Non-Darwinian Wordle

[james bond]

Biological organisms evolve.

We were discussing fossils. So your side says, but where are the "evolving" fossils of apes to humans and why is there C-14 remaining in rocks (to be able to perform radiocarbon dating)? Moreover, where is the ape-human history? Our side has the human history along with the names of people. Your side doesn't even have the first ape-humans. It doesn't even have the latest "evolving" fossils. It's proof evolution isn't science.

 

[Hollie]

We were discussing fossils. So your side says, but where are the "evolving" fossils of apes to humans and why is there C-14 remaining in rocks (to be able to perform radiocarbon dating)? Moreover, where is the ape-human history? Our side has the human history along with the names of people. Your side doesn't even have the first ape-humans. It doesn't even have the latest "evolving" fossils. It's proof evolution isn't science.

The above is proof you never completed a 7th grade biology or earth science class.

You claim something about ''your side'' but your religious extremist side has such silliness as a Flat Earth and a 900 year old man piloting a yacht full of animaks 4,000 years ago. That is a discussion you and faux Chem Engjneer can have.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Today's Wordle in 4

Impossible with Darwinian nonsense of random mutations, which is equivalent to a random pick of letters for next sequence:

 

[Woodznutz]

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

You've just uncovered the fatal flaw in evolution theory.

 

[Woodznutz]

The above is proof you never completed a 7th grade biology or earth science class.

You claim something about ''your side'' but your religious extremist side has such silliness as a Flat Earth and a 900 year old man piloting a yacht full of animaks 4,000 years ago. That is a discussion you and faux Chem Engjneer can have.

People that believe that are better people than those who don't... according to science. "In for a penny, in for a pound."

 

[ChemEngineer]

The ignorance of Darwinists is laid bare by their being confounded by a simplistic two-step process. Magic *selection* ONLY operates on what it has been handed by RANDOM mutations. ONLY THAT.

Whereas I have finished a number of Wordles in two steps, the AVERAGE number of tries for random picks being *selected* Darwin style would be 70,000. This is just for 5 letters!
Consider 33,450 amino acid residues (and ask nummies on my ignore list to explain to you what "amino acid residues" means) which original synthesis would be 1/20 to the 33,450th power. By the way, Titin is just one of about 10,000 polypeptides in the human body.

 

[alang1216]

You've just uncovered the fatal flaw in evolution theory.

Really? Please enlighten me.

 

[alang1216]

Today's Wordle in 4

Impossible with Darwinian nonsense of random mutations, which is equivalent to a random pick of letters for next sequence:

View attachment 716107

Which is why evolution requires 2 parts working together, variation and natural selection. The process is the exact opposite of random.

 

[Woodznutz]

Really? Please enlighten me.

Of the only possible molecular combinations required for the advancement of an organism, evolution/natural selection gets it right the very first time, on time, every time. Methinks the fix is in.

 

[alang1216]

Of the only possible molecular combinations required for the advancement of an organism, evolution/natural selection gets it right the very first time, on time, every time. Methinks the fix is in.

Really? It took us 4 billion years to get to this point and most (95%) of the species that ever lived are extinct.

 

[Woodznutz]

Really? It took us 4 billion years to get to this point and most (95%) of the species that ever lived are extinct.

Those species were fine until killed off by catastrophic events that had nothing to do with evolution.

 

[alang1216]

Those species were fine until killed off by catastrophic events that had nothing to do with evolution.

That's true enough but where did the new species that replaced them come from?

 

[ChemEngineer]

Of the only possible molecular combinations required for the advancement of an organism, evolution/natural selection gets it right the very first time, on time, every time. Methinks the fix is in.

You are confusing adaptation with Darwinian evolution. No, selection almost NEVER gets it right, much less on the "first" try. The overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful or at best useless. Selection is NOT the *magic* Darwinists claim. They have no concept of the complexity of polypeptide synthesis, which drive all plant and animal biochemistry and actions. *Selection* CANNOT operate on anything EXCEPT random mutations. That's it.
Denial avails Darwinists nothing, zero, zip, nada. Magic words are no good.

 

[alang1216]

You are confusing adaptation with Darwinian evolution. No, selection almost NEVER gets it right, much less on the "first" try. The overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful or at best useless. Selection is NOT the *magic* Darwinists claim. They have no concept of the complexity of polypeptide synthesis, which drive all plant and animal biochemistry and actions. *Selection* CANNOT operate on anything EXCEPT random mutations. That's it.
Denial avails Darwinists nothing, zero, zip, nada. Magic words are no good.

Evolution/adaptation is the end product of variation within a population and natural selection pressure on that population. Simple idea really. The overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful or at best useless but they tend to get selected out of a population rather quickly.

 

[Hollie]

The ignorance of Darwinists is laid bare by their being confounded by a simplistic two-step process. Magic *selection* ONLY operates on what it has been handed by RANDOM mutations. ONLY THAT.

Whereas I have finished a number of Wordles in two steps, the AVERAGE number of tries for random picks being *selected* Darwin style would be 70,000. This is just for 5 letters!
Consider 33,450 amino acid residues (and ask nummies on my ignore list to explain to you what "amino acid residues" means) which original synthesis would be 1/20 to the 33,450th power. By the way, Titin is just one of about 10,000 polypeptides in the human body.

The ignorance of religionists is exampled by their profound lack of knowledge regarding biology and the physical sciences.

Biological selection does not operate strictly by RANDOM mutations. That may be the propaganda spewed by the fundie religioner ministries but that is why science is best left to the rational / critical thinkers.

This view of the religionist that genetic change is accidental or RANDOM is fundamentally flawed. Causes of genetic change are being uncovered routinely, and they involve mechanisms that are very far from random. There are very clear causes for the changes, and they can be specified in detail over general cases.

A real engineer would know this.

 

[Hollie]

You are confusing adaptation with Darwinian evolution. No, selection almost NEVER gets it right, much less on the "first" try. The overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful or at best useless. Selection is NOT the *magic* Darwinists claim. They have no concept of the complexity of polypeptide synthesis, which drive all plant and animal biochemistry and actions. *Selection* CANNOT operate on anything EXCEPT random mutations. That's it.
Denial avails Darwinists nothing, zero, zip, nada. Magic words are no good.

Unfortunately, religionists who pretend to be engineers with training in the sciences routinely steal propaganda about polypeptides from creationer ministries and try to pass that off as having some connection to the relevant discussion of biological evolution.

 

[Woodznutz]

The ignorance of religionists is exampled by their profound lack of knowledge regarding biology and the physical sciences.

Biological selection does not operate strictly by RANDOM mutations. That may be the propaganda spewed by the fundie religioner ministries but that is why science is best left to the rational / critical thinkers.

This view of the religionist that genetic change is accidental or RANDOM is fundamentally flawed. Causes of genetic change are being uncovered routinely, and they involve mechanisms that are very far from random. There are very clear causes for the changes, and they can be specified in detail over general cases.

A real engineer would know this.

If that is true then evolution/natural selection must get it right the first time, on time, and every time, else it wouldn't have produced the organisms we see today.

 

[Woodznutz]

Unfortunately, religionists who pretend to be engineers with training in the sciences routinely steal propaganda about polypeptides from creationer ministries and try to pass that off as having some connection to the relevant discussion of biological evolution.

We need to oppose the false religion of evolution, for the good of humanity.

 

[abu afak]

If that is true then evolution/natural selection must get it right the first time, on time, and every time, else it wouldn't have produced the organisms we see today.

Laughably false.
If you said that 20,000 or 200,000 or 200 million years ago it would be different animals than today.

If you randomly throw down 50 pick-up-sticks and call the result "perfect"... it's not
It's just what's left from a haphazard throw.
You'll never duplicate it. It's "perfect." NOT.
(and numerous asteroid hits/mega-volcanos that wiped out '"perfect')

The odds against winning powerball for Emmy Ray Smith of Baltimore are 250 Million to one.
If you look AFTER the drawing they are 100%.
Like you're doing now.
You could have 4 Legs and no eyes (and still only half a brain) and call it 'perfect'... after the fact.

You don't have the IQ for this discussion.

`

 

[Hollie]

People that believe that are better people than those who don't... according to science. "In for a penny, in for a pound."

People who believe the earth is flat, that 900 year old men piloted yachts full of animals while the planet was flooded... ''in for a penny to pay for councelling'.