Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

[ChemEngineer]

Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body? A clue?
Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.

Winterborn of course had nothing to say. Zip. Nada.
There are at least 5,000 different proteins in humans. The largest is titin, in muscles. It has 33,450 amino acid residues - the component left after a peptide bond forms, expelling a water molecule in the process. Non-peptide bonds are equally probable so the chance of getting the right combination of 33,450 amino acids in sequence, with peptide bonds is 1/33,450 to the 20th power times 1/33,450 squared. There is no difference between this number and 0.
I didn't bother to try to factor in the probability of protein folding or L versus D amino acids, but humans are made of L amino acids, for Levorotary as opposed to Dextrorotary. This is the handedness of amino acids, comparable to the right glove versus the left glove. They're different.

 

[Hollie]

Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body? A clue?
Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.

Winterborn of course had nothing to say. Zip. Nada.
There are at least 5,000 different proteins in humans. The largest is titin, in muscles. It has 33,450 amino acid residues - the component left after a peptide bond forms, expelling a water molecule in the process. Non-peptide bonds are equally probable so the chance of getting the right combination of 33,450 amino acids in sequence, with peptide bonds is 1/33,450 to the 20th power times 1/33,450 squared. There is no difference between this number and 0.
I didn't bother to try to factor in the probability of protein folding or L versus D amino acids, but humans are made of L amino acids, for Levorotary as opposed to Dextrorotary. This is the handedness of amino acids, comparable to the right glove versus the left glove. They're different.

Ahh. So your argument is that, ''it's complicated. I don't understand it therefore, the gawds did it''

You should know that the silly ''probability'' numbers you steal from ID'iot creationer websites are intended to dupe the ignorant.

 

[alang1216]

Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body? A clue?
Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.

Winterborn of course had nothing to say. Zip. Nada.
There are at least 5,000 different proteins in humans. The largest is titin, in muscles. It has 33,450 amino acid residues - the component left after a peptide bond forms, expelling a water molecule in the process. Non-peptide bonds are equally probable so the chance of getting the right combination of 33,450 amino acids in sequence, with peptide bonds is 1/33,450 to the 20th power times 1/33,450 squared. There is no difference between this number and 0.
I didn't bother to try to factor in the probability of protein folding or L versus D amino acids, but humans are made of L amino acids, for Levorotary as opposed to Dextrorotary. This is the handedness of amino acids, comparable to the right glove versus the left glove. They're different.

If evolution were a random process you'd have a point. It is not so you don't.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You should know that the silly ''probability'' numbers you steal from ID'iot creationer websites are intended to dupe the ignorant.

OMG, you mean he hasn't even been waving his own dick?

 

[itfitzme]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

Says who?

 

[esalla]

Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body? A clue?
Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.

Winterborn of course had nothing to say. Zip. Nada.
There are at least 5,000 different proteins in humans. The largest is titin, in muscles. It has 33,450 amino acid residues - the component left after a peptide bond forms, expelling a water molecule in the process. Non-peptide bonds are equally probable so the chance of getting the right combination of 33,450 amino acids in sequence, with peptide bonds is 1/33,450 to the 20th power times 1/33,450 squared. There is no difference between this number and 0.
I didn't bother to try to factor in the probability of protein folding or L versus D amino acids, but humans are made of L amino acids, for Levorotary as opposed to Dextrorotary. This is the handedness of amino acids, comparable to the right glove versus the left glove. They're different.

Ahh. So your argument is that, ''it's complicated. I don't understand it therefore, the gawds did it''

You should know that the silly ''probability'' numbers you steal from ID'iot creationer websites are intended to dupe the ignorant.

Holly you know that God wrote DNA. Everyone knows this

 

[itfitzme]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

The question is a non-sequitur. Not getting an answer to a non-sequitur doesn't reveal anything.

Also, by what law of physics are you basing this " explosions do not result in complex order." Of course they can, and do. Explosions don't "cause" complex order. When the energy and mass coalesces, it coalesces into whatever order the surrounding physical environment allows for.

Also, "explosion" is an extremely general term, covering every physical and chemical process that releases large amounts of energy into the surrounding volume. The "Big Bang" isn't a firecracker exploding. To start, there was no surrounding volume to expand into.

 

[itfitzme]

Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body? A clue?
Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.

Winterborn of course had nothing to say. Zip. Nada.
There are at least 5,000 different proteins in humans. The largest is titin, in muscles. It has 33,450 amino acid residues - the component left after a peptide bond forms, expelling a water molecule in the process. Non-peptide bonds are equally probable so the chance of getting the right combination of 33,450 amino acids in sequence, with peptide bonds is 1/33,450 to the 20th power times 1/33,450 squared. There is no difference between this number and 0.
I didn't bother to try to factor in the probability of protein folding or L versus D amino acids, but humans are made of L amino acids, for Levorotary as opposed to Dextrorotary. This is the handedness of amino acids, comparable to the right glove versus the left glove. They're different.

I have a small but significant objection. You say, "There is no difference between this number and 0."

That is simply not true. (1/33450)^20*(1/33450)^2 = 2.9e-100.

2.9e-100 is not equal to zero, however small that may be.

Where does this erroneous idea that "There is no difference between this number and 0" come from?

Let's consider 2.9e-100 in context of the size of the universe. The size of the universe is 8.8×1026 m = 8.8E1026

2.9e-100 * 8.8E1026 = another really big number.

EDIT: it's early.

 

[james bond]

It's a good question. There is no explanation of how male and female came to be in evolution.

I doubt there's a good definition or description of evolution. Other than life just happened and we can BS it from there.

Evolutionary cosmology has big bang from nothing (singularity) and accelerated expansion from dark energy. The ToE has abiogenesis and aliens did something.

 

[Hollie]

It's a good question. There is no explanation of how male and female came to be in evolution.

I doubt there's a good definition or description of evolution. Other than life just happened and we can BS it from there.

Evolutionary cosmology has big bang from nothing (singularity) and accelerated expansion from dark energy. The ToE has abiogenesis and aliens did something.

Biological evolution is well defined and well described. Evolution doesn't describe "life just happened''. You are confusing abiogenesis, the beginning of life, with biological evolution which describes the diversity if life and how that changes over time. Yours is a mistake commonly made among those without a science vocabulary.

Can you define ''evolutionary cosmology''? That appears to be a term you read at one of the ID'iot creationer ministries.

Second, the idea that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. There was no big bang explosion that was the beginning of the universe, The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.

This has been explained to you repeatedly.

 

[esalla]

It's a good question. There is no explanation of how male and female came to be in evolution.

I doubt there's a good definition or description of evolution. Other than life just happened and we can BS it from there.

Evolutionary cosmology has big bang from nothing (singularity) and accelerated expansion from dark energy. The ToE has abiogenesis and aliens did something.

Biological evolution is well defined and well described. Evolution doesn't describe "life just happened''. You are confusing abiogenesis, the beginning of life, with biological evolution which describes the diversity if life and how that changes over time. Yours is a mistake commonly made among those without a science vocabulary.

Can you define ''evolutionary cosmology''? That appears to be a term you read at one of the ID'iot creationer ministries.

Second, the idea that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. There was no big bang explosion that was the beginning of the universe, The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.

This has been explained to you repeatedly.

Actually Hollie Darwin claimed that life just happened one day in a pond.

Please read before you babble

 

[james bond]

Biological evolution is well defined and well described. Evolution doesn't describe "life just happened''. You are confusing abiogenesis, the beginning of life, with biological evolution which describes the diversity if life and how that changes over time. Yours is a mistake commonly made among those without a science vocabulary.

Can you define ''evolutionary cosmology''? That appears to be a term you read at one of the ID'iot creationer ministries.

No, biological evolution is not well defined. Why don't you define it for me? I want to put your theories to the same test you put mine.

Furthermore, how is it's falsifiable? Some ToE proponents claim all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone. This is not falsifiable. What do you claim? That's why I asked for you to define it.

ToE could be made up stuff and the evidence doesn't show it happens. Otherwise, we would practically accept ToE as mostly true, but it remains scientific atheism or one which takes a "leap of faith" to believe. For example, if it started with abiogenesis, then how can one falsify that hypothesis? If there is no beginning to ToE, then there isn't much to discuss here.

Evolutionary cosmology is the explanation of what was there before the big bang and the cause of the big bang. There is little valid explanation of how spacetime started nor where the energy came from. If singularity or quantum particle of infinite density and infinite temperature, then I don't think singularity can be falsified, but you tell me.

All of the above, I am open to your explanation. I'm just skeptical of your evolutionary theories.

Second, the idea that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. There was no big bang explosion that was the beginning of the universe, The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.

This has been explained to you repeatedly.

It had to have a beginning if space appeared and time started, so no imagination necessary. It's how our four dimensions work. And I said expansion, not explosion, so you are making stuff up.

It was an expansion in all directions and looked like the above as space and time expanded, too. Now, if you took a slice of the universe at a point in time, then it would look flat and curved around the edges.

Is that your explanation? That seems to fit the Bible theory (For example, what the Bible explains as God stretching out the heavens) better than the above of what we see with just the CMB, cosmic inflation, and big bang expansion. Where the energy came from is still not explained. How about gravity?

 

[james bond]

Actually Hollie Darwin claimed that life just happened one day in a pond.

Please read before you babble

Then her statement can't be falsified. For example, if I lost my head and said I slept with ten women today, then I can falsify by it by producing eleven women who were witnesses. If I can only produce nine witnesses, then it isn't but still falsifiable.

 

[esalla]

Actually Hollie Darwin claimed that life just happened one day in a pond.

Please read before you babble

Then her statement can't be falsified. For example, if I lost my head and said I slept with ten women today, then I can falsify by it by producing eleven women who were witnesses. If I can only produce nine witnesses, then it isn't but still falsifiable.

OMMFG

 

[Grumblenuts]

Biological evolution is well defined and well described. Evolution doesn't describe "life just happened''. You are confusing abiogenesis, the beginning of life, with biological evolution which describes the diversity if life and how that changes over time. Yours is a mistake commonly made among those without a science vocabulary.

Can you define ''evolutionary cosmology''? That appears to be a term you read at one of the ID'iot creationer ministries.

No, biological evolution is not well defined. Why don't you define it for me?

Yes it is and she just did. You, in fact, just quoted her doing so.

biological evolution which describes the diversity if life and how that changes over time.

Then you wanna talk about falsifiable? Don't like things being defined as studies? Then go ahead and have a self pity party, but stop kidding yourself that secular science lacks vocabulary or definition. Christ, your lot depends upon it. Feeds upon it. You'd have next to nothing left to discuss without it. Let's see, the Bible tells me so, and then there's.. Hmm.. ?

 

[Hollie]

Biological evolution is well defined and well described. Evolution doesn't describe "life just happened''. You are confusing abiogenesis, the beginning of life, with biological evolution which describes the diversity if life and how that changes over time. Yours is a mistake commonly made among those without a science vocabulary.

Can you define ''evolutionary cosmology''? That appears to be a term you read at one of the ID'iot creationer ministries.

No, biological evolution is not well defined. Why don't you define it for me? I want to put your theories to the same test you put mine.

Furthermore, how is it's falsifiable? Some ToE proponents claim all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone. This is not falsifiable. What do you claim? That's why I asked for you to define it.

ToE could be made up stuff and the evidence doesn't show it happens. Otherwise, we would practically accept ToE as mostly true, but it remains scientific atheism or one which takes a "leap of faith" to believe. For example, if it started with abiogenesis, then how can one falsify that hypothesis? If there is no beginning to ToE, then there isn't much to discuss here.

Evolutionary cosmology is the explanation of what was there before the big bang and the cause of the big bang. There is little valid explanation of how spacetime started nor where the energy came from. If singularity or quantum particle of infinite density and infinite temperature, then I don't think singularity can be falsified, but you tell me.

All of the above, I am open to your explanation. I'm just skeptical of your evolutionary theories.

Second, the idea that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. There was no big bang explosion that was the beginning of the universe, The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.

This has been explained to you repeatedly.

It had to have a beginning if space appeared and time started, so no imagination necessary. It's how our four dimensions work. And I said expansion, not explosion, so you are making stuff up.

It was an expansion in all directions and looked like the above as space and time expanded, too. Now, if you took a slice of the universe at a point in time, then it would look flat and curved around the edges.

Is that your explanation? That seems to fit the Bible theory (For example, what the Bible explains as God stretching out the heavens) better than the above of what we see with just the CMB, cosmic inflation, and big bang expansion. Where the energy came from is still not explained. How about gravity?

There is no theory to test against claims of magic and supernaturalism. Your claims to your gods are no different than the claims made by others. It thus falls to you to establish what hierarchy of special pleading separates your claims to gods vs. the competing pleadings.

You haven't contributed your model of ''evolutionary cosmology'', whatever that is. It sounds like you need more graphs and pictures... I guess. I noticed that the unsourced, unattributed image you used of the ''big bang'' expansion you used includes a timeline of 13.7 billion years. That is in direct contradiction to what you have previously insisted cannot be in terms of biblical timelines. It seems you cannot pose a consistent argument. I will also note that the image is hosted on the NASA.gov site. Why are you using data from those evilutionist, atheist scientists? Henry Morris would be very disappointed. I also note that the image you posted shows nothing of a ''singularity'' you have identified previously.

Nothing in your post makes a case for a universe magically 'poofed' into existence 6,000 years ago. In fact, just the opposite. Pease turn in your key to the Disco'tute.

 

[esalla]

Biological evolution is well defined and well described. Evolution doesn't describe "life just happened''. You are confusing abiogenesis, the beginning of life, with biological evolution which describes the diversity if life and how that changes over time. Yours is a mistake commonly made among those without a science vocabulary.

Can you define ''evolutionary cosmology''? That appears to be a term you read at one of the ID'iot creationer ministries.

No, biological evolution is not well defined. Why don't you define it for me? I want to put your theories to the same test you put mine.

Furthermore, how is it's falsifiable? Some ToE proponents claim all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone. This is not falsifiable. What do you claim? That's why I asked for you to define it.

ToE could be made up stuff and the evidence doesn't show it happens. Otherwise, we would practically accept ToE as mostly true, but it remains scientific atheism or one which takes a "leap of faith" to believe. For example, if it started with abiogenesis, then how can one falsify that hypothesis? If there is no beginning to ToE, then there isn't much to discuss here.

Evolutionary cosmology is the explanation of what was there before the big bang and the cause of the big bang. There is little valid explanation of how spacetime started nor where the energy came from. If singularity or quantum particle of infinite density and infinite temperature, then I don't think singularity can be falsified, but you tell me.

All of the above, I am open to your explanation. I'm just skeptical of your evolutionary theories.

Second, the idea that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. There was no big bang explosion that was the beginning of the universe, The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.

This has been explained to you repeatedly.

It had to have a beginning if space appeared and time started, so no imagination necessary. It's how our four dimensions work. And I said expansion, not explosion, so you are making stuff up.

It was an expansion in all directions and looked like the above as space and time expanded, too. Now, if you took a slice of the universe at a point in time, then it would look flat and curved around the edges.

Is that your explanation? That seems to fit the Bible theory (For example, what the Bible explains as God stretching out the heavens) better than the above of what we see with just the CMB, cosmic inflation, and big bang expansion. Where the energy came from is still not explained. How about gravity?

There is no theory to test against claims of magic and supernaturalism. Your claims to your gods are no different than the claims made by others. It thus falls to you to establish what hierarchy of special pleading separates your claims to gods vs. the competing pleadings.

You haven't contributed your model of ''evolutionary cosmology'', whatever that is. It sounds like you need more graphs and pictures... I guess. I noticed that the unsourced, unattributed image you used of the ''big bang'' expansion you used includes a timeline of 13.7 billion years. That is in direct contradiction to what you have previously insisted cannot be in terms of biblical timelines. It seems you cannot pose a consistent argument. I will also note that the image is hosted on the NASA.gov site. Why are you using data from those evilutionist, atheist scientists? Henry Morris would be very disappointed. I also note that the image you posted shows nothing of a ''singularity'' you have identified previously.

Nothing in your post makes a case for a universe magically 'poofed' into existence 6,000 years ago. In fact, just the opposite. Pease turn in your key to the Disco'tute.

LOL Hollie please explain how Darwins pond scum wrote DNA without Magic

Grow up little girl

 

[Hollie]

Actually Hollie Darwin claimed that life just happened one day in a pond.

Please read before you babble

Then her statement can't be falsified. For example, if I lost my head and said I slept with ten women today, then I can falsify by it by producing eleven women who were witnesses. If I can only produce nine witnesses, then it isn't but still falsifiable.

Your psycho-sexual fantasies are rather creepy so you might want to delve into where they derive from. You should also understsnd the context of the discussion as it relates to science matters not your imagined, Napoleonic sexual conquests.

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

In addition to being falsifiable, biological evolution makes verifiable predictions. Evolutionary theory predicts that closely related organisms will share large amounts of the same genetic material. Evolution predicts an ordering of the fossil record, such that animals like mammals never appear before the first reptiles. It predicts that isolated regions of the planet will be populated by organisms which are unique to those isolated regions. Evolutionary theory predicts anatomical similarities between genetically similar organisms. It predicts the existence of vestigial structures and organs that were useful to ancestral forms but become useless as organisms evolve.

 

[esalla]

Actually Hollie Darwin claimed that life just happened one day in a pond.

Please read before you babble

Then her statement can't be falsified. For example, if I lost my head and said I slept with ten women today, then I can falsify by it by producing eleven women who were witnesses. If I can only produce nine witnesses, then it isn't but still falsifiable.

Your psycho-sexual fantasies are rather creepy so you might want to delve into where they derive from. You should also understsnd the context of the discussion as it relates to science matters not your imagined, Napoleonic sexual conquests.

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

In addition to being falsifiable, biological evolution makes verifiable predictions. Evolutionary theory predicts that closely related organisms will share large amounts of the same genetic material. Evolution predicts an ordering of the fossil record, such that animals like mammals never appear before the first reptiles. It predicts that isolated regions of the planet will be populated by organisms which are unique to those isolated regions. Evolutionary theory predicts anatomical similarities between genetically similar organisms. It predicts the existence of vestigial structures and organs that were useful to ancestral forms but become useless as organisms evolve.

Evolution is impossible unless something to evolve exist.

Just that simple

 

[james bond]

Yes it is and she just did. You, in fact, just quoted her doing so.

Diversity and change is too broad. I can accept microevolution. Let's just say macroevolution has been falsified and we have reached a final agreement.