Scientists Refuting Darwinism

[ChemEngineer]

ChemEngineer

Evolution is at work in African elephants now. Because poachers/predators have killed off elephants with big tusks they have been eliminated from the gene pool. Elephants with small tusks or no tusks are being born.

I had to click on the link to show ignored content of everyone on my Ignore List, which of course includes surada

I got up out of bed to address scruffy, who is next. First this:

What you speak of is "adaptation," NOT the creation of any new species.
You have no concept of the difference between Darwinism and adaptation.

Now scruffy.

_________________________________

scruffy​

Diamond Member​

Mar 9, 202215,48212,7022,288

• Jan 9, 2023
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #163

You are ignoring content by this member.

.
Flip a coin or deal cards fast, slow, the probability doesn't change.

Yes, actually it does.

IN the right environment.

This is BASIC chemistry, if you were truly a "chemical engineer" you would know this.

Kinetics are subject to long range interactions. Which are not seen until the proper ENVIRONMENTAL conditions are achieved.

Study the Belusov-Zhabotinsky reaction. A Nobel Prize was awarded for its explanation.

ChemEngineer explains the patently obvious to "DR. Scruffy":

I specified "flip a coin" or "deal cards."
The probability of heads coming up on a fair coin with a fair toss is .50

Please use your "kinetics" to explain very precisely how that .50 probability changes. Take your time. Spare everyone your hateful profanity. It's very unscholarly and unintelligent.

Then proceed with all the "kinetics" you wish to explain very precisely how the dealing of cards, quickly, changes. No profanity. No condescension.
No PhD I ever knew personally uses such language as you.

I'll take you off my Ignore List long enough to read your brilliant retort to
my very reasonable challenge after I wake up. It is now 12:08 AM and I got up from my slumber to throw down with "DR." scruffy

 

[surada]

I had to click on the link to show ignored content of everyone on my Ignore List, which of course includes surada

I got up out of bed to address scruffy, who is next. First this:

What you speak of is "adaptation," NOT the creation of any new species.
You have no concept of the difference between Darwinism and adaptation.

Now scruffy.

_________________________________

scruffy​

Diamond Member​

Mar 9, 202215,48212,7022,288

• Jan 9, 2023
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #163

You are ignoring content by this member.

Yes, actually it does.

IN the right environment.

This is BASIC chemistry, if you were truly a "chemical engineer" you would know this.

Kinetics are subject to long range interactions. Which are not seen until the proper ENVIRONMENTAL conditions are achieved.

Study the Belusov-Zhabotinsky reaction. A Nobel Prize was awarded for its explanation.

ChemEngineer explains the patently obvious to "DR. Scruffy":

I specified "flip a coin" or "deal cards."
The probability of heads coming up on a fair coin with a fair toss is .50

Please use your "kinetics" to explain very precisely how that .50 probability changes. Take your time. Spare everyone your hateful profanity. It's very unscholarly and unintelligent.

Then proceed with all the "kinetics" you wish to explain very precisely how the dealing of cards, quickly, changes. No profanity. No condescension.
No PhD I ever knew personally uses such language as you.

I'll take you off my Ignore List long enough to read your brilliant retort to
my very reasonable challenge after I wake up. It is now 12:08 AM and I got up from my slumber to throw down with "DR." scruffy

Adaptation is evolution. Your talk of a new species is what religious people fall back on.

Adaptation

Evolutionary adaptation, or simply adaptation, is the adjustment of organisms to their environment in order to improve their chances at survival in that environment.

education.nationalgeographic.org

 

[Hollie]

I had to click on the link to show ignored content of everyone on my Ignore List, which of course includes surada

I got up out of bed to address scruffy, who is next. First this:

What you speak of is "adaptation," NOT the creation of any new species.
You have no concept of the difference between Darwinism and adaptation.

Now scruffy.

_________________________________

scruffy​

Diamond Member​

Mar 9, 202215,48212,7022,288

• Jan 9, 2023
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #163

You are ignoring content by this member.

Yes, actually it does.

IN the right environment.

This is BASIC chemistry, if you were truly a "chemical engineer" you would know this.

Kinetics are subject to long range interactions. Which are not seen until the proper ENVIRONMENTAL conditions are achieved.

Study the Belusov-Zhabotinsky reaction. A Nobel Prize was awarded for its explanation.

ChemEngineer explains the patently obvious to "DR. Scruffy":

I specified "flip a coin" or "deal cards."
The probability of heads coming up on a fair coin with a fair toss is .50

Please use your "kinetics" to explain very precisely how that .50 probability changes. Take your time. Spare everyone your hateful profanity. It's very unscholarly and unintelligent.

Then proceed with all the "kinetics" you wish to explain very precisely how the dealing of cards, quickly, changes. No profanity. No condescension.
No PhD I ever knew personally uses such language as you.

I'll take you off my Ignore List long enough to read your brilliant retort to
my very reasonable challenge after I wake up. It is now 12:08 AM and I got up from my slumber to throw down with "DR." scruffy

The religious extremist doesn't understand the terms he uses. Religionism can be used to defend ignorance.

Adaptation of species is well documented.

Your revulsion for the ToE seems to be focused on the principle that populations of species evolve. Given enough time, there is no practical limit to the adaptive potential of biological evolution. That's precisely what we see in nature. Virtually all religious extremists make same ignorant claims you make. Genetic variation is the building block that natural selection acts upon. Beginning there, natural selection assembles and sorts out certain variations. Those genetic variations which provide greater reproductive success to the organisms possessing those advantageous mutations are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out.

That is devastating to Christian religionism because it means the core of Christianity: supernatural creation 6,000 years ago is superfluous. That may be in conflict with your religionism, but It's just the truth.

 

[ChemEngineer]

scruffy has no response to how flipping a coin more frequently changes the probability of throwing a HEADS from .50 to something else.

scruffy can't give us any of his "kinetics" bullshit on how dealing faster changes the probability of dealing a 52-card deck.

He called me names, screamed profanities, and now hides from my exposing his pretentious nonsense.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Today's WORDLE solution on the second try. It always amazes me to do it in three, much less two. I always ask my tennis partner for the first word.
Then I guess the second and third, almost always. (They like double letters.)

"It ain't braggin' if you really done it." - Hall of Fame Pitcher, Dizzy Dean

 

[ChemEngineer]

Now scruffy.

_________________________________

scruffy​

Diamond Member​

Mar 9, 202215,48212,7022,288

• Jan 9, 2023
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #163

You are ignoring content by this member.

Yes, actually it does.

IN the right environment.

This is BASIC chemistry, if you were truly a "chemical engineer" you would know this.

Kinetics are subject to long range interactions. Which are not seen until the proper ENVIRONMENTAL conditions are achieved.

Study the Belusov-Zhabotinsky reaction. A Nobel Prize was awarded for its explanation.

ChemEngineer explains the patently obvious to "DR. Scruffy":

I specified "flip a coin" or "deal cards."
The probability of heads coming up on a fair coin with a fair toss is .50

Please use your "kinetics" to explain very precisely how that .50 probability changes. Take your time. Spare everyone your hateful profanity. It's very unscholarly and unintelligent.

Then proceed with all the "kinetics" you wish to explain very precisely how the dealing of cards, quickly, changes. No profanity. No condescension.
No PhD I ever knew personally uses such language as you.

I'll take you off my Ignore List long enough to read your brilliant retort to
my very reasonable challenge after I wake up. It is now 12:08 AM and I got up from my slumber to throw down with "DR." scruffy

Big Mouth Pretender, Dr. scruffy remains silent as to my challenge that he use his kinetic equations to show how he can change the probability of heads on a coin toss from .50, or change the probability of shuffling a deck of cards, very, very quickly, so as to draw the ace of spades from the top far more often than 1 every 52 tries.

A man of honor, a decent man would apologize for his ignorance, his rudeness.
Is scruffy a decent man, a man of honor?

USMB members wait for the answer.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Let's see an army of Dawkins' monkeys top this ! ! ! ! !
__________________________________

• johnjaeger

Thu 9/14/2023 11:35 AM

Hi John—



Your critique of the Dawkins weasel demonstration found its way to me, and I agree with it entirely. I offered my own critique in Undeniable (p198-200). You hit the nail on the head!

Regrettably, even solid refutations of evolutionary arguments like this don’t seem to get their proponents to rethink their position. I’ve become convinced that this is because the root problem is spiritual, not scientific or intellectual.

Best regards,

Doug Axe

Douglas Axe, PhD
Rosa Endowed Chair of Molecular Biology
Professor of Computational Biology
Co-Director of Stewart Science Honors Program
School of Science, Technology & Health
Biola University















Weasel program - Wikipedia

In chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker, biologist Richard Dawkins gave the following introduction to the program, referencing the well-known infinite monkey theorem.*

I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?

[NOTE: How lazy of Richard Dawkins to fail to look up the author of his monkey business. It was Sir Arthur Eddington.

In 1928, British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington presented a classical illustration of chance in his book, The Nature of the Physical World: “If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum.”

This is nonsense compounding nonsense. And yet my high school math teacher presented this proposition to his classes in the 1960’s.

First, an “army of monkeys” wouldn’t be very interested in hitting typewriter keys repeatedly. There is nothing for them to gain in so doing.

Second, those who did hit the keys would quickly get to the end of the line, and have no concept of returning the carriage to type the second line.

Third, those very few who somehow overcame the first and second hurdles, repeatedly, would find that the paper was ejected from the carriage, and they are hopelessly unable to replace the first page with a fresh sheet of paper.

Fourth, we will never get to the fourth problem of exhausting the ink in the typewriter ribbons because the “army of monkeys” would have defecated on or otherwise ruined every typewriter.

Fifth, Sir Arthur Eddington never began to consider the statistics of monkeys “selecting” 1 out of approximately 100 different keys, counting upper and lower case of all letters, numbers, and punctuation marks. A page of an average book has 250 – 300 words. (https://hotghostwriter.com/blogs/blog/novel-length-how-long-is-long-enough)

*Finally, the largest army in the world is the People’s Liberation Army of Communist China, with over 2,000,000 troops. This is hardly “infinite” in number. (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/)

The average word has 6.47 letters. (https://capitalizemytitle.com/character-count/100-characters/)

Using the lower value of 250 words, times 6.47 letters equals 1,617 characters in a page.

1/100 to the 1,617th power is 10-3,234, for just one page, much less “all the books in the British Museum.”

“we just think of one chance in 10 to the 40th power” as “impossible”. – Richard Dawkins, (The Blind Watchmaker, page 142)

Emil Borel, a famous statistician, defined “impossible” as an event with a probability of 10-50 or less.

https://owlcation.com/stem/Borels-Law-of-Probability

This is equivalent to finding one unique marble, in 78 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto, all full of identical marbles except for one, on your first and only attempt. You do not get an infinite number of attempts, not even two.

Therefore 1050 marbles, each 1cm in diameter, would occupy 78 spheres reaching from the center of the sun to Pluto, 5.906 billion kilometers from the sun. (105 marbles/km)3 = 1015 marbles per cubic km

To get 35 more orders of magnitude requires the multiplier of roughly (4.64 x 1011) cubed, for volume.

4.64x 1011 km/5.906 x 109 km= ~78.5 spheres the size of our solar system to Pluto]

Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target. In Dawkins' words:

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]

Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P

Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P

Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL

Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL

Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL

Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Dawkins continues:

The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn't matter. If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn't significant. What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed.



[So much for Dawkins’ specious argument in defense of Darwinism, which he proudly claimed, “… made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (http://UncommonDescent.com) Twenty-six capital letters plus the space bar equals twenty-seven. Twenty-seven to the twenty-eighth power equals ten to the fortieth different possible combinations, of which we seek only one specifically. Dawkins admits his definition of “impossible” is 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power. This is not for all of Shakespeare’s works, but for one short sentence, and even then on a dramatically altered keyboard, not of fifty possible keys, lower case, and fifty more keys, upper case, but for only twenty-six keys, all upper case.

Of critical but neglected importance is the fact that for “selection” to occur, the intermediary produced by the random mutation MUST confer a “selective advantage” for the host organism, otherwise it will be lost. It is therefore incumbent on the advocate for Darwinism to demonstrate, in each case, what that improvement is and how it operates, every single time, without exception. “Selection” requires no less. This is easily done when copying short sentences, but not so easily done when originally constructing over 20,000 proteins in humansa, the largest of which is titin, at 38,138b amino acid residues in length. 1 out of 20 amino acids “selected” consecutively 38,138 times has a probability of 1 chance in 1049,618. This is for only one protein. Calculating for chirality, i.e. the “selection” of L amino acids instead of D amino acidsc and all peptide bonds rather than the equally probable non-peptide bondsd reduces the probability of original naturalistic synthesis to 1 chance in 1072,578. Twenty thousand more proteins to go! – John Phillip Jaeger]

a - https://www.omim.org/entry/188840\

b - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4889822/

c - ½ to the 38,138 = 10-11,480

d - ½ to the 38,138 = 10-11,480

 

[scruffy]

Big Mouth Pretender, Dr. scruffy remains silent as to my challenge that he use his kinetic equations to show how he can change the probability of heads on a coin toss from .50, or change the probability of shuffling a deck of cards, very, very quickly, so as to draw the ace of spades from the top far more often than 1 every 52 tries.

A man of honor, a decent man would apologize for his ignorance, his rudeness.
Is scruffy a decent man, a man of honor?

USMB members wait for the answer.

You're not worth the time of day.

Proof?

You're talking to yourself.

You know what they say, never wrestle a pig.

Sorry pal, I don't have time to educate your ignorant ass. If you need a tutor my rates are 200 an hour. 250 for you.

 

[Hollie]

View attachment 834098

Let's see an army of Dawkins' monkeys top this ! ! ! ! !
__________________________________

• johnjaeger

Thu 9/14/2023 11:35 AM

Hi John—



Your critique of the Dawkins weasel demonstration found its way to me, and I agree with it entirely. I offered my own critique in Undeniable (p198-200). You hit the nail on the head!

Regrettably, even solid refutations of evolutionary arguments like this don’t seem to get their proponents to rethink their position. I’ve become convinced that this is because the root problem is spiritual, not scientific or intellectual.

Best regards,

Doug Axe

Douglas Axe, PhD
Rosa Endowed Chair of Molecular Biology
Professor of Computational Biology
Co-Director of Stewart Science Honors Program
School of Science, Technology & Health
Biola University















Weasel program - Wikipedia

In chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker, biologist Richard Dawkins gave the following introduction to the program, referencing the well-known infinite monkey theorem.*

I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?

[NOTE: How lazy of Richard Dawkins to fail to look up the author of his monkey business. It was Sir Arthur Eddington.

In 1928, British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington presented a classical illustration of chance in his book, The Nature of the Physical World: “If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum.”

This is nonsense compounding nonsense. And yet my high school math teacher presented this proposition to his classes in the 1960’s.

First, an “army of monkeys” wouldn’t be very interested in hitting typewriter keys repeatedly. There is nothing for them to gain in so doing.

Second, those who did hit the keys would quickly get to the end of the line, and have no concept of returning the carriage to type the second line.

Third, those very few who somehow overcame the first and second hurdles, repeatedly, would find that the paper was ejected from the carriage, and they are hopelessly unable to replace the first page with a fresh sheet of paper.

Fourth, we will never get to the fourth problem of exhausting the ink in the typewriter ribbons because the “army of monkeys” would have defecated on or otherwise ruined every typewriter.

Fifth, Sir Arthur Eddington never began to consider the statistics of monkeys “selecting” 1 out of approximately 100 different keys, counting upper and lower case of all letters, numbers, and punctuation marks. A page of an average book has 250 – 300 words. (https://hotghostwriter.com/blogs/blog/novel-length-how-long-is-long-enough)

*Finally, the largest army in the world is the People’s Liberation Army of Communist China, with over 2,000,000 troops. This is hardly “infinite” in number. (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/)

The average word has 6.47 letters. (https://capitalizemytitle.com/character-count/100-characters/)

Using the lower value of 250 words, times 6.47 letters equals 1,617 characters in a page.

1/100 to the 1,617th power is 10-3,234, for just one page, much less “all the books in the British Museum.”

“we just think of one chance in 10 to the 40th power” as “impossible”. – Richard Dawkins, (The Blind Watchmaker, page 142)

Emil Borel, a famous statistician, defined “impossible” as an event with a probability of 10-50 or less.

https://owlcation.com/stem/Borels-Law-of-Probability

This is equivalent to finding one unique marble, in 78 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto, all full of identical marbles except for one, on your first and only attempt. You do not get an infinite number of attempts, not even two.

Therefore 1050 marbles, each 1cm in diameter, would occupy 78 spheres reaching from the center of the sun to Pluto, 5.906 billion kilometers from the sun. (105 marbles/km)3 = 1015 marbles per cubic km

To get 35 more orders of magnitude requires the multiplier of roughly (4.64 x 1011) cubed, for volume.

4.64x 1011 km/5.906 x 109 km= ~78.5 spheres the size of our solar system to Pluto]

Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target. In Dawkins' words:

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]

Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P

Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P

Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL

Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL

Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL

Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Dawkins continues:

The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn't matter. If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn't significant. What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed.



[So much for Dawkins’ specious argument in defense of Darwinism, which he proudly claimed, “… made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (http://UncommonDescent.com) Twenty-six capital letters plus the space bar equals twenty-seven. Twenty-seven to the twenty-eighth power equals ten to the fortieth different possible combinations, of which we seek only one specifically. Dawkins admits his definition of “impossible” is 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power. This is not for all of Shakespeare’s works, but for one short sentence, and even then on a dramatically altered keyboard, not of fifty possible keys, lower case, and fifty more keys, upper case, but for only twenty-six keys, all upper case.

Of critical but neglected importance is the fact that for “selection” to occur, the intermediary produced by the random mutation MUST confer a “selective advantage” for the host organism, otherwise it will be lost. It is therefore incumbent on the advocate for Darwinism to demonstrate, in each case, what that improvement is and how it operates, every single time, without exception. “Selection” requires no less. This is easily done when copying short sentences, but not so easily done when originally constructing over 20,000 proteins in humansa, the largest of which is titin, at 38,138b amino acid residues in length. 1 out of 20 amino acids “selected” consecutively 38,138 times has a probability of 1 chance in 1049,618. This is for only one protein. Calculating for chirality, i.e. the “selection” of L amino acids instead of D amino acidsc and all peptide bonds rather than the equally probable non-peptide bondsd reduces the probability of original naturalistic synthesis to 1 chance in 1072,578. Twenty thousand more proteins to go! – John Phillip Jaeger]

a - https://www.omim.org/entry/188840\

b - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4889822/

c - ½ to the 38,138 = 10-11,480

d - ½ to the 38,138 = 10-11,480

All that pointless copying and pasting for what purpose?

 

[scruffy]

Here's what you get out of a bunch of coin flips, Bozo.

Come back when you can explain it.

 

[scruffy]

Fucking birdbrain thinks God is going to limit Himself to coin flips.

What an idiot.

 

[ChemEngineer]

You're not worth the time of day.

Proof?

You're talking to yourself.

You know what they say, never wrestle a pig.

Sorry pal, I don't have time to educate your ignorant ass. If you need a tutor my rates are 200 an hour. 250 for you.

That's it? That's all you have to say after I demonstrate the ignorance and lies of Richard Dawkins and his evolution nonsense? Vulgarity and name-calling?
How "scholarly" of you. No, really.

IF you had any rebuttal, you would have posted it but clearly you do not.
Your words are as nonsensical as Hollie's, whatever it is she had to say.

A published and well-known scholar, Douglas Axe, validated everything I had to say and I quoted him, verbatim. You talk smack, like a child. Like Hollie and Dagosa.

ciao brutto
Join them on my Ignore List. You had a chance to show anything wrong with my response to Richard Dawkins, one of your heroes. You said NOTHING about it, obviously because you can't.

 

[Hollie]

That's it? That's all you have to say after I demonstrate the ignorance and lies of Richard Dawkins and his evolution bullshit?

IF you had any rebuttal, you would have posted it but clearly you do not.
Your words are as nonsensical as Hollie's, whatever it is she had to say.

A published and well-known scholar, Douglas Axe, validated everything I had to say and I quoted him, verbatim. You talk smack, like a child. Like Hollie and Dagosa.

ciao brutto
Join them on my Ignore List. You had a chance to show anything wrong with my response to Richard Dawkins, one of your heroes. You said NOTHING about it, obviously because you can't.

Doug "Disco'tute" Axe is a scholar?

Only in the universe of the science illiterate.

 

[surada]

That's it? That's all you have to say after I demonstrate the ignorance and lies of Richard Dawkins and his evolution nonsense? Vulgarity and name-calling?
How "scholarly" of you. No, really.

IF you had any rebuttal, you would have posted it but clearly you do not.
Your words are as nonsensical as Hollie's, whatever it is she had to say.

A published and well-known scholar, Douglas Axe, validated everything I had to say and I quoted him, verbatim. You talk smack, like a child. Like Hollie and Dagosa.

ciao brutto
Join them on my Ignore List. You had a chance to show anything wrong with my response to Richard Dawkins, one of your heroes. You said NOTHING about it, obviously because you can't.

Your obsession is weird. Did you ever work as a chemical engineer?

Are you published and peer reviewed?

 

[ChemEngineer]

"Anger comes from the bosom of a fool." - The Holy Bible

 

[scruffy]

"Anger comes from the bosom of a fool." - The Holy Bible

View attachment 837271

Go read Kuramoto, you ignorant twat.

YOU are the apex of arrogance, pretending to know how God works.

You're an idiot. Go away.

 

[ChemEngineer]

No surprise here. But just watch Darwin's Cult make up nonsense to try an end run.​

​

_________________________________________________________​

​

​

On Origin of Life, Chemist James Tour Has Successfully Called These Researchers’ Bluff​

Brian Miller
October 31, 2023, 1:57 PM

Image source: James Tour via YouTube.
David Klinghoffer and Tova Forman previously wrote about Rice University chemist James Tour’s 60-day challenge to leading origin-of-life researchers to demonstrate that the field had substantively advanced in the past seventy years (here, here). Tour offered to remove all his videos on the topic if three leading experts agreed that any of five fundamental problems had been solved:

• Linking of amino acids into chains (aka polypeptides)
• Linking of nucleotides into RNA molecules
• Linking of simple sugars (aka monosaccharides) into chains known as polysaccharides
• Origin of biological information
• Assembly of components into a cell

Tour issued this challenge in response to the many false claims made by YouTubers, such as Dave Farina, about how these hurdles to life’s origin had been fully addressed. The deadline has expired, and no one has presented solutions to any of the problems.

The Rules​

For the first three problems, Tour allowed origin-of-life researchers to assume a chemical mixture started with amino acids, nucleotides, or sugars with the same handedness (aka enantiomerically pure). For instance, all the amino acids were left-handed as required in modern proteins. For the first problem, participants needed to detail how chains of just two amino acids — aspartic acid and lysine — could have formed with the correct bonds. For the second problem, proposed solutions needed to describe how nucleotides could have linked into chains with less than 2 percent of the wrong linkages. And for the third, proposals needed to explain how molecules of the simple sugar glucose could have properly joined in high yields.

For the fourth problem, researchers could assume that the first three challenges had been solved. They only needed to explain how amino acids, nucleotides, or simple sugars could have linked together in the correct order to contain the required functional information to perform some biologically relevant task. For the fifth problem, researchers could assume that all cellular components were available in abundance. They only needed to explain how the biological building blocks could have assembled into a functional cell. Proposed solutions for all the problems had to rely only on chemistry that could have occurred on the early Earth.

The Implications of Failure​

The failure of any origin-of-life expert to propose a solution to even one of the five problems has dire implications for the field. Tour allowed origins researchers to assume unrealistically favorable starting conditions. The hurdles are collosal for life’s constituent molecules to form in sufficiently high concentrations and purities to allow for even the slightest possibility of their linking into proteins, RNA, or complex polysaccharides (here, here). In addition, any cellular component that formed on the early Earth would have decomposed long before finding its way to the staging ground for an aspiring cell. Consequently, even if every problem were fully solved, life’s genesis would still face the insurmountable hurdle of transporting the components of life to the same microscopic environment.

YouTubers and other defenders of the secular faith of scientific materialism have confidently asserted that scientists are steadily unraveling the mystery of life’s origin. Yet Tour called on leading experts to demonstrate whether they had achieved any real progress in answering any of the most fundamental questions. None could rise to the challenge.

At some point, both the scientific community and the public will need to recognize that the lack of progress cannot be explained by a lack of serious effort by highly competent scientists but by the philosophical assumptions blinding them from seeing the truth staring them in the face. The answer to life’s origin does not reside in the fields of physics and chemistry but in the mind behind our universe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The hurdles are collosal for life’s constituent molecules to form in sufficiently high concentrations and purities to allow for even the slightest possibility of their linking into proteins, RNA, or complex polysaccharides

The hurdles are very high. That's why it doesn't happen every day.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

These observations and opinions would be impossible if Darwinian evolution were "fact, fact, fact."
But clearly that is not the case. It is statistically impossible, for many reasons.

You Are What You Think

Why should it be passive? The intellect (Literally "select between") of all beings beat the odds against random adaptability. Besides, Social Darwinism promotes hereditary power, which is the ultimate evil.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Right on science!


And right on religion with one exception that the Christian church attempts to sweep under the rug. The revision of the supposed word of their god, with a new edition.

Faith in the Fatherest

Religion is an invention of the heiristocracy. Even their god is a son, setting the pattern for the cancer of Birth-Class Supremacy. It's also superstitious, implying that there was a pre-life where souls would be judged. Those who passed their imaginary god's test would be born rich.