ChemEngineer
Diamond Member
- Feb 5, 2019
- 6,776
- 6,672
- 1,940
- Banned
- #1
I will now create a new thread, viz., "Original Science." We'll see what the Hollies, boys and girls, can present there. Don't hold your breath. - (From Religion Thread)
___________________________________________________________________
In the 1960's, a very fine math teacher, whose name is inconsequential, told his classes, "If you put all the monkeys in the world in a big room with all the typewriters in the world, they would eventually type all the books in the world."
"If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum." – Physicist Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1928
This seemed plausible then and still does today for those who have not examined it carefully.
In point of statistical certainty, monkeys could never type one single page of any book.
Typewriter keyboards have approximately fifty different keys. Including upper case options, this makes roughly one hundred different characters, counting spacing, numbers, case, etc.
For a paragraph of only three hundred characters, the probability of a monkey typing a given text is 1/100 x 1/100 x 1/100... three hundred times. This is equal to 1 in 100 to the 300th power or 1 chance in 10 to the 600th power.
A prominent evolutionary biologist defines "impossible" as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th.
A reasonable definition of "impossible" is one chance in 10 to the 50th power. Ten to the fiftieth grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. Imagine putting on a space suit and climbing aboard a hypothetical sand submarine. Pick one of the spheres and travel around to select your choice of any grain anywhere, but you only get one pick! That is the definition of "one chance in" x number. None of us could pick the one unique grain in a small desert on the first try, let alone all the sand on earth.
Q.E.D. Quod Erat Demonstrandum
_________________
Our high school biology teacher repeated before the class a phrase which originated around 1854 and which has been erroneously perpetuated since that date, viz., "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." This is supposed to provide compelling evidence of Darwinian evolution.
Students in his biology class were incapable of challenging much less refuting that misinformation. We believed it. We embraced it.
From my website:
“To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit ‘to show their similarity’” (Bowden 1977, 128).
Haeckel was exposed by professor L. Rutimeyer of Basle University. He was charged with fraud by five professors, and ultimately convicted in a university court. During the trial, Haeckel admitted that he had altered his drawings, but sought to defend himself by saying:
“I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed” (Bowden, Malcolm. 1977. Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, p. 128)
Despite this conviction of fraud in 1874, Haeckel's drawings and quote have been reproduced into the twentieth century.
Haeckel, like Darwin, promoted scientific racism:
"The Caucasian, or Mediterranean man (Homo Mediterraneus), has from time immemorial been placed at the head of all the races of men, as the most highly developed and perfect." (The History of Creation, by Ernst Haeckel, 6th edition (1914), volume 2, page 429)
__________________________
We will return to the elegance of mathematics to examine the long-standing fraud of humans descending from the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA).
The human body contains at least 20,000 different proteins. The largest one of these is titin, in our muscles. It is composed of a long chain of twenty different amino acids, 33,450 in length.
To compute the probability of any naturalistic (materialistic) construction of the first titin molecule, you must "select" one of twenty amino acids, 33,450 consecutive times. Compute 1/20 to the 33,450th power please. Compare it to 1 in 10 to the 50th power, which is "impossible."
Oh but it gets worse, much, much worse. There are two types (chiralities) of most amino acids, D for "dextrorotary" and L for "levorotary." Our bodies are made of the L form. This compounds the impossibility by 1/2 to the 33,450th power.
There are two kinds of amino acid bonds, peptide and non-peptide. They have an approximately equal likelihood of forming, further compounding the impossibility by 1/2 to the 33,450th power.
There is also the complicating factor of folding the protein. How is this decided?
Multiply this impossible sequence by the more than 20,000 proteins in the human body and compare this science with the "A>B>C>D" you read in biology books describing Darwinian evolution. Science is not alphabeticization as Darwinists like to pretend.
___________
150 Years of Misnamed "Periodic Table of Elements"
In 1869, Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev created what has erroneously called the "periodic table of elements". Adjectives modify the noun immediately following them. When someone gets hit in the eye, we say "The man's black eye," not "the black man's eye." This is the Table of Periodic elements, misnamed by schools, colleges, and scientists everywhere.
The elements are periodic, NOT the table.
__________________________
Wood From Air
___________________________________________________________________
In the 1960's, a very fine math teacher, whose name is inconsequential, told his classes, "If you put all the monkeys in the world in a big room with all the typewriters in the world, they would eventually type all the books in the world."
"If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum." – Physicist Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1928
This seemed plausible then and still does today for those who have not examined it carefully.
In point of statistical certainty, monkeys could never type one single page of any book.
Typewriter keyboards have approximately fifty different keys. Including upper case options, this makes roughly one hundred different characters, counting spacing, numbers, case, etc.
For a paragraph of only three hundred characters, the probability of a monkey typing a given text is 1/100 x 1/100 x 1/100... three hundred times. This is equal to 1 in 100 to the 300th power or 1 chance in 10 to the 600th power.
A prominent evolutionary biologist defines "impossible" as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th.
A reasonable definition of "impossible" is one chance in 10 to the 50th power. Ten to the fiftieth grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. Imagine putting on a space suit and climbing aboard a hypothetical sand submarine. Pick one of the spheres and travel around to select your choice of any grain anywhere, but you only get one pick! That is the definition of "one chance in" x number. None of us could pick the one unique grain in a small desert on the first try, let alone all the sand on earth.
Q.E.D. Quod Erat Demonstrandum
_________________
Our high school biology teacher repeated before the class a phrase which originated around 1854 and which has been erroneously perpetuated since that date, viz., "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." This is supposed to provide compelling evidence of Darwinian evolution.
Students in his biology class were incapable of challenging much less refuting that misinformation. We believed it. We embraced it.
From my website:
“To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit ‘to show their similarity’” (Bowden 1977, 128).
Haeckel was exposed by professor L. Rutimeyer of Basle University. He was charged with fraud by five professors, and ultimately convicted in a university court. During the trial, Haeckel admitted that he had altered his drawings, but sought to defend himself by saying:
“I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed” (Bowden, Malcolm. 1977. Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, p. 128)
Despite this conviction of fraud in 1874, Haeckel's drawings and quote have been reproduced into the twentieth century.
Haeckel, like Darwin, promoted scientific racism:
"The Caucasian, or Mediterranean man (Homo Mediterraneus), has from time immemorial been placed at the head of all the races of men, as the most highly developed and perfect." (The History of Creation, by Ernst Haeckel, 6th edition (1914), volume 2, page 429)
__________________________
We will return to the elegance of mathematics to examine the long-standing fraud of humans descending from the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA).
The human body contains at least 20,000 different proteins. The largest one of these is titin, in our muscles. It is composed of a long chain of twenty different amino acids, 33,450 in length.
To compute the probability of any naturalistic (materialistic) construction of the first titin molecule, you must "select" one of twenty amino acids, 33,450 consecutive times. Compute 1/20 to the 33,450th power please. Compare it to 1 in 10 to the 50th power, which is "impossible."
Oh but it gets worse, much, much worse. There are two types (chiralities) of most amino acids, D for "dextrorotary" and L for "levorotary." Our bodies are made of the L form. This compounds the impossibility by 1/2 to the 33,450th power.
There are two kinds of amino acid bonds, peptide and non-peptide. They have an approximately equal likelihood of forming, further compounding the impossibility by 1/2 to the 33,450th power.
There is also the complicating factor of folding the protein. How is this decided?
Multiply this impossible sequence by the more than 20,000 proteins in the human body and compare this science with the "A>B>C>D" you read in biology books describing Darwinian evolution. Science is not alphabeticization as Darwinists like to pretend.
___________
150 Years of Misnamed "Periodic Table of Elements"
In 1869, Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev created what has erroneously called the "periodic table of elements". Adjectives modify the noun immediately following them. When someone gets hit in the eye, we say "The man's black eye," not "the black man's eye." This is the Table of Periodic elements, misnamed by schools, colleges, and scientists everywhere.
The elements are periodic, NOT the table.
__________________________
Wood From Air
