the fact, that somebody even has audicity to question Mr. Darwins theory. Darwin was anglican christian by the way.
I just did man! And there is no problem with evolution and religion as long as you're not dumb enough to think that god created all species. You can believe that god created the world AND the evolution process. And we're offended by the fact that you reject this scientifically proved theory without giving any argument :/ I don't think that religion and science are in conflict. After all, when you read first book in Bible, Genesis, you see perfectly scientific explanation about the beginning of universe and planet earth. From day 1 to 7 God created sky, earth, water, land, animals... How people 5000 or 6000 years ago could know such facts? You can think that God couldn't create everything in just 6 days but do you really think that we are talking here about literal 6 days with 24 hours? In other place in the bible, Peter said: Don't you know that for God one day is like 1000 years and 1000 years as one day? So, if we change term 6 days with 6 periods of development of the universe, than God's creation and evolution have no difference. Just, evolution can't answer question about the beginning of universe. Religion can answer it. It's only difference between evolution and religion. Just bouncing on this The "days" of Genesis cannot be "earth day" because the first day happen before the sun & planet were created The first day was a day because God was holding it as a day. But it's not astronomic time measure based on calendar like we measure time now It's more to be seen as steps , or phase in the making. Not sure it even imply all the days are the same amount of time, or even how to measure time before there are planets or stars |
|
|
|
Daniel91
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3374
Merit: 1824
|
|
July 18, 2017, 02:10:50 PM |
|
You and your science guys all over this thread arent addressing actual questions, you are merely offended by the fact, that somebody even has audicity to question Mr. Darwins theory. Darwin was anglican christian by the way.
I just did man! And there is no problem with evolution and religion as long as you're not dumb enough to think that god created all species. You can believe that god created the world AND the evolution process. And we're offended by the fact that you reject this scientifically proved theory without giving any argument :/ I don't think that religion and science are in conflict. After all, when you read first book in Bible, Genesis, you see perfectly scientific explanation about the beginning of universe and planet earth. From day 1 to 7 God created sky, earth, water, land, animals... How people 5000 or 6000 years ago could know such facts? You can think that God couldn't create everything in just 6 days but do you really think that we are talking here about literal 6 days with 24 hours? In other place in the bible, Peter said: Don't you know that for God one day is like 1000 years and 1000 years as one day? So, if we change term 6 days with 6 periods of development of the universe, than God's creation and evolution have no difference. Just, evolution can't answer question about the beginning of universe. Religion can answer it. It's only difference between evolution and religion. Just bouncing on this The "days" of Genesis cannot be "earth day" because the first day happen before the sun & planet were created The first day was a day because God was holding it as a day. But it's not astronomic time measure based on calendar like we measure time now It's more to be seen as steps , or phase in the making. Not sure it even imply all the days are the same amount of time, or even how to measure time before there are planets or stars Exactly my point! We are to much connected with our present reality and can't understand creation and terms ''day'' or ''night'' from God's viewpoint. God is creator of universe, time, space, life, everything. So, it's meaningless to talk about today's understanding of time and space, day whivh have 24 hours etc. When God started creation, he created everything from the very beginning, in 6 different periods, not days. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3976
Merit: 1382
|
|
July 18, 2017, 02:23:22 PM |
|
You and your science guys all over this thread arent addressing actual questions, you are merely offended by the fact, that somebody even has audicity to question Mr. Darwins theory. Darwin was anglican christian by the way.
I just did man! And there is no problem with evolution and religion as long as you're not dumb enough to think that god created all species. You can believe that god created the world AND the evolution process. And we're offended by the fact that you reject this scientifically proved theory without giving any argument :/ I don't think that religion and science are in conflict. After all, when you read first book in Bible, Genesis, you see perfectly scientific explanation about the beginning of universe and planet earth. From day 1 to 7 God created sky, earth, water, land, animals... How people 5000 or 6000 years ago could know such facts? You can think that God couldn't create everything in just 6 days but do you really think that we are talking here about literal 6 days with 24 hours? In other place in the bible, Peter said: Don't you know that for God one day is like 1000 years and 1000 years as one day? So, if we change term 6 days with 6 periods of development of the universe, than God's creation and evolution have no difference. Just, evolution can't answer question about the beginning of universe. Religion can answer it. It's only difference between evolution and religion. Just bouncing on this The "days" of Genesis cannot be "earth day" because the first day happen before the sun & planet were created The first day was a day because God was holding it as a day. But it's not astronomic time measure based on calendar like we measure time now It's more to be seen as steps , or phase in the making. Not sure it even imply all the days are the same amount of time, or even how to measure time before there are planets or stars Exactly my point! We are to much connected with our present reality and can't understand creation and terms ''day'' or ''night'' from God's viewpoint. God is creator of universe, time, space, life, everything. So, it's meaningless to talk about today's understanding of time and space, day whivh have 24 hours etc. When God started creation, he created everything from the very beginning, in 6 different periods, not days. The point is that the Ancient Hebrew for the word day in creation, is the same as it is for the 24-hour day in the same language. The days are the same because God wanted them to be the same. Don't you believe God? It was Eve's doubts that started her on the trail towards eating the fruit. Why did she doubt? Because she COULD doubt, and it seemed fascinating to examine this doubt thing. The sin that her doubts brought her to has infected the whole world, and even the universe. Keep it up. Keep on doubting that God knows what He is talking about when He talks to mankind. Keep on not believing what He tells you when He tells it straight out to you. We are no different than Eve... except that we would have fallen into sin a lot faster. |
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 18, 2017, 02:50:42 PM |
|
Maybe it has to be seen as unit of time span through which an action can take place. Not even god can do everything at once Day is kinda the time atom. |
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 18, 2017, 02:54:20 PM
Last edit: July 18, 2017, 04:02:22 PM by IadixDev |
|
It was Eve's doubts that started her on the trail towards eating the fruit. Why did she doubt? Because she COULD doubt, and it seemed fascinating to examine this doubt thing. The sin that her doubts brought her to has infected the whole world, and even the universe. Keep it up. Keep on doubting that God knows what He is talking about when He talks to mankind. Keep on not believing what He tells you when He tells it straight out to you. We are no different than Eve... except that we would have fallen into sin a lot faster. Eve was tricked by the snakes which was the wisest creature made by god ! And then they realize all the work that has to be done to get where they were, and start to be fully conscious of good & bad instead of just living by the word of god, and thus open the potential to become more like god . Need to tell the whole story too !  It's the principle of double discrimination in Islam, which is the whole purpose of religion |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
July 18, 2017, 03:51:19 PM |
|
Your probability website ( http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/) starts out backward. The first paragraph... the introduction: Both traditional creationists and intelligent design scholars have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, “random” process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakepeare. Note that billions of years are mentioned with the idea that a long time makes probability work in ones favor. The reverse is true. Simple rusting iron shows that over a longer period of time, the iron rusts more. Translated into evolution, this means that the longer the time, the more degradation of any naturally occurring chemical reaction, even one in the direction of climbing the evolutionary ladder. Since this whole article is laid out based on false ideas like this one, how can there be any truth in any of it? There essentially isn't. Until the author corrects his basic idea that the improbable can overcome the probable in the tremendous odds that are against the improbable, there is no way that the article has any practical value. The rest of the articles are the same. The point is that evolutionists show exactly the opposite of the thing that they want. They constantly prove that evolution is impossible, and then ignorantly (many knowingly) suggest that evolution is fact. Believe them, if you like. But understand that you are following a religion if you believe them. One fallacy in this particular argument, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a huge figure but vastly smaller than 10183, and small enough to neutralize the probability-based argument against evolution [Bailey2000]. But even after this revision, the calculation still suffers from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event (which, after all, is the creationist theory, not the scientific theory, of its origin). Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic suggests that alpha-globin and other proteins arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context [Hardison2001]. Thus any simplistic probability calculation (whether it is arguing for or against some aspect of evolution) that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is not meaningful and can easily mislead [Bailey2000; Musgrave1998]. What’s more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, self-catalyzing biomolecules such as RNA are being investigated in research into the origin of life — see Origin. Also, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of completely “random” assemblage. Yet this process occurs millions of times every day in the human body. Those familiar with probability theory will recognize that one central difficulty with these creationist arguments stems from the fact that in any probability calculation, one must first very carefully define the ensemble space. As noted above, it makes no sense to consider, as an ensemble, all possible random assemblages of atoms into a protein chain, since that is not the scientific hypothesis of how alpha-globin and other biomolecular structures came to be. Instead, the only valid ensemble for this analysis is the set of all possible outcomes of an eons-long string of biomolecular processes, encompassing proteins, organisms, species and environments. But at present we have no possible way of even enumerating such an ensemble, much less determining the probability of any particular scenario or class of scenarios in this ensemble. Perhaps at some time in the far distant future, a super-powerful computer could simulate with convincing fidelity the multi-billion-year biological history of the earth, in the same way that scientists today attempt to simulate (in a much more modest scope) the earth’s climate. Then, after thousands of such simulations have been performed, we might obtain some meaningful statistics on the chances involved in the formation of some class of biological structures such as alpha-globin. Until that time, all such probability calculations are essentially meaningless. Along this line, it is also important to keep in mind that the process of natural biological evolution is not really a “random” process. Yes, mutations are “random” events, but the all-important process of natural selection, acting under the pressure of an extremely competitive landscape involving thousands of other species as well as numerous complicated environmental pressures, is anything but random. This strongly directional nature of natural selection, which is the essence of evolution, by itself invalidates simple-minded probability calculations. |
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 18, 2017, 04:56:50 PM
Last edit: July 18, 2017, 05:15:54 PM by IadixDev |
|
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_DarwinismIn 1972, Edelman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology (shared with Rodney Porter of Great Britain) for his work in immunology showing how the population of lymphocytes capable of binding to a foreign antigen is increased by differential clonal multiplication following antigen discovery. Essentially, this proved that the human body is capable of creating complex adaptive systems as a result of local events with feedback. Edelman's interest in selective systems expanded into the fields of neurobiology and neurophysiology, and in Neural Darwinism, Edelman puts forth a theory called "neuronal group selection". It contains three major parts: Anatomical connectivity in the brain occurs via selective mechanochemical events that take place epigenetically during development. This creates a diverse primary repertoire by differential reproduction. Once structural diversity is established anatomically, a second selective process occurs during postnatal behavioral experience through epigenetic modifications in the strength of synaptic connections between neuronal groups. This creates a diverse secondary repertoire by differential amplification. Reentrant signaling between neuronal groups allows for spatiotemporal continuity in response to real-world interactions. In "The Remembered Present" (1989) and later, "Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind" (1992) and "A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination" (2001; coauthored with Giulio Tononi), Edelman argues that thalamocortical and corticocortical reentrant signaling are critical to generating and maintaining conscious states in https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://ccrg.cs.memphis.edu/assets/papers/2004/Seth%2520%2526%2520Baars%252C%2520Neural%2520Darwinism-2004.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiw1ZHjpZPVAhXICMAKHeyDDFMQFgiFATAU&usg=AFQjCNFBReOAWnbpc2R1lYiPSNrwrrmrKA
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3976
Merit: 1382
|
|
July 18, 2017, 05:56:35 PM |
|
Your probability website ( http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/) starts out backward. The first paragraph... the introduction: Both traditional creationists and intelligent design scholars have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, “random” process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakepeare. Note that billions of years are mentioned with the idea that a long time makes probability work in ones favor. The reverse is true. Simple rusting iron shows that over a longer period of time, the iron rusts more. Translated into evolution, this means that the longer the time, the more degradation of any naturally occurring chemical reaction, even one in the direction of climbing the evolutionary ladder. Since this whole article is laid out based on false ideas like this one, how can there be any truth in any of it? There essentially isn't. Until the author corrects his basic idea that the improbable can overcome the probable in the tremendous odds that are against the improbable, there is no way that the article has any practical value. The rest of the articles are the same. The point is that evolutionists show exactly the opposite of the thing that they want. They constantly prove that evolution is impossible, and then ignorantly (many knowingly) suggest that evolution is fact. Believe them, if you like. But understand that you are following a religion if you believe them. One fallacy in this particular argument, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a huge figure but vastly smaller than 10183, and small enough to neutralize the probability-based argument against evolution [Bailey2000]. But even after this revision, the calculation still suffers from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event (which, after all, is the creationist theory, not the scientific theory, of its origin). Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic suggests that alpha-globin and other proteins arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context [Hardison2001]. Thus any simplistic probability calculation (whether it is arguing for or against some aspect of evolution) that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is not meaningful and can easily mislead [Bailey2000; Musgrave1998]. What’s more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, self-catalyzing biomolecules such as RNA are being investigated in research into the origin of life — see Origin. Also, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of completely “random” assemblage. Yet this process occurs millions of times every day in the human body. Those familiar with probability theory will recognize that one central difficulty with these creationist arguments stems from the fact that in any probability calculation, one must first very carefully define the ensemble space. As noted above, it makes no sense to consider, as an ensemble, all possible random assemblages of atoms into a protein chain, since that is not the scientific hypothesis of how alpha-globin and other biomolecular structures came to be. Instead, the only valid ensemble for this analysis is the set of all possible outcomes of an eons-long string of biomolecular processes, encompassing proteins, organisms, species and environments. But at present we have no possible way of even enumerating such an ensemble, much less determining the probability of any particular scenario or class of scenarios in this ensemble. Perhaps at some time in the far distant future, a super-powerful computer could simulate with convincing fidelity the multi-billion-year biological history of the earth, in the same way that scientists today attempt to simulate (in a much more modest scope) the earth’s climate. Then, after thousands of such simulations have been performed, we might obtain some meaningful statistics on the chances involved in the formation of some class of biological structures such as alpha-globin. Until that time, all such probability calculations are essentially meaningless. Along this line, it is also important to keep in mind that the process of natural biological evolution is not really a “random” process. Yes, mutations are “random” events, but the all-important process of natural selection, acting under the pressure of an extremely competitive landscape involving thousands of other species as well as numerous complicated environmental pressures, is anything but random. This strongly directional nature of natural selection, which is the essence of evolution, by itself invalidates simple-minded probability calculations. Generally, the probability math against evolution is simple minded applications of probability. Correct applications of probability math would make the probability against evolution so high, that it would result in the thing that is happening in science today. Scientists can barely create the compounds of life. They can barely make them work a little. They can't create life in a test tube, from inanimate materials. They aren't really even close.  Take a look at all the advancements made by science trying to create life, but failing at it. The failures are numerous. Now think about it. Scientists are so smart that they can't create life. Yet stupid, dumb nature is supposed to... according to those same smart scientists. Wake up. Evolution scientists are spouting science fiction. And when they can't do what they say nature did, they keep right on being so smart by saying that nature did it. What does this mean in reality? It means that scientists are dumb, and nature is smart... if you want to believe the scientists. In fact, the scientists are so dumb that they are believing that dumb nature is smart enough to outsmart them. When you throw in all the reasons why evolution is impossible, you see that the money that the scientists are raking in shows that they might not be as dumb as they act scientifically. |
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 18, 2017, 06:03:33 PM |
|
They can not turn a monkey to a human either nobody really know how to do this |
|
|
|
|
