Mathematics Can't Prove Evolution

[rightwinger]

They ALL claim that molecules become amino acids and proteins and magically form a coherent, functioning cell

No they don't. You also need ideal climatic conditions

Evolution never claims life is easy

Climate? Why? You have the proverbial "primordial soup" in several places in out solar system, but as near as we can tell, no cells.

What do molecules care about climate?

A key to life is water and a climate that keeps it in liquid form. Can't have soup without water

 

[G.T.]

Guess inept in science frank didnt read the link i gave him. Biased pre disposition.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm willing to bet we find life on Europa. More likely we'll find intelligent life swimming in the seas of Europa than in the collection of USMB Progressives

 

[alang1216]

For G.T and OohPah

There are about 400+ amino acids per average protein and since you refuse to educate yourselves, I provided the average protein in a single yeast cell below

A haploid yeast cell contains about 4 ×10^-12 g of protein (1, 15). Assuming a mean protein mass of 50kDa, there are about 50×10^6 molecules of protein per cell. 6×10^23[proteins/mole]×4×10^ -12[gram]/50000[gram/mole]=~50×10^6 proteins

Total number of proteins per cell - Budding yeast Saccharomyces ce - BNID 106198

So, tell me again why these cells haven't "Evolved" everywhere in out Solar System that has organic molecules

Should be easy, amiright?

Your yeast example is off for several reasons. One is that yeast have been evolving on our world for billions of years and they are incredibly complex living organisms. In fact they are a complex system made up of many complex systems. They are in no way simple or primitive. Two, the first life was probably little more than a single, self-replicating molecule that was subject to the laws of evolution. That was all it took.

As for the planets not having life, you don't know if they do or they don't. On our planet, it took billions of years to get to man and his iPhone. There might be intelligent life on Titan, but they are just 100 years behind us and their Steve Jobs is just a baby. How would we even know they are there?

 

[Vikrant]

In 1908, GH Hardy and Wilhelm Weinberg independently came up with a set of formulae which is called Hardy-Weinberg Law today. Let us look at the formulae first before we go any further:

First equation:
p2 + 2pq + q2 = 1

Second equation:
p + q = 1

This equation or equilibrium can be used to detect whether evolution has occurred in a population or not. I will briefly describe what those notations mean here:

p = occurrence of the dominant allele in the population
q = occurrence of the recessive allele in the population
p2 = percentage of homozygous dominant samples in the population
q2 = percentage of homozygous recessive samples in the population
2pq = percentage of heterozygous samples in the population

What that equation is telling you that in a given population if following conditions are true then no evolution is happening:

1. There must not be any mutation to prevent introduction of new type of allele
2. We do not introduce sample from another population into this population, once again to prevent the introduction of new allele
3. Mating process must be random
4. Population must be large enough to prevent the drift in allele frequency
5. There is no bias in the selection of a particular type of allele

Now ask yourself, is this possible in a real life situation? The answer is no. In other words it is extremely hard for that equilibrium to exist which means evolution is a natural outcome. Now go back in time and imagine a small group of humans wandering around, even if one of the five factors did not hold true, would have caused a major shift in allele frequency resulting in major evolutionary changes. As population grows, the affect of changes in allele frequency gets negated. This is why you are not seeing dramatic evolutionary changes today.

 

[Old Rocks]

So why hasn't life "Evolved" on any other planet?

What in the cosmos made you believe that?

I was talking about in our solar system, Dear. Jupiter, Titan, Eurpoa, etc. are in our solar system. I thought it was obvious

No, since we have done almost no exploration for life in any of these places, how dare you state there is no life there? Seems you are not only speaking from ignorance, you are embracing ignorance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No they don't. You also need ideal climatic conditions

Evolution never claims life is easy

Climate? Why? You have the proverbial "primordial soup" in several places in out solar system, but as near as we can tell, no cells.

What do molecules care about climate?

A key to life is water and a climate that keeps it in liquid form. Can't have soup without water

Why is that? Liquid methane should work just as well. In fact ANY liquid should work

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For G.T and OohPah

There are about 400+ amino acids per average protein and since you refuse to educate yourselves, I provided the average protein in a single yeast cell below

A haploid yeast cell contains about 4 ×10^-12 g of protein (1, 15). Assuming a mean protein mass of 50kDa, there are about 50×10^6 molecules of protein per cell. 6×10^23[proteins/mole]×4×10^ -12[gram]/50000[gram/mole]=~50×10^6 proteins

Total number of proteins per cell - Budding yeast Saccharomyces ce - BNID 106198

So, tell me again why these cells haven't "Evolved" everywhere in out Solar System that has organic molecules

Should be easy, amiright?

Your yeast example is off for several reasons. One is that yeast have been evolving on our world for billions of years and they are incredibly complex living organisms. In fact they are a complex system made up of many complex systems. They are in no way simple or primitive. Two, the first life was probably little more than a single, self-replicating molecule that was subject to the laws of evolution. That was all it took.

As for the planets not having life, you don't know if they do or they don't. On our planet, it took billions of years to get to man and his iPhone. There might be intelligent life on Titan, but they are just 100 years behind us and their Steve Jobs is just a baby. How would we even know they are there?

If all it takes is self replicating molecules then our solar system should be teeming with complex organisms

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What in the cosmos made you believe that?

I was talking about in our solar system, Dear. Jupiter, Titan, Eurpoa, etc. are in our solar system. I thought it was obvious

No, since we have done almost no exploration for life in any of these places, how dare you state there is no life there? Seems you are not only speaking from ignorance, you are embracing ignorance.

I stated that there's nothing resembling life on Earth there. Doesn't look like their building large structures there. Maybe there are some virus or bacteria or other organisms that hitched a ride.

The odds are against molecules bumping into each other and forming amino acids and proteins and life.

But, I value your opinion on Ignorance since you are the Board Expert on the subject

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate? Why? You have the proverbial "primordial soup" in several places in out solar system, but as near as we can tell, no cells.

What do molecules care about climate?

A key to life is water and a climate that keeps it in liquid form. Can't have soup without water

Why is that? Liquid methane should work just as well. In fact ANY liquid should work

Frankie boy, do you have any idea of how special water is? If we find life on the Jovian planets, it will more than likely be life not as we know it. And that would not surprise me in the least.

As for your statements concerning 'just any liquid', that merely demonstrates that you have zero understanding of chemistry. But we already knew that.

 

[konradv]

It takes far more 'faith' to believe in Evolution than the amount of faith required to believe in Intelligent Design.

Incorrect. There are all sorts of evidence for evolution, but absolutely none for Intelligent Design. One does not need faith to notice the progression in the fossil record.

 

[GISMYS]

It takes far more 'faith' to believe in Evolution than the amount of faith required to believe in Intelligent Design.

Incorrect. There are all sorts of evidence for evolution, but absolutely none for Intelligent Design. One does not need faith to notice the progression in the fossil record.

For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

21 For when they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God, nor were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. AND YOU??? rOMANS 1:20-22

 

[konradv]

It takes far more 'faith' to believe in Evolution than the amount of faith required to believe in Intelligent Design.

Incorrect. There are all sorts of evidence for evolution, but absolutely none for Intelligent Design. One does not need faith to notice the progression in the fossil record.

For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

21 For when they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God, nor were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. AND YOU??? rOMANS 1:20-22

I'll give you that there's one correct sentence in Genesis, "let there be light"(The Big Bang), but the rest is allegory. From that point in time the basic Laws of Nature were laid down, but how they worked to create what we see today was not designed in the way you envision. For example, there are 64 possible codons in DNA but only 20 amino acids for which they code. An intelligently designed system would presumably consist of three codons for each acid with the rest being stop signals, but in fact some have only one codon associated with them and others as many as 6. How is that possible if you're postulating Intelligent Design?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Incorrect. There are all sorts of evidence for evolution, but absolutely none for Intelligent Design. One does not need faith to notice the progression in the fossil record.

For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

21 For when they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God, nor were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. AND YOU??? rOMANS 1:20-22

I'll give you that there's one correct sentence in Genesis, "let there be light"(The Big Bang), but the rest is allegory. From that point in time the basic Laws of Nature were laid down, but how they worked to create what we see today was not designed in the way you envision. For example, there are 64 possible codons in DNA but only 20 amino acids for which they code. An intelligently designed system would presumably consist of three codons for each acid with the rest being stop signals, but in fact some have only one codon associated with them and others as many as 6. How is that possible if you're postulating Intelligent Design?

Why not possible?

The same logic applies in both directions.



"For many who doubt Darwin's theory, the natural 'evolution' from zygote to adult as a natural phenomenon is considered no threat to a belief in a creator. Nor is the notion of a naturally evolving solar system.

Why not the idea of a skillful cosmic architect setting up a series of laws, which we call 'natural causes,' as every bit as effective as done directly via acts of agency? Louis Agassiz: "What is the great difference between supposing that God makes variable species or that he makes laws by which species vary?"
David L.Hull, "The Metaphysics of Evolution," p.69,

 

[PoliticalChic]

It takes far more 'faith' to believe in Evolution than the amount of faith required to believe in Intelligent Design.

Incorrect. There are all sorts of evidence for evolution, but absolutely none for Intelligent Design. One does not need faith to notice the progression in the fossil record.

"There are all sorts of evidence for evolution,..."

Actually, there aren't.

It is as much a faith based belief as is theology.

You are welcome to either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A key to life is water and a climate that keeps it in liquid form. Can't have soup without water

Why is that? Liquid methane should work just as well. In fact ANY liquid should work

Frankie boy, do you have any idea of how special water is? If we find life on the Jovian planets, it will more than likely be life not as we know it. And that would not surprise me in the least.

As for your statements concerning 'just any liquid', that merely demonstrates that you have zero understanding of chemistry. But we already knew that.

"...zero understanding of chemistry."

I've seen your posts, pal....and I can see that the only lesson you learned in chemistry is that alcohol is a solution.

 

[konradv]

It takes far more 'faith' to believe in Evolution than the amount of faith required to believe in Intelligent Design.

Incorrect. There are all sorts of evidence for evolution, but absolutely none for Intelligent Design. One does not need faith to notice the progression in the fossil record.

"There are all sorts of evidence for evolution,..."

Actually, there aren't.

It is as much a faith based belief as is theology.

You are welcome to either.

Merely saying it, doesn't make it so. You can't make the fossil record disappear.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Incorrect. There are all sorts of evidence for evolution, but absolutely none for Intelligent Design. One does not need faith to notice the progression in the fossil record.

"There are all sorts of evidence for evolution,..."

Actually, there aren't.

It is as much a faith based belief as is theology.

You are welcome to either.

Merely saying it, doesn't make it so. You can't make the fossil record disappear.

There is no fossil record that documents the progression depicted by Darwin.

There are individual fossils over which scientists continue to argue.

 

[konradv]

"There are all sorts of evidence for evolution,..."

Actually, there aren't.

It is as much a faith based belief as is theology.

You are welcome to either.

Merely saying it, doesn't make it so. You can't make the fossil record disappear.

There is no fossil record that documents the progression depicted by Darwin.

There are individual fossils over which scientists continue to argue.

Being so dogmatic makes your contention very easy to debunk.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLO6kKwGQ0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLO6kKwGQ0[/ame]

Horse Evolution

 

[PoliticalChic]

Merely saying it, doesn't make it so. You can't make the fossil record disappear.

There is no fossil record that documents the progression depicted by Darwin.

There are individual fossils over which scientists continue to argue.

Being so dogmatic makes your contention very easy to debunk.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLO6kKwGQ0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLO6kKwGQ0[/ame]

Horse Evolution

Must I prove that you are a brain-numbed moron????

Must I?


Watch how "your contention very easy to debunk."


The horse propaganda is for high school students.....seems you have not graduated to a higher level of awareness.


a. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29




b. Popular presentations that suggest a simple, gradual, and progressive straight-line of evolution from Hyracotherium to Equus are not supported by the actual fossil data. Most evolutionary scientists now acknowledge that this is the case. For instance, Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science, writes:


c. The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.
Similarly, in the textbook Advanced Biology, Roberts et al (2000 p.733) say:

...palaeontologists believe that there were numerous complications. For one thing, the rate at which evolution took place was probably not uniform, but sporadic and irregular. For another, there are thought to have been times when certain of the trends were reversed when, for instance, horses became smaller for a while.

..... non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.
Horse Evolution


e. There are several huge gaps in the fossil record relating to the evolution of horses. Now...if you need to support Darwin....you need to ignore the gaps. But scientists don'd ignore them. Numerous papers have commented on them, including:
1. MacFadden, B.J., Cladistic analysis of primitive equids, with notes on other perissodactyls, Systematic Zoology 25:1–14, March 1976; and Simpson, G.G.,Horses, Oxford University Press, New York, 122–123, 203, 1951




And you say????