More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

[Sherlock Holmes]

So what? Only someone completely bereft of any understanding of basic logic would think that supports the truth of a universal statement.

How can the existence of laws be explained using those laws? No scientific explanations are ever tautological.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Your math. The odds against 2,000 random proteins randomly assembling a functional cell

In addition to which most proteins have a very precise folding and do not function unless folded by a folding process that runs counter to their random formation.

But will the faithful devotees every listen to reason...

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Cells also have a nuclear pore complex, which is itself an intricate protein assemblage, without a cell that cannot be made and until that is made there can't be a cell and...

Are you getting all this Fort Fun Indiana and scruffy ?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In addition to which most proteins have a very precise folding and do not function unless folded by a folding process that runs counter to their random formation.

But will the faithful devotees every listen to reason...

Even if scientists were able to perfectly splice together the protein, would it function??

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Even if scientists were able to perfectly splice together the protein, would it function??

I personally doubt it, especially after listening to Prof. James Tour's thorough refutation of these ridiculous claims.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Fort Fun Indiana and scruffy

Tell me please, what does it mean to understand something in the sciences? what actually makes something a scientific explanation? do you know? (I do, but I am confident you both have no idea and have never even considered the matter).

 

[alang1216]

Where did I "invent an answer"? I pointed out that one cannot use the laws of nature to explain why/how laws of nature exist and that - by definition - means one cannot ever construct a scientific explanation. That's not "inventing" an answer it's simply a deduction based on what constitutes a scientific explanation.

An explanation based on our ignorance of how the universe began. You define words or concepts but you cannot define reality into existence.

Do you think a thing can serve as the explanation for itself? Do you think we can invoke naturalism to construct an explanation for the presence of naturalism?

I don't know why not.

But I never once advocated "God" go and recheck my posts. I have simply pointed out that the discontinuity is itself an observable trait of the record, you claim it's only an apparent discontinuity but I disagree and regard it is a true reflection of history, there were no ancestors and so there are no fossils, that's an entirely reasonable interpretation of what we observe - feel free to prove it wrong.

If you invoke supernatural force for creation you have essentially brought God into it. I can't prove you wrong any more than you can prove you're right. I take comfort that the god of the gaps has almost always proven a mirage.

How can natural forces be used to "explain" the presence of natural forces? That amounts to nothing more than saying the explanation for nature is nature. One can take that approach but when one does that they have abandoned scientific explanation. No scientific explanation in any branch of science, ever explains a phenomenon in terms of the phenomenon we are seeking an explanation for.

You asked earlier about paradoxes, now you know what I meant.

Our study of nature may show us that the fundamental forces are eternal so no further explanation is needed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your math. The odds against 2,000 random proteins randomly assembling a functional cell

What math? Post it. You're just making stuff up as you go.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fort Fun Indiana and scruffy

Tell me please, what does it mean to understand something in the sciences? what actually makes something a scientific explanation? do you know? (I do, but I am confident you both have no idea and have never even considered the matter).

You tell us. State your point.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How can the existence of laws be explained using those laws?

How can it be explained by making up a silly magical sky daddy?

 

[scruffy]

Cells also have a nuclear pore complex, which is itself an intricate protein assemblage, without a cell that cannot be made and until that is made there can't be a cell and...

Are you getting all this Fort Fun Indiana and scruffy ?

Loud and clear.

Prokaryotes do not have a nucleus.

The DNA is not enclosed by a membrane.

Eukaryotes are a relatively recent invention. Took about 2 billion years to get one.

2x10^9 * 60x60x24x365 seconds. Plus a few extra for leap years.

That's about 60x10^15 seconds. With an average prokaryote generation around 4 days, that would be approximately 700 billion generations.

Prokaryote DNA is unprotected, it doesn't have any repair mechanisms. It suffers the full force of random mutations, which are 60-70 per generation (depending on sequence length).

So, 60x700x10^9 is about 4 trillion mutations. Times 10^30 instances, which is how many prokaryotes there are on average.

So maybe 10^42, give or take a few orders of magnitude.

There are only 10^21 stars in the universe. So we're talking the number of stars squared.

Do you think we could find a nuclear membrane in there somewhere? After all, it's just a cell within a cell. One cell eats another, suddenly you have a nuclear membrane. Our cells ate mitochondria too, there's another membrane. There's membranes all over the place. Membranes are easy.

 

[scruffy]

I personally doubt it, especially after listening to Prof. James Tour's thorough refutation of these ridiculous claims.

Speaking of membranes, prokaryotes don't engage in endocytosis. (With rare exceptions, like G. obscuriglobus).

But check this out - there are autotrophs, phototrophs, chemotrophs, and heterotrophs. Prokaryotes use everything from carbon to nitrogen to photons to sulfur for energy. (Even sulfuric acid!)

Plants are photoautotrophs. Human beings are chemoheterotrophs. The minute you have a eukaryote you start endocytosis and chemoheterotrophy. And anything a cell eats that can't be digested, stays in the cell.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Loud and clear.

Prokaryotes do not have a nucleus.

The DNA is not enclosed by a membrane.

Eukaryotes are a relatively recent invention. Took about 2 billion years to get one.

2x10^9 * 60x60x24x365 seconds. Plus a few extra for leap years.

That's about 60x10^15 seconds. With an average prokaryote generation around 4 days, that would be approximately 700 billion generations.

Prokaryote DNA is unprotected, it doesn't have any repair mechanisms. It suffers the full force of random mutations, which are 60-70 per generation (depending on sequence length).

So, 60x700x10^9 is about 4 trillion mutations. Times 10^30 instances, which is how many prokaryotes there are on average.

So maybe 10^42, give or take a few orders of magnitude.

There are only 10^21 stars in the universe. So we're talking the number of stars squared.

Do you think we could find a nuclear membrane in there somewhere? After all, it's just a cell within a cell. One cell eats another, suddenly you have a nuclear membrane. Our cells ate mitochondria too, there's another membrane. There's membranes all over the place. Membranes are easy.

You never told me what you think "understand" means, is that because you don't know?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Membranes are easy.

Yes. We watched them form in labs when we weren't even trying to make them.