Original Science

[alang1216]

That's approximately the time man has left here on earth, 40 years.

Tempis fugat! What happens in 40 years?

 

[Hollie]

Here is an original science theory nobody has ever propounded or perhaps even considered.
Brilliant scientists around the world believe that Nature's God, as He is called in our Declaration of Independence, created the universe for us humans.

Given that very reasonable premise, does it not follow that Nature's God knew how much fossil fuel we would need?
There is approximately 40 years of crude oil remaining underground.

That's approximately the time man has left here on earth, 40 years. Don't bother with electric vehicles. Most electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, but the Cultists never think things through. They just scream and complain and panic, and pretend to be better than everyone else.

Oh, gawd. Another ''end of the world'', cultist.

 

[ChemEngineer]

I have about a dozen or more folks on my ignore list. I have periodically removed some of them from my ignore list — for one misbegotten reason or another. So, I sometimes see their posts after banishing them to the phantom zone.

Also, the Board programming allows us to selectively choose to view an ignored member’s posts if we get curious for some reason.

Now back on topic. Or not. The topic and the arguments are all flying largely over my head. But I’ll take a small stab at it.

Natural selection boils down to the proposition that some genetic differences (mutations) occur which provide some benefit to an organism or animal (or plant for that matter). It increases the ability of that organism to survive and reproduce. The non-mutated organisms don’t have the particular benefit, so their chances of survival and reproduction are not as good.

Eventually the mutated variety is the only one that survives over the generations.

I’m not sure why this notion is considered either confusing or worthy of much dispute. But I’m not a scientist. So, in layman’s terms what exactly is the basis for the controversy?

The basis for the controversy is deep and wide. You have to wade through a great many sources and read their various critiques to see how superficial and unscientific is "mutation and selection." While it sounds plausible, there is a very popular saying, viz., "The devil is in the details."

Every nature show you watch describes animals which are "perfectly ADAPTED (not evolved), ADAPTED to their environment."

If you extrapolate trivial adaptations to absurd levels, taking bacteria to one-celled animals and then to insects, lizards, birds and mammals, you have Darwinism. However when confronted with insurmountable obstacles, Darwinists invariably back down to something much simpler: "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allelle frequencies." Yeah, right. That's not "all they're saying" by any stretch. Here is the best example of how wrong it is.
Titin is the largest protein in your body at 33,450 amino acid residues in length. How did magical "mutation followed by selection" pick 1 out of 20 amino acids, in L-form, binding it with a polypeptide bond to the next particular 1 out of 20 possible amino acids, 33,450 consecutive times for the first sequence?
Let me give you the probability of that. It is 1/20 to the 33,450th times 1/2 to the 33, 450th, times 1/2 to the 33,450th which works out to 1 chance in 10 to the 64,000th power.

Impossible is defined by a mathematician who was an authority on statistics as 1 chance in 10 to the 50th. Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, defines it as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power.

Then there are 20,000 other different proteins in the human body.

Can I get some "mutation and selection" discussions for each of those please?

 

[Hollie]

The basis for the controversy is deep and wide. You have to wade through a great many sources and read their various critiques to see how superficial and unscientific is "mutation and selection." While it sounds plausible, there is a very popular saying, viz., "The devil is in the details."

Every nature show you watch describes animals which are "perfectly ADAPTED (not evolved), ADAPTED to their environment."

If you extrapolate trivial adaptations to absurd levels, taking bacteria to one-celled animals and then to insects, lizards, birds and mammals, you have Darwinism. However when confronted with insurmountable obstacles, Darwinists invariably back down to something much simpler: "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allelle frequencies." Yeah, right. That's not "all they're saying" by any stretch. Here is the best example of how wrong it is.
Titin is the largest protein in your body at 33,450 amino acid residues in length. How did magical "mutation followed by selection" pick 1 out of 20 amino acids, in L-form, binding it with a polypeptide bond to the next particular 1 out of 20 possible amino acids, 33,450 consecutive times for the first sequence?
Let me give you the probability of that. It is 1/20 to the 33,450th times 1/2 to the 33, 450th, times 1/2 to the 33,450th which works out to 1 chance in 10 to the 64,000th power.

Impossible is defined by a mathematician who was an authority on statistics as 1 chance in 10 to the 50th. Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, defines it as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power.

Then there are 20,000 other different proteins in the human body.

Can I get some "mutation and selection" discussions for each of those please?

Considering where we are starting from with their this particular religionist, I thought it best to start with a text containing lots of pictures with pretty colors.

 

[ReinyDays]

Still too small ... please use LARGE font size and maybe hit the "bold" button for us old folks ...

What part of Robert Watson's textbook on the chemical basis of life do you disagree with? ... which protein is NOT created with a DNA template (either nucleic or mitachondrial) ... and let's use fruit flies or even algae ... something with a quick reproductive rate ... we want a billion generations is a hurry ...