Non-Darwinian Wordle

[ChemEngineer]

Although I am rather new to wordle, it is an interesting and addicting pastime. In only about two months, I have figured out the word of the day on my second guess. This led me to recall atheist-evolutionist, Richard Dawkins' total misuse of statistical analysis. I've read his books and found them fraught with errors of science and common sense. For example, Dawkins used a computer program to winnow down random keystrokes into forming the phrase, "Methinks it is a weasel."

Random mutations, however, have no direction. They don't think and use the process of elimination as a human does in Wordle. You guess five letters of a word found in the dictionary, and incorrect letters are shown in gray.
Correct letters are shown in gold. Correct letters in the correct location are shown in green.

Random mutations don't give colorful hints. They do nothing or they harm their host, possibly killing it and they don't give any directions on how to make things better the next time around. Other than that....

Dawkins doesn't care about reality, or science or statistics. He simply makes things up that gullible followers will swallow.

Here are the Darwinian numbers (space, or number of possibilities) for Wordle:
26 x 26 x 26 x 26 x 26 = 1 in 11,881,376 - First try
If it's wrong, random mutation learns nothing. It continues on apace so second try is:
26 x 26 x 26 x 26 x 26

How long would it take random placement of letters to solve any Wordle?
(There are ~70,000 five-letter words that are not proper nouns.)
Statistically, it would require ~11,881,000 tries. You only get six tries and you can almost always get the word in six.

On the tennis court recently, I saw a long row of ants and typed in
ANTSY. Close but then I saw letters that did not belong there and
dragged my foot along the row smashing hundreds of pesky ants in the process.

SMEAR came to mind with the constraints. Voila.
No thanks to Darwin.

 

[mamooth]

Random mutations don't give colorful hints.

Some do, however, make it more likely for an organism to survive, making it more likely those genes will be passed on.

As you do in every other field of knowledge, you suck hard at understanding evolution. Evolution isn't like wordle. There is no "goal". That's where you faceplant here.

 

[MarathonMike]

My youngest introduced me to wordle and I play it every day as does my wife. It is very fun and challenging!

 

[ChemEngineer]

My youngest introduced me to wordle and I play it every day as does my wife. It is very fun and challenging!

Okay, you're in trouble now!

Globle-game.com

I've gotten the correct country on my second guess, viz., China -> Vietnam.

As to your footnote on Democrats destroying democracy (quite correct):

“Dr. Franklin, what is it—a monarchy or a republic?” He stopped and said, “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

Democrats do not want to keep it.

 

[Hollie]

Although I am rather new to wordle, it is an interesting and addicting pastime. In only about two months, I have figured out the word of the day on my second guess. This led me to recall atheist-evolutionist, Richard Dawkins' total misuse of statistical analysis. I've read his books and found them fraught with errors of science and common sense. For example, Dawkins used a computer program to winnow down random keystrokes into forming the phrase, "Methinks it is a weasel."

Random mutations, however, have no direction. They don't think and use the process of elimination as a human does in Wordle. You guess five letters of a word found in the dictionary, and incorrect letters are shown in gray.
Correct letters are shown in gold. Correct letters in the correct location are shown in green.

Random mutations don't give colorful hints. They do nothing or they harm their host, possibly killing it and they don't give any directions on how to make things better the next time around. Other than that....

Dawkins doesn't care about reality, or science or statistics. He simply makes things up that gullible followers will swallow.

Here are the Darwinian numbers (space, or number of possibilities) for Wordle:
26 x 26 x 26 x 26 x 26 = 1 in 11,881,376 - First try
If it's wrong, random mutation learns nothing. It continues on apace so second try is:
26 x 26 x 26 x 26 x 26

How long would it take random placement of letters to solve any Wordle?
(There are ~70,000 five-letter words that are not proper nouns.)
Statistically, it would require ~11,881,000 tries. You only get six tries and you can almost always get the word in six.

On the tennis court recently, I saw a long row of ants and typed in
ANTSY. Close but then I saw letters that did not belong there and
dragged my foot along the row smashing hundreds of pesky ants in the process.

SMEAR came to mind with the constraints. Voila.
No thanks to Darwin.

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. Biology ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable. Environment changes and when organisms are subject to environmental isolation clearly show adaptation, as different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Mutations that are harmful to the process of adaptation usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

So…. Instead of copying and pasting from Harun Yahya, seek help for your emotional attachment and lurid obsession with Richard Dawkins.

 

[alang1216]

Although I am rather new to wordle, it is an interesting and addicting pastime. In only about two months, I have figured out the word of the day on my second guess. This led me to recall atheist-evolutionist, Richard Dawkins' total misuse of statistical analysis. I've read his books and found them fraught with errors of science and common sense. For example, Dawkins used a computer program to winnow down random keystrokes into forming the phrase, "Methinks it is a weasel."

Random mutations, however, have no direction. They don't think and use the process of elimination as a human does in Wordle. You guess five letters of a word found in the dictionary, and incorrect letters are shown in gray.
Correct letters are shown in gold. Correct letters in the correct location are shown in green.

Random mutations don't give colorful hints. They do nothing or they harm their host, possibly killing it and they don't give any directions on how to make things better the next time around. Other than that....

Dawkins doesn't care about reality, or science or statistics. He simply makes things up that gullible followers will swallow.

Here are the Darwinian numbers (space, or number of possibilities) for Wordle:
26 x 26 x 26 x 26 x 26 = 1 in 11,881,376 - First try
If it's wrong, random mutation learns nothing. It continues on apace so second try is:
26 x 26 x 26 x 26 x 26

How long would it take random placement of letters to solve any Wordle?
(There are ~70,000 five-letter words that are not proper nouns.)
Statistically, it would require ~11,881,000 tries. You only get six tries and you can almost always get the word in six.

On the tennis court recently, I saw a long row of ants and typed in
ANTSY. Close but then I saw letters that did not belong there and
dragged my foot along the row smashing hundreds of pesky ants in the process.

SMEAR came to mind with the constraints. Voila.
No thanks to Darwin.

A perfect example of the power of selection, natural or otherwise. Selection is the opposite of random.

 

[ChemEngineer]

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

Put simply, scientists will tell you that “science works.” If science works, then the universe works. If the universe works then it means that it was made; because what is not made cannot possibly “work.” - Illogical Atheism by Bo Jinn, Kindle, Section 1276

“Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver.” – C.S. Lewis – Section 1267

“Over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.” – Max Planck – Section 418


The past has demonstrated quite clearly that science creates many more mysteries than it explains. – 1370

Professor Andrew Simms, former President of the Royal Institute of Psychiatry in Britain… concludes that religious faith is one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Particularly among Christian adherents in western society, religious practice seems to result in lower levels of stress and depression, better physical health, better interpersonal relationship and family life and a much lower inclination to substance addiction, among other behavioral and mental disorders. The psychiatric data for atheism and agnosticism, on the other hand, appears to run quite in the opposite direction. A number of studies performed by members of the American psychiatric association determine a strong correlation between a “lack of faith” (i.e. atheism) and depression and suicide. – 1614

… those nations with the highest levels of depression and suicide over the last 50 years also happen to have been the most irreligious. (Soviet bloc, China, Japan, Scandinavia, UK, France, among others) Abortion rates, separation and family discord are all far more prominent in the irreligious west than anywhere else in the world.- 1627

A belief held for psychological reasons leading to an increased probability of psychosis, abusive behavior, depression and suicidal inclination.
If those are not the hallmarks of a delusion, I don’t know what is. – 1641

Contemporary atheism does no resolve in the conclusion that God does not exist as much as it begins with it. – 2270

If the evidence from sociology is not powerful enough, we now have recent studies from the field of psychology which validate the ridiculousness of this fictional psychological pre-disposition to atheism. – 2385

The overwhelming psychological and sociological data does indicate that belief in God is something that emerges from the inside out, not something which is imposed from the outside in. – 2407

 

[Hollie]

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

Put simply, scientists will tell you that “science works.” If science works, then the universe works. If the universe works then it means that it was made; because what is not made cannot possibly “work.” - Illogical Atheism by Bo Jinn, Kindle, Section 1276

“Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver.” – C.S. Lewis – Section 1267

“Over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.” – Max Planck – Section 418


The past has demonstrated quite clearly that science creates many more mysteries than it explains. – 1370

Professor Andrew Simms, former President of the Royal Institute of Psychiatry in Britain… concludes that religious faith is one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Particularly among Christian adherents in western society, religious practice seems to result in lower levels of stress and depression, better physical health, better interpersonal relationship and family life and a much lower inclination to substance addiction, among other behavioral and mental disorders. The psychiatric data for atheism and agnosticism, on the other hand, appears to run quite in the opposite direction. A number of studies performed by members of the American psychiatric association determine a strong correlation between a “lack of faith” (i.e. atheism) and depression and suicide. – 1614

… those nations with the highest levels of depression and suicide over the last 50 years also happen to have been the most irreligious. (Soviet bloc, China, Japan, Scandinavia, UK, France, among others) Abortion rates, separation and family discord are all far more prominent in the irreligious west than anywhere else in the world.- 1627

A belief held for psychological reasons leading to an increased probability of psychosis, abusive behavior, depression and suicidal inclination.
If those are not the hallmarks of a delusion, I don’t know what is. – 1641

Contemporary atheism does no resolve in the conclusion that God does not exist as much as it begins with it. – 2270

If the evidence from sociology is not powerful enough, we now have recent studies from the field of psychology which validate the ridiculousness of this fictional psychological pre-disposition to atheism. – 2385

The overwhelming psychological and sociological data does indicate that belief in God is something that emerges from the inside out, not something which is imposed from the outside in. – 2407

These are same parsed, edited and altered "quotes" you have dumped into other threads.

 

[alang1216]

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

Put simply, scientists will tell you that “science works.” If science works, then the universe works. If the universe works then it means that it was made; because what is not made cannot possibly “work.” - Illogical Atheism by Bo Jinn, Kindle, Section 1276

“Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver.” – C.S. Lewis – Section 1267

“Over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.” – Max Planck – Section 418


The past has demonstrated quite clearly that science creates many more mysteries than it explains. – 1370

Professor Andrew Simms, former President of the Royal Institute of Psychiatry in Britain… concludes that religious faith is one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Particularly among Christian adherents in western society, religious practice seems to result in lower levels of stress and depression, better physical health, better interpersonal relationship and family life and a much lower inclination to substance addiction, among other behavioral and mental disorders. The psychiatric data for atheism and agnosticism, on the other hand, appears to run quite in the opposite direction. A number of studies performed by members of the American psychiatric association determine a strong correlation between a “lack of faith” (i.e. atheism) and depression and suicide. – 1614

… those nations with the highest levels of depression and suicide over the last 50 years also happen to have been the most irreligious. (Soviet bloc, China, Japan, Scandinavia, UK, France, among others) Abortion rates, separation and family discord are all far more prominent in the irreligious west than anywhere else in the world.- 1627

A belief held for psychological reasons leading to an increased probability of psychosis, abusive behavior, depression and suicidal inclination.
If those are not the hallmarks of a delusion, I don’t know what is. – 1641

Contemporary atheism does no resolve in the conclusion that God does not exist as much as it begins with it. – 2270

If the evidence from sociology is not powerful enough, we now have recent studies from the field of psychology which validate the ridiculousness of this fictional psychological pre-disposition to atheism. – 2385

The overwhelming psychological and sociological data does indicate that belief in God is something that emerges from the inside out, not something which is imposed from the outside in. – 2407

An unconvincing list of half-truths and misconceptions. Here is but one example of your dishonesty:

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)​

Creationist quote mine​

Religious creationists are known for quote mining Løvtrup's book, usually the following single line:

“”I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.[6]

The quote is taken out of context. Whilst it is true Løvtrup was a non-Darwinian and a critic of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, he was not rejecting the fact of evolution. His book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987) is a discussion on the mechanisms on evolution, not denying or questioning the fact of evolution like the creationists claim. Unfortunately creationists are known for setting up a straw man definition of evolution and erroneously equating evolution with "Darwinism".

 

[Hollie]

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

Put simply, scientists will tell you that “science works.” If science works, then the universe works. If the universe works then it means that it was made; because what is not made cannot possibly “work.” - Illogical Atheism by Bo Jinn, Kindle, Section 1276

“Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver.” – C.S. Lewis – Section 1267

“Over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.” – Max Planck – Section 418


The past has demonstrated quite clearly that science creates many more mysteries than it explains. – 1370

Professor Andrew Simms, former President of the Royal Institute of Psychiatry in Britain… concludes that religious faith is one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Particularly among Christian adherents in western society, religious practice seems to result in lower levels of stress and depression, better physical health, better interpersonal relationship and family life and a much lower inclination to substance addiction, among other behavioral and mental disorders. The psychiatric data for atheism and agnosticism, on the other hand, appears to run quite in the opposite direction. A number of studies performed by members of the American psychiatric association determine a strong correlation between a “lack of faith” (i.e. atheism) and depression and suicide. – 1614

… those nations with the highest levels of depression and suicide over the last 50 years also happen to have been the most irreligious. (Soviet bloc, China, Japan, Scandinavia, UK, France, among others) Abortion rates, separation and family discord are all far more prominent in the irreligious west than anywhere else in the world.- 1627

A belief held for psychological reasons leading to an increased probability of psychosis, abusive behavior, depression and suicidal inclination.
If those are not the hallmarks of a delusion, I don’t know what is. – 1641

Contemporary atheism does no resolve in the conclusion that God does not exist as much as it begins with it. – 2270

If the evidence from sociology is not powerful enough, we now have recent studies from the field of psychology which validate the ridiculousness of this fictional psychological pre-disposition to atheism. – 2385

The overwhelming psychological and sociological data does indicate that belief in God is something that emerges from the inside out, not something which is imposed from the outside in. – 2407

It's important to identify how dishonest, hyper-religious hacks will edit, parse and alter ''quotes'' they mine from fundie, creationer websites.

We'll start with the first edited, parsed and altered ''quote'' that was copied and pasted by the OP because it's one that has been dumped repeatedly into various forums by the dishonest hacks who have no issue being accomplices to fraud.

Quote #4.10​

[Darwinism cannot explain the origin of species]

We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak. - Orr, H.A. and Coyne, J.A. "The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment," American Naturalist vol. 140, p.726 (1992).

Quote Mine Project: Assorted Quotes

Representative quote miners: Institute for Creation Research: Was Darwin Vindicated?, Stephen E. Jones Creation/Evolution Quotes: Darwinism #3 - Scientific, and Catholic Apologetics International: Is The Earth Old or Young?

[Editor's note: Whether this quote was originally mined by Michael J. Behe, or he just compounded someone else's abuse of Orr and Coyne, the most prominent venue for this quote mine is probably Behe's Darwin's Black Box (1996, New York: The Free Press, p. 29).]

I looked Orr and Coyne's paper up, and as it turns out - and I'm sure this will be to no one's surprise - this quote was taken out of context in a highly misleading way.

Behe uses this quote in a section along with numerous other quotes, in order to support his point that "From Mivart to Margulis, there have always been well-informed, respected scientists who have found Darwinism to be inadequate" (p.30). However, Coyne and Orr are not in any way supporting Behe's view or disagreeing with evolution in general, as Behe strongly implies they are. The topic of Orr and Coyne's paper is the role of different types of mutation in giving rise to evolutionary adaptation. The first sentence of the paper is as follows:

It is a tenet of evolutionary biology that adaptations nearly always result from the substitution of many genes of small effect" (Orr and Coyne, p. 725).

Now here is Behe's quote in context, from the page immediately following that first sentence. Note that he placed a period where there was none originally:

We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak, and there is no doubt that mutations of large effect are sometimes important in adaptation.
We hasten to add, however, that we are not 'macromutationists' who believe that adaptations are nearly always based on major genes. The neo-Darwinian view could well be correct. It is almost certainly true, however, that some adaptations involve many genes of small effect and others involve major genes. The question we address is, How often does adaptation involve a major gene? We hope to encourage evolutionists to reexamine this neglected question and to provide the evidence to settle it" (p. 726).

And more:

The micromutational view of Darwin, Fisher and others is clear: adaptations arise by allelic substitutions of slight effect at many loci, and no single substitution constitutes a major portion of an adaptation. There are, in contrast, at least two forms of macromutationism [reference omitted]. The first is exemplified by the extreme saltationism of Goldschmidt [reference omitted]: single 'systemic mutations' produce important, complex adaptations in essentially perfect form (Goldschmidt believed that systemic mutations were chromosomal rearrangements). As Charlesworth [reference omitted] notes, this 'strong' version of macromutationism is almost certainly wrong. It is highly unlikely that a single mutation could create adaptations as complex as eyes or legs, much less new taxa differing by many adaptations.

 

[Brick Gold]

Nobody knows shit till they know the truth.

 

[ChemEngineer]

“To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler. Hitler tried to speed up evolution, to help it along, and millions suffered and died in unspeakable ways because of it.” -- D. James Kennedy

“Communistic evolution, according to the Senate committee that examined it, is responsible for 135 million deaths in peacetime. There's no religion that has a tiny fraction of that many deaths on its conscience. There are scientists who will admit that there's not one iota of scientific evidence to support it.” -- D. James Kennedy

 

[ChemEngineer]

Non-Darwinian Large Numbers

Atheists delight in feigning smug intellectual superiority over everyone else.
It is their false and abiding claim - being smarter than you simply because they SAY so.

Their next step is to give some "evidence" for their audacious claims which often include or exclude, as it suits their faux argument, large numbers.


It just occurred to me that atheists assert "there are so many billions of stars and billions of planets (we think) that there MUST be intelligent life out there. So we're not so special."

These numbers that atheists are so enamored with are trivial compared with the space (number of possibilities) of polypeptide (protein and enzyme) combinations. Titin is a polypeptide 33,450 amino acid residues in length.
Its original synthesis demanded the selection of 1 amino acid, out of 20 possible to the 33,450 successive times, either in a one-step process, or in thousands of little steps, it doesn't matter. The requirements and statistics don't change.
That calculates to 1 chance in 10 to the 43,519th.
And there are 10,000 polypeptides in the human body.

Amino acids come in two forms, D and L. We are made of the L form, for levorotary, the direction their solutions rotate plane polarized light, to the left. So multiply ½ to the 33,450 times 1 in 10 to the 43,519th. We are now essentially 0 but we’ll make the impossibility more impossible still.

The bonds between amino acids can be peptide or non-peptide bonds with equal probability. So multiply ½ to the 33,450th again, which works out to 1 chance in 10 to the 10,069th by the previous product. This equals 1 chance in 10 to the 63,657th. This doesn't take into account the difficulty of folding the exceedingly long strand, nor does it need to.

So "big numbers" (billions) "prove" their point when they wish, but enormously larger numbers they wave away in one way or another. Little steps to assemble titin, infinite universes to defeat the Anthropic Principle.

Brandon Carter proffered the Anthropic Principle decades ago, showing the precision of some forty or more physical constants, such as the Gravitational Constant, the Fine Structure Constant, and the Electron Proton Mass Ratio, to name but a few.

The Gravitational Constant alone is impossibly precise to within one part in 10 to the 50th, which is impossible from any naturalistic cause. It is just 1 of 40 or more such precise physical constants.

How did atheists handle this insult to their pretensions? Infinite numbers, how else? "There are an infinite number of universes and we just HAPPEN to be in the "right one" !!!

Oh how clever. Decades ago, they averred that God would not have wasted a vast universe just to make mankind. Too wasteful. Now they need an infinite number of these "wasteful" universes to quash the Anthropic Principle, they so foolishly claim.

Don't try to reason with an atheist. They have no idea of the concept.

Here is an example: "Perhaps the reason that there is something instead of nothing is that nothing is unstable."- Professor Frank Wilczek

(Nota bene: This is my own analysis, consisting of my calculations and reasoning. I will include it on two or three of my websites, The Evolution Fraud,
Are Atheists Right and Proof There Is No God, so named to attract atheists where their mendacity and bitterness are refuted by science and other experts.)

 

[james bond]

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. Biology ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable. Environment changes and when organisms are subject to environmental isolation clearly show adaptation, as different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Mutations that are harmful to the process of adaptation usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

So…. Instead of copying and pasting from Harun Yahya, seek help for your emotional attachment and lurid obsession with Richard Dawkins.

No, it doesn't. That's not the way these combinations work. Your scientists assumed that is how it works, but there is no hard evidence for it such as the famed apes to humans chart. Apes are still apes. Humans are still humans. All of the combinations are still possible such as with a deck of cards as we deal out thirteen to each of four people as 13x13x13x13. Thus, combinations for a human trait are limited such as we have with a deck of cards. Life doesn't mutate into some other species by genetic variation. Otherwise, we would find the fossils of mutations that didn't quite have it and the changes of those who were stronger. There would be a larger variation of genes if one species can become another. Instead, we find science backs up creation and that ape fossils remain ape ones and human fossils remain human ones.

 

[Hollie]

No, it doesn't. That's not the way these combinations work. Your scientists assumed that is how it works, but there is no hard evidence for it such as the famed apes to humans chart. Apes are still apes. Humans are still humans. All of the combinations are still possible such as with a deck of cards as we deal out thirteen to each of four people as 13x13x13x13. Thus, combinations for a human trait are limited such as we have with a deck of cards. Life doesn't mutate into some other species by genetic variation. Otherwise, we would find the fossils of mutations that didn't quite have it and the changes of those who were stronger. There would be a larger variation of genes if one species can become another. Instead, we find science backs up creation and that ape fossils remain ape ones and human fossils remain human ones.

Good gawd what ignorance,

 

[Hollie]

Non-Darwinian Large Numbers

Atheists delight in feigning smug intellectual superiority over everyone else.
It is their false and abiding claim - being smarter than you simply because they SAY so.

Their next step is to give some "evidence" for their audacious claims which often include or exclude, as it suits their faux argument, large numbers.


It just occurred to me that atheists assert "there are so many billions of stars and billions of planets (we think) that there MUST be intelligent life out there. So we're not so special."

These numbers that atheists are so enamored with are trivial compared with the space (number of possibilities) of polypeptide (protein and enzyme) combinations. Titin is a polypeptide 33,450 amino acid residues in length.
Its original synthesis demanded the selection of 1 amino acid, out of 20 possible to the 33,450 successive times, either in a one-step process, or in thousands of little steps, it doesn't matter. The requirements and statistics don't change.
That calculates to 1 chance in 10 to the 43,519th.
And there are 10,000 polypeptides in the human body.

Amino acids come in two forms, D and L. We are made of the L form, for levorotary, the direction their solutions rotate plane polarized light, to the left. So multiply ½ to the 33,450 times 1 in 10 to the 43,519th. We are now essentially 0 but we’ll make the impossibility more impossible still.

The bonds between amino acids can be peptide or non-peptide bonds with equal probability. So multiply ½ to the 33,450th again, which works out to 1 chance in 10 to the 10,069th by the previous product. This equals 1 chance in 10 to the 63,657th. This doesn't take into account the difficulty of folding the exceedingly long strand, nor does it need to.

So "big numbers" (billions) "prove" their point when they wish, but enormously larger numbers they wave away in one way or another. Little steps to assemble titin, infinite universes to defeat the Anthropic Principle.

Brandon Carter proffered the Anthropic Principle decades ago, showing the precision of some forty or more physical constants, such as the Gravitational Constant, the Fine Structure Constant, and the Electron Proton Mass Ratio, to name but a few.

The Gravitational Constant alone is impossibly precise to within one part in 10 to the 50th, which is impossible from any naturalistic cause. It is just 1 of 40 or more such precise physical constants.

How did atheists handle this insult to their pretensions? Infinite numbers, how else? "There are an infinite number of universes and we just HAPPEN to be in the "right one" !!!

Oh how clever. Decades ago, they averred that God would not have wasted a vast universe just to make mankind. Too wasteful. Now they need an infinite number of these "wasteful" universes to quash the Anthropic Principle, they so foolishly claim.

Don't try to reason with an atheist. They have no idea of the concept.

Here is an example: "Perhaps the reason that there is something instead of nothing is that nothing is unstable."- Professor Frank Wilczek

(Nota bene: This is my own analysis, consisting of my calculations and reasoning. I will include it on two or three of my websites, The Evolution Fraud,
Are Atheists Right and Proof There Is No God, so named to attract atheists where their mendacity and bitterness are refuted by science and other experts.)

You're certainly Free to copy and paste this ''what are the odds'', nonsense from thread to thread but when you support this nonsense with nothing more than altered, parsed and edited ''quotes'', it makes you appear quite desperate.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Curious as to what the numerous recent posts might be, I clicked the link to show all of them that I have on IGNORE AUTHOR. Not surprisingly, Hateful Hollie shows up in her usual bitter, hostile form, sniffing my underwear at every opportunity and blissfully ignoring the points far over her head, chief of which is the insuperable statistics of original polypeptide synthesis.
Sure, adaptation is real, but it is trivial. Extrapolating adaptation over all life and all time was Darwin's hopeful dream. He had absolutely no idea of what the biochemical complexities were then. We do now, but Darwinists are deaf to them. Deaf and dumb.
Constructing the first titin molecule, 33,450 amino acid residues in length is quite impossible on any naturalistic basis. I originated this precise argument, not anyone else. You will not find it wherever the Lying Queen vaguely claims it was cut and pasted from. Google to your hearts content, please. Oh and there are 10,000 other proteins in humans to contend with. "Select" those......

 

[james bond]

Good gawd what ignorance,

You shouldn't brag so much about yourself. Your SAF stupidity is showing.

 

[Hollie]

Curious as to what the numerous recent posts might be, I clicked the link to show all of them that I have on IGNORE AUTHOR. Not surprisingly, Hateful Hollie shows up in her usual bitter, hostile form, sniffing my underwear at every opportunity and blissfully ignoring the points far over her head, chief of which is the insuperable statistics of original polypeptide synthesis.
Sure, adaptation is real, but it is trivial. Extrapolating adaptation over all life and all time was Darwin's hopeful dream. He had absolutely no idea of what the biochemical complexities were then. We do now, but Darwinists are deaf to them. Deaf and dumb.
Constructing the first titin molecule, 33,450 amino acid residues in length is quite impossible on any naturalistic basis. I originated this precise argument, not anyone else. You will not find it wherever the Lying Queen vaguely claims it was cut and pasted from. Google to your hearts content, please. Oh and there are 10,000 other proteins in humans to contend with. "Select" those......

Such anger from the hyper-religious. Challenging their sacred cows causes them such angst. It's curious how the industry of creationism has evolved. The majority of supernatural creationers grudgingly admit the existence of biological adaptation and variation. That's interesting because the xtian godly creation model presses the belief that all extant life descended from a small group of “kinds” sailing on Noah’s yacht which diversified into all families of biological life on Earth after a global flood which occurred a mere 4,500 years ago. That requires enormous adaptive variation and near-instant speciation.

In order to expand from a few thousand primordial “kinds” to 6.5 million species in just 4,500 years, the number of species would need to double every 400, (or so) years. Do the math and this results in about 45 new species emerging every single day. If the rate of evolutionary change and speciation occurred this rapidly, few species would survive for more than about four centuries without undergoing drastic and noticeable speciation. To explain this silliness, creationers will need to address a period of hyper-evolution immediately following Noah's adventure cruise or they need to identify how 6.5 million species existing today were all crammed onto Noah's yacht.

 

[Hollie]

You shouldn't brag so much about yourself. Your SAF stupidity is showing.

You seem to have missed the incredibly ignorant attempt to compare a deck of cards to biological evolution. Biological organisms evolve. Laminated paper does not.

Run that by the folks at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah and get back to me.