Evolution is a hoax

[BADecker]

So these people are a hoax as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GlNQzjii1c

or a gift from God?

What? You didn't watch the video? It said that these people have genetic problem, probably from in-breeding.

The fact that they are alive is a gift of God. They don't have the opportunity that you do to believe the Bible and be saved. This means that if they aren't saved, their punishment in Hell will be less than yours.

No proof for evolution in the video or your post. The fact that you would try to use some genetically "crippled" people from Turkey to prove evolution, shows how frantic you are to find some little proof for your evolution religion. Doing it this way, only serves to strengthen the fact that...

Evolution is a hoax.

So you do agree that the genes control whether animals walk on all four?

If I agree or not, what does that matter? The video said it was genetic. But, the video also treated evolution as though it exists, when there has been no proof for evolution. So, the video has some true things and some false things.

Evolution is still a hoax.

[BADecker]

So these people are a hoax as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GlNQzjii1c

or a gift from God?

What? You didn't watch the video? It said that these people have genetic problem, probably from in-breeding.

The fact that they are alive is a gift of God. They don't have the opportunity that you do to believe the Bible and be saved. This means that if they aren't saved, their punishment in Hell will be less than yours.

No proof for evolution in the video or your post. The fact that you would try to use some genetically "crippled" people from Turkey to prove evolution, shows how frantic you are to find some little proof for your evolution religion. Doing it this way, only serves to strengthen the fact that...

Evolution is a hoax.

So you do agree that the genes control whether animals walk on all four?

If I agree or not, what does that matter? The video said it was genetic. But, the video also treated evolution as though it exists, when there has been no proof for evolution. So, the video has some true things and some false things.

Evolution is still a hoax.

I was just trying to connect the dots for you.  Some animals (with genes) walked on four, then animals (with different genes) walked on two.

Well, thank you for trying to help me out. And that is true about animals with different genes doing different things.

God-creation says that there was perfection in creation. There never was evolution. Everything in creation was as good as it could ever get.

Then by their choice, our first parents plunged themselves and everything into imperfection. The result of this imperfection is devolution.

At certain levels of the appearance of something devolved, there comes about something that looks like it evolved. Why didn't it evolve? Simply because the programming for the look of evolution was already in the genes of the devolved thing. In other words, the people in your video might have children that are perfectly normal, because they have those genes to pass on.

When we look around the world, we can see things that look devolved through mutation. We might see things that look evolved coming from the devolved. But it all operates by programming - cause and effect - the programming of which was planted in the genes long ago.


All the ideas of evolving creatures found in the fossil record are hogwash. Why? Because we don't know that God didn't create that many creatures. We need the DNA of multitudes of fossil creatures to start to tell if what we are seeing is evolution, or if it is simply a bunch of different creatures. And there doesn't seem to be any way to get that long, lost DNA. Until we have it...

Evolution is a pipe-dream. Evolution is a hoax.

[c.ristos]

Scientists are supposed to be dispassionate professionals. We see them as thoughtful skeptics, seekers of truth, speaking about nature as science reveals it, even when the revelations differ from what we imagined, or from what we may have wished to be true. The truth is that scientists do have passions. They are people with dreams, ambitions, and preconceptions. They want certain things to be true, and certain things to be false, just like anybody else.

[BADecker]

Scientists think that they programmed enough "stuff" into a quantum computer to be able to make artificial life work virtually. See http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/248876-2018-10-07-researchers-created-quantum-artificial-life-for-the-first-time.htm and https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mbdxav/researchers-created-quantum-artificial-life-for-the-first-time.

If you read the article, note that they call it evolution, but that it is essentially programming.

[Moloch]

3 scientists just won a Nobel Prize for using evolution in chemisty!

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf

A (r)evolution in chemistry

  The power of evolution is revealed through the diversity of life. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter for the way they have taken control of evolution and used it for the greatest benefit to humankind. Enzymes developed through directed evolution are now used to produce biofuels and pharmaceuticals, among other things. Antibodies evolved using a method called phage display can combat autoimmune diseases and, in some cases, cure metastatic cancer.
(...)
  This process has now come so far that it has given rise to three individuals so complex they have managed to master evolution themselves. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter, because they have revolutionized both chemistry and the development of new pharmaceuticals through directed evolution. Let’s begin with the star of enzyme engineering: Frances Arnold. 
(...)
  For several years, she had tried to change an enzyme called subtilisin so that rather than catalysing chemical reactions in a water-based solution, it would work in an organic solvent, dimethylformamide (DMF). Now she created random changes – mutations – in the enzyme’s genetic code and then introduced these mutated genes into bacteria that produced thousands of different variants of subtilisin.

  After this, the challenge was to find out which of all these variants worked best in the organic solvent. In evolution, we talk about survival of the fittest; in directed evolution this stage is called selection.
 
  Frances Arnold utilised the fact that subtilisin breaks down milk protein, casein. She then selected the variant of subtilisin that was most effective in breaking down casein in a solution with 35 per cent DMF. She subsequently introduced a new round of random mutations in this subtilisin, which yielded a variant that worked even better in DMF.

  In the third generation of subtilisin she found a variant that worked 256 times better in DMF than the original enzyme. This variant of the enzyme had a combination of ten different mutations, the benefits of which no one could have worked out in advance.

  With this, Frances Arnold demonstrated the power of allowing chance and directed selection, instead of solely human rationality, to govern the development of new enzymes. This was the first and most decisive step towards the revolution we are now witnessing.

  The next important step was taken by Willem P. C. Stemmer, a Dutch researcher and entrepreneur who died in 2013. He introduced yet another dimension to the directed evolution of enzymes: mating in a test tube.

(continued at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf)

Nobel prize for science involving evolution = Checkmate

Now where is BADLogic's Nobel Prize?

[BADecker]

3 scientists just won a Nobel Prize for using evolution in chemisty!

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf

A (r)evolution in chemistry

  The power of evolution is revealed through the diversity of life. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter for the way they have taken control of evolution and used it for the greatest benefit to humankind. Enzymes developed through directed evolution are now used to produce biofuels and pharmaceuticals, among other things. Antibodies evolved using a method called phage display can combat autoimmune diseases and, in some cases, cure metastatic cancer.
(...)
  This process has now come so far that it has given rise to three individuals so complex they have managed to master evolution themselves. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter, because they have revolutionized both chemistry and the development of new pharmaceuticals through directed evolution. Let’s begin with the star of enzyme engineering: Frances Arnold. 
(...)
  For several years, she had tried to change an enzyme called subtilisin so that rather than catalysing chemical reactions in a water-based solution, it would work in an organic solvent, dimethylformamide (DMF). Now she created random changes – mutations – in the enzyme’s genetic code and then introduced these mutated genes into bacteria that produced thousands of different variants of subtilisin.

  After this, the challenge was to find out which of all these variants worked best in the organic solvent. In evolution, we talk about survival of the fittest; in directed evolution this stage is called selection.
 
  Frances Arnold utilised the fact that subtilisin breaks down milk protein, casein. She then selected the variant of subtilisin that was most effective in breaking down casein in a solution with 35 per cent DMF. She subsequently introduced a new round of random mutations in this subtilisin, which yielded a variant that worked even better in DMF.

  In the third generation of subtilisin she found a variant that worked 256 times better in DMF than the original enzyme. This variant of the enzyme had a combination of ten different mutations, the benefits of which no one could have worked out in advance.

  With this, Frances Arnold demonstrated the power of allowing chance and directed selection, instead of solely human rationality, to govern the development of new enzymes. This was the first and most decisive step towards the revolution we are now witnessing.

  The next important step was taken by Willem P. C. Stemmer, a Dutch researcher and entrepreneur who died in 2013. He introduced yet another dimension to the directed evolution of enzymes: mating in a test tube.

(continued at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf)

Nobel prize for science involving evolution = Checkmate

Now where is BADLogic's Nobel Prize?

Again, it is not evolution theory evolution, and it is based on Nobel Prize people having been talked into believing in evolution when there is no proof.

The people who started evolution, like Darwin, were shrewd enough to suggest that evolution took thousands or millions of years. This way evolution could never be proven or disproven. Because of this, evolution got its foot in the door. Look at the big religion the science of evolution has become today.

[coins4commies]

Baddecker's logic isn't bad but there are a few key things he doesn't quite understand.

1. The meaning of random mutation
2. The importance of C&E research


1.  Random mutation doesn't mean quite what you think it means.  It doesn't mean that the occurrence of mutation is random.  Mutations are inevitable and we know their causes.  Radiation, viruses, replication mistakes, and environmental toxins can all damage DNA.   

Replication mistakes C&E
We know that DNA polymerase makes mistakes at a rate of 1 in 10,000,000 nucleotide bases and the average rate in eukaryotes in 50 bases per second so that cause alone adds up to about 15 "typos" per month.  The "random" is about where in the 150 million base pairs, will the mutation occur.  Its not loation specific.  If you are typing a novel, no one can predict where in the novel your typo will occur. 

Environmental toxins/Radiation C&E
We know that free radicals or radiation can knock electrons off of DNA molecules, damaging or changing them.   Radiation and chemical toxins move through space randomly so no one could predict which part of your DNA will be hit or when this collision will occur but it is inevitable that radiation will hit your nucleotide molecules at the right angle to knock electrons off.

Virus C&E
Viruses literally hack into a cells DNA and change it. Again, no one knows when you will contract a virus, or what part of your DNA will be affected by that virus as viruses evolve quickly as well. 

2. We know that all of these things will happen, and we know the C&E but scientific research is not just about C&E, a lot of it is simply about finding correlation between two variables.  C&E is definitely more informative than correlation but a lot of times, correlation is alll we are able to pin down.

[Moloch]

Baddecker's logic isn't bad but...

Bahahahaha

You must be new, so I'll forgive you...

[Moloch]

3 scientists just won a Nobel Prize for using evolution in chemisty!

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf

A (r)evolution in chemistry

  The power of evolution is revealed through the diversity of life. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter for the way they have taken control of evolution and used it for the greatest benefit to humankind. Enzymes developed through directed evolution are now used to produce biofuels and pharmaceuticals, among other things. Antibodies evolved using a method called phage display can combat autoimmune diseases and, in some cases, cure metastatic cancer.
(...)
  This process has now come so far that it has given rise to three individuals so complex they have managed to master evolution themselves. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter, because they have revolutionized both chemistry and the development of new pharmaceuticals through directed evolution. Let’s begin with the star of enzyme engineering: Frances Arnold.  
(...)
  For several years, she had tried to change an enzyme called subtilisin so that rather than catalysing chemical reactions in a water-based solution, it would work in an organic solvent, dimethylformamide (DMF). Now she created random changes – mutations – in the enzyme’s genetic code and then introduced these mutated genes into bacteria that produced thousands of different variants of subtilisin.

  After this, the challenge was to find out which of all these variants worked best in the organic solvent. In evolution, we talk about survival of the fittest; in directed evolution this stage is called selection.
 
  Frances Arnold utilised the fact that subtilisin breaks down milk protein, casein. She then selected the variant of subtilisin that was most effective in breaking down casein in a solution with 35 per cent DMF. She subsequently introduced a new round of random mutations in this subtilisin, which yielded a variant that worked even better in DMF.

  In the third generation of subtilisin she found a variant that worked 256 times better in DMF than the original enzyme. This variant of the enzyme had a combination of ten different mutations, the benefits of which no one could have worked out in advance.

  With this, Frances Arnold demonstrated the power of allowing chance and directed selection, instead of solely human rationality, to govern the development of new enzymes. This was the first and most decisive step towards the revolution we are now witnessing.

  The next important step was taken by Willem P. C. Stemmer, a Dutch researcher and entrepreneur who died in 2013. He introduced yet another dimension to the directed evolution of enzymes: mating in a test tube.

(continued at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf)

Nobel prize for science involving evolution = Checkmate

Now where is BADLogic's Nobel Prize?

it is based on Nobel Prize people having been talked into believing in evolution when there is no proof.

It is based on Nobel Prize people having been convinced by the preponderance of evidence that it is a successful and repeatable experiment which shows how evolution can be used to create new medicinal drugs at an exponentially increased rate.

It is a discovery worthy of a Nobel Prize, with more than enough evidence to prove it happened

That's the thing about science... it works whether or not you believe in it

sorry, not sorry

[Astargath]

Baddecker's logic isn't bad but there are a few key things he doesn't quite understand.

1. The meaning of random mutation
2. The importance of C&E research


1.  Random mutation doesn't mean quite what you think it means.  It doesn't mean that the occurrence of mutation is random.  Mutations are inevitable and we know their causes.  Radiation, viruses, replication mistakes, and environmental toxins can all damage DNA.   

Replication mistakes C&E
We know that DNA polymerase makes mistakes at a rate of 1 in 10,000,000 nucleotide bases and the average rate in eukaryotes in 50 bases per second so that cause alone adds up to about 15 "typos" per month.  The "random" is about where in the 150 million base pairs, will the mutation occur.  Its not loation specific.  If you are typing a novel, no one can predict where in the novel your typo will occur. 

Environmental toxins/Radiation C&E
We know that free radicals or radiation can knock electrons off of DNA molecules, damaging or changing them.   Radiation and chemical toxins move through space randomly so no one could predict which part of your DNA will be hit or when this collision will occur but it is inevitable that radiation will hit your nucleotide molecules at the right angle to knock electrons off.

Virus C&E
Viruses literally hack into a cells DNA and change it. Again, no one knows when you will contract a virus, or what part of your DNA will be affected by that virus as viruses evolve quickly as well. 

2. We know that all of these things will happen, and we know the C&E but scientific research is not just about C&E, a lot of it is simply about finding correlation between two variables.  C&E is definitely more informative than correlation but a lot of times, correlation is alll we are able to pin down.

Actually he completely changes what Cause and Effect is. OF COURSE every effect is going to have a cause, that's the definition, HOWEVER, not everything is an effect, this knucklehead can't understand that.

[BADecker]

Actually he completely changes what Cause and Effect is. OF COURSE every effect is going to have a cause, that's the definition, HOWEVER, not everything is an effect, this knucklehead can't understand that.

Yet, you don't have even one example of something that is not an effect, while the whole process of scientific investigation uses C&E as the foundation for its operation... because C&E penetrates everything.

[BADecker]

Baddecker's logic isn't bad but there are a few key things he doesn't quite understand.

1. The meaning of random mutation
2. The importance of C&E research


1.  Random mutation doesn't mean quite what you think it means.  It doesn't mean that the occurrence of mutation is random.  Mutations are inevitable and we know their causes.  Radiation, viruses, replication mistakes, and environmental toxins can all damage DNA.  

Replication mistakes C&E
We know that DNA polymerase makes mistakes at a rate of 1 in 10,000,000 nucleotide bases and the average rate in eukaryotes in 50 bases per second so that cause alone adds up to about 15 "typos" per month.  The "random" is about where in the 150 million base pairs, will the mutation occur.  Its not loation specific.  If you are typing a novel, no one can predict where in the novel your typo will occur.  

Environmental toxins/Radiation C&E
We know that free radicals or radiation can knock electrons off of DNA molecules, damaging or changing them.   Radiation and chemical toxins move through space randomly so no one could predict which part of your DNA will be hit or when this collision will occur but it is inevitable that radiation will hit your nucleotide molecules at the right angle to knock electrons off.

Virus C&E
Viruses literally hack into a cells DNA and change it. Again, no one knows when you will contract a virus, or what part of your DNA will be affected by that virus as viruses evolve quickly as well.  

2. We know that all of these things will happen, and we know the C&E but scientific research is not just about C&E, a lot of it is simply about finding correlation between two variables.  C&E is definitely more informative than correlation but a lot of times, correlation is alll we are able to pin down.

C&E doesn't have anything to do with what we know. If all people suddenly just disappeared, C&E would go on.

C&E doesn't act randomly. Rather, it acts completely according to the laws of physics. This means that whatever started C&E going, started it just exactly the way it is making all things to act and behave, just exactly as they are now.

This means that the word "random" is outdated in the way it is being used in evolution theory. Take random out, or change it, because it is still being used in the same way it was when evolution theory was formulated. And this doesn't match what is known about random, now, because of what is known about C&E, now. There isn't any random, and there never was. There is only apparent random, because of our weakness to see and understand all the forces of the universe, and the way that the laws of physics operate those forces through C&E.

If you took random out of evolution theory, then all you would have to determine is if the Great First Cause that started the universe, programmed processes of change into the universe, whereby one plant or animal would gradually change into another, in the way that evolution theory states.

This would still be extremely difficult if not impossible to do. Why? At least two reasons:
1. We still can't go back into the past to check DNA of thousands of plants and/or animals over thousands of years to see if there is factually any chain of changes that would match evolution;
2. We can't extrapolate backwards, because we don't know for a fact that "things" always acted in the past as they act today.

Evolution is designed to be unprovable simply because of these 2 things, if not others in addition.

Since this is basic science, perhaps scientists simply haven't considered evolution from the standpoint of C&E. But more than likely scientists are simply ignoring it.

Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

3 scientists just won a Nobel Prize for using evolution in chemisty!

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf

A (r)evolution in chemistry

  The power of evolution is revealed through the diversity of life. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter for the way they have taken control of evolution and used it for the greatest benefit to humankind. Enzymes developed through directed evolution are now used to produce biofuels and pharmaceuticals, among other things. Antibodies evolved using a method called phage display can combat autoimmune diseases and, in some cases, cure metastatic cancer.
(...)
  This process has now come so far that it has given rise to three individuals so complex they have managed to master evolution themselves. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter, because they have revolutionized both chemistry and the development of new pharmaceuticals through directed evolution. Let’s begin with the star of enzyme engineering: Frances Arnold.  
(...)
  For several years, she had tried to change an enzyme called subtilisin so that rather than catalysing chemical reactions in a water-based solution, it would work in an organic solvent, dimethylformamide (DMF). Now she created random changes – mutations – in the enzyme’s genetic code and then introduced these mutated genes into bacteria that produced thousands of different variants of subtilisin.

  After this, the challenge was to find out which of all these variants worked best in the organic solvent. In evolution, we talk about survival of the fittest; in directed evolution this stage is called selection.
 
  Frances Arnold utilised the fact that subtilisin breaks down milk protein, casein. She then selected the variant of subtilisin that was most effective in breaking down casein in a solution with 35 per cent DMF. She subsequently introduced a new round of random mutations in this subtilisin, which yielded a variant that worked even better in DMF.

  In the third generation of subtilisin she found a variant that worked 256 times better in DMF than the original enzyme. This variant of the enzyme had a combination of ten different mutations, the benefits of which no one could have worked out in advance.

  With this, Frances Arnold demonstrated the power of allowing chance and directed selection, instead of solely human rationality, to govern the development of new enzymes. This was the first and most decisive step towards the revolution we are now witnessing.

  The next important step was taken by Willem P. C. Stemmer, a Dutch researcher and entrepreneur who died in 2013. He introduced yet another dimension to the directed evolution of enzymes: mating in a test tube.

(continued at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf)

Nobel prize for science involving evolution = Checkmate

Now where is BADLogic's Nobel Prize?

it is based on Nobel Prize people having been talked into believing in evolution when there is no proof.

It is based on Nobel Prize people having been convinced by the preponderance of evidence that it is a successful and repeatable experiment which shows how evolution can be used to create new medicinal drugs at an exponentially increased rate.

It is a discovery worthy of a Nobel Prize, with more than enough evidence to prove it happened

That's the thing about science... it works whether or not you believe in it

sorry, not sorry

That's right. And Nobel Prize winning, as in this case, is often based on the operations of Political Science.

[Astargath]

Actually he completely changes what Cause and Effect is. OF COURSE every effect is going to have a cause, that's the definition, HOWEVER, not everything is an effect, this knucklehead can't understand that.

Yet, you don't have even one example of something that is not an effect, while the whole process of scientific investigation uses C&E as the foundation for its operation... because C&E penetrates everything.

First of all, as I previously mentioned, cause and effect is NOT a scientific law, it's a philosophical thought.

''David Hume critiqued this. Hume came from a tradition that viewed all knowledge as either a priori (from reason) or a posteriori (from experience). From reason alone, it is possible to conceive of an effect without a cause, Hume argued, although others have questioned this and also argued whether conceiving something means it is possible. Based on experience alone, our notion of cause and effect is just based on habitually observing one thing following another, and there's certainly no element of necessity when we observe cause and effect in the world; Hume's criticism of inductive reasoning implied that even if we observe cause and effect repeatedly, we cannot infer that throughout the universe every effect must necessarily have a cause.''

There are also scientific examples against the statement of ''everything has a cause'' which is again, not scientific. Radioactive decay or Virtual particles are examples of it.

[BADecker]

Actually he completely changes what Cause and Effect is. OF COURSE every effect is going to have a cause, that's the definition, HOWEVER, not everything is an effect, this knucklehead can't understand that.

Yet, you don't have even one example of something that is not an effect, while the whole process of scientific investigation uses C&E as the foundation for its operation... because C&E penetrates everything.

First of all, as I previously mentioned, cause and effect is NOT a scientific law, it's a philosophical thought.

''David Hume critiqued this. Hume came from a tradition that viewed all knowledge as either a priori (from reason) or a posteriori (from experience). From reason alone, it is possible to conceive of an effect without a cause, Hume argued, although others have questioned this and also argued whether conceiving something means it is possible. Based on experience alone, our notion of cause and effect is just based on habitually observing one thing following another, and there's certainly no element of necessity when we observe cause and effect in the world; Hume's criticism of inductive reasoning implied that even if we observe cause and effect repeatedly, we cannot infer that throughout the universe every effect must necessarily have a cause.''

There are also scientific examples against the statement of ''everything has a cause'' which is again, not scientific. Radioactive decay or Virtual particles are examples of it.

Newton's 3rd Law takes C&E into account.

C&E is used in all scientific observation and experimentation.

Nobody has found even one pure random event.

There are probably many of natural or scientific laws that have not been formulated into verbal verbal or written laws simply because they are obvious. It took the apple bouncing off Newton's head to get him to think in the direction of formulating his law of universal gravitation.

The idea that radioactive decay or virtual particles may not have a direct C&E action as other things do, but they do indeed have at least an indirect C&E operation. If nowhere else, the C&E that affects them is the making of the universe. Language that avoids the C&E is simply political talk, if it is not simply ideas.

What does this have to do with the fact that evolution is a hoax? You are grasping at straws.

[Moloch]

3 scientists just won a Nobel Prize for using evolution in chemisty!

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf

A (r)evolution in chemistry

  The power of evolution is revealed through the diversity of life. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter for the way they have taken control of evolution and used it for the greatest benefit to humankind. Enzymes developed through directed evolution are now used to produce biofuels and pharmaceuticals, among other things. Antibodies evolved using a method called phage display can combat autoimmune diseases and, in some cases, cure metastatic cancer.
(...)
  This process has now come so far that it has given rise to three individuals so complex they have managed to master evolution themselves. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter, because they have revolutionized both chemistry and the development of new pharmaceuticals through directed evolution. Let’s begin with the star of enzyme engineering: Frances Arnold.  
(...)
  For several years, she had tried to change an enzyme called subtilisin so that rather than catalysing chemical reactions in a water-based solution, it would work in an organic solvent, dimethylformamide (DMF). Now she created random changes – mutations – in the enzyme’s genetic code and then introduced these mutated genes into bacteria that produced thousands of different variants of subtilisin.

  After this, the challenge was to find out which of all these variants worked best in the organic solvent. In evolution, we talk about survival of the fittest; in directed evolution this stage is called selection.
 
  Frances Arnold utilised the fact that subtilisin breaks down milk protein, casein. She then selected the variant of subtilisin that was most effective in breaking down casein in a solution with 35 per cent DMF. She subsequently introduced a new round of random mutations in this subtilisin, which yielded a variant that worked even better in DMF.

  In the third generation of subtilisin she found a variant that worked 256 times better in DMF than the original enzyme. This variant of the enzyme had a combination of ten different mutations, the benefits of which no one could have worked out in advance.

  With this, Frances Arnold demonstrated the power of allowing chance and directed selection, instead of solely human rationality, to govern the development of new enzymes. This was the first and most decisive step towards the revolution we are now witnessing.

  The next important step was taken by Willem P. C. Stemmer, a Dutch researcher and entrepreneur who died in 2013. He introduced yet another dimension to the directed evolution of enzymes: mating in a test tube.

(continued at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf)

Nobel prize for science involving evolution = Checkmate

Now where is BADLogic's Nobel Prize?

it is based on Nobel Prize people having been talked into believing in evolution when there is no proof.

It is based on Nobel Prize people having been convinced by the preponderance of evidence that it is a successful and repeatable experiment which shows how evolution can be used to create new medicinal drugs at an exponentially increased rate.

It is a discovery worthy of a Nobel Prize, with more than enough evidence to prove it happened

That's the thing about science... it works whether or not you believe in it

sorry, not sorry

That's right. And Nobel Prize winning, as in this case, is often based on the operations of Political Science.

I feel sad that you cannot even admit you are wrong...

What are you so afraid of happening if you accept evolution?

More than half of Christians believe in evolution instead of creationism, why can't you?

Even you would have to admit there must be an abundance of evidence in order to convince more than half of Christians to believe in evolution over what their bible says... right?

[BADecker]

That's right. And Nobel Prize winning, as in this case, is often based on the operations of Political Science.

I feel sad that you cannot even admit you are wrong...

What are you so afraid of happening if you accept evolution?

More than half of Christians believe in evolution instead of creationism, why can't you?

You keep on trying to convert this thread into a religious topic. You talk about a Christian religious consensus. You want me to start believing a religious thing that didn't happen - evolution.

What are you so afraid of that you are unwilling to admit that there is no science that shows that evolution is a fact? I mean, that is what scientists are looking for - facts - even when they are deluded into mistaking theories for facts.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

Actually he completely changes what Cause and Effect is. OF COURSE every effect is going to have a cause, that's the definition, HOWEVER, not everything is an effect, this knucklehead can't understand that.

Yet, you don't have even one example of something that is not an effect, while the whole process of scientific investigation uses C&E as the foundation for its operation... because C&E penetrates everything.

First of all, as I previously mentioned, cause and effect is NOT a scientific law, it's a philosophical thought.

''David Hume critiqued this. Hume came from a tradition that viewed all knowledge as either a priori (from reason) or a posteriori (from experience). From reason alone, it is possible to conceive of an effect without a cause, Hume argued, although others have questioned this and also argued whether conceiving something means it is possible. Based on experience alone, our notion of cause and effect is just based on habitually observing one thing following another, and there's certainly no element of necessity when we observe cause and effect in the world; Hume's criticism of inductive reasoning implied that even if we observe cause and effect repeatedly, we cannot infer that throughout the universe every effect must necessarily have a cause.''

There are also scientific examples against the statement of ''everything has a cause'' which is again, not scientific. Radioactive decay or Virtual particles are examples of it.

Newton's 3rd Law takes C&E into account.

C&E is used in all scientific observation and experimentation.

Nobody has found even one pure random event.

There are probably many of natural or scientific laws that have not been formulated into verbal verbal or written laws simply because they are obvious. It took the apple bouncing off Newton's head to get him to think in the direction of formulating his law of universal gravitation.

The idea that radioactive decay or virtual particles may not have a direct C&E action as other things do, but they do indeed have at least an indirect C&E operation. If nowhere else, the C&E that affects them is the making of the universe. Language that avoids the C&E is simply political talk, if it is not simply ideas.

What does this have to do with the fact that evolution is a hoax? You are grasping at straws.

''Newton's 3rd Law takes C&E into account.'' No it doesn't. Period. Newton's 3rd law never said that something is always caused by something.

[BADecker]

''Newton's 3rd Law takes C&E into account.'' No it doesn't. Period. Newton's 3rd law never said that something is always caused by something.

Okay. Let me show you where your mistake is. It's simple, but it's tiny...

Astargath's version of Newton's 3rd Law: "To every action there is an equal and opposite action."

Now, if anyone would compare Astargath's version to the real, Newton version, he will be able to see that Newton's 3rd Law includes cause and effect, possibly among other things.

[twthmoses]

That's right. And Nobel Prize winning, as in this case, is often based on the operations of Political Science.

I feel sad that you cannot even admit you are wrong...

What are you so afraid of happening if you accept evolution?

More than half of Christians believe in evolution instead of creationism, why can't you?

You keep on trying to convert this thread into a religious topic. You talk about a Christian religious consensus. You want me to start believing a religious thing that didn't happen - evolution.

What are you so afraid of that you are unwilling to admit that there is no science that shows that evolution is a fact? I mean, that is what scientists are looking for - facts - even when they are deluded into mistaking theories for facts.

Evolution is a hoax.

Hmm, what is the alternative? Let’s assume that evolution is not true, what is the alternative? I know you think it’s irrelevant to the question whether Evolution is true or not, but it’s not irrelevant. It raises a whole horde of other questions that is equal interesting.

Was all species just created from the beginning? Must have been a crowded place to begin with! We know many species have dies out, where they all there to begin with, at the same time? Did dinosaurs live at the same time as humans?, did prehistoric sharks (what we call prehistoric sharks) live at the same time as modern sharks, etc... How come all these prehistoric monsters, all lost out to more “soft” species with us today. I mean not many carnivores today can match prehistoric carnivores in a one-on-one battle; still they all lost, in the water, on land, in the air.

These are just a few questions popping up if evolution is not true. Can you help me out with understand how this works?