Scientists Refuting Darwinism

[ChemEngineer]

You're being a world class idiot.

I happen to be an expert on stochastic differential equations, and a PhD in biochemistry. I don't need to "think through" an elementary statistics problem. By inspection, I can tell you straight up YOUR MATH IS WRONG. Things don't work that way. Sorry bud.

You want to go up against me on a math issue? Bring it. You'll be nice and toasty in time for tomorrow's lunch.

Don't waste time bleating, show me your math. So I can show you where you went wrong. You're dealing with molecules in solution. Why don't you start by showing us how YOU calculate how frequently two peptide molecules bump into each other.

1. There are thousands of polypeptides in humans. Thousands.

2. Each one HAD TO BE originally synthesized by some means. The frequency of amino acids "bumping into each other" is quite immaterial in the context of the insuperable statistics of their original assembly.

3. "Peptide" refers to the specific bond between amino acids. You jumped the amino acid gun, PhD.
The speed of a reaction is immaterial to the impossibility of its naturalistic synthesis. Flip a coin or deal cards fast, slow, the probability doesn't change. "Bud."

4. You're "a PhD in biochemistry"? Bad grammar, "bud."

Ciao brutto
You wasted my time bleating.

 

[scruffy]

1. There are thousands of polypeptides in humans. Thousands.

2. Each one HAD TO BE originally synthesized by some means. The frequency of amino acids "bumping into each other" is quite immaterial in the context of the insuperable statistics of their original assembly.

3. "Peptide" refers to the specific bond between amino acids. You jumped the amino acid gun, PhD.
The speed of a reaction is immaterial to the impossibility of its naturalistic synthesis. Flip a coin or deal cards fast, slow, the probability doesn't change. "Bud."

4. You're "a PhD in biochemistry"? Bad grammar, "bud."

Ciao brutto
You wasted my time bleating.

In other words you can't respond because you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

I model chemical kinetics for a living. There is zero chance of you slipping any bullshit by me.

Your math is wrong, and you're wrong

End of story.

 

[scruffy]

.
Flip a coin or deal cards fast, slow, the probability doesn't change.

Yes, actually it does.

IN the right environment.

This is BASIC chemistry, if you were truly a "chemical engineer" you would know this.

Kinetics are subject to long range interactions. Which are not seen until the proper ENVIRONMENTAL conditions are achieved.

Study the Belusov-Zhabotinsky reaction. A Nobel Prize was awarded for its explanation.

 

[scruffy]

Yes, actually it does.

IN the right environment.

This is BASIC chemistry, if you were truly a "chemical engineer" you would know this.

Kinetics are subject to long range interactions. Which are not seen until the proper ENVIRONMENTAL conditions are achieved.

Study the Belusov-Zhabotinsky reaction. A Nobel Prize was awarded for its explanation.

For those interested in the math, study Szekely's "half coins".

 

[scruffy]

the frequency of amino acids "bumping into each other" is quite immaterial in the context of the insuperable statistics of their original assembly.

Yeah really?

You just jumped off the boat? Came through the time tunnel from 1855?

Dude, you're here arguing against a viewpoint which is LONG obsolete, like, dozens of years.

Dumbass, if two molecules don't collide then they don't react. Duh?

Your FIRST order of business is not the reaction kinetics, it's the diffusion radius of the random walk in solution.

Which has attractors. It is HIGHLY non-linear, and YES, the probabilities change just like in physics. If you don't believe me you're not a chemical engineer, you're a dinosaur.

Only dumbass fucktards argue that anything is impossible. The intelligent among us ask "how is it possible".

 

[Dagosa]

1. You haters prattle nonsense and then pat yourselves on the back as if it were substantive when it is
nothing of the sort.

2. Many thousands of scientists and atheists reject Darwin's archaic nonsense on the basis of science, not anything else.
Try to get a grip and discuss science and stop thumping the Bible... for a change.

3. You people don't prattle facts, you just generalize and pretend to know.
Dagosa doesn't even know the difference between "then" and "than."

4. Many of you are on ignore but unfortunately your nonsense continues to peek through
in others' posts and in some of my emails, unfortunately.
Dagosa's ignorance is tragic. I pointed out the grammatical error implicit in the name of "The Periodic Table" and
he jumps the rails and cites mathematics, which has nothing to do with the points I made. Zero.
I have a published inspirational science book, a patent pending on a new tennis racket design, chemical engineering degree, MBA, pilot's license, extensive world travel experience, earned millions, and Mister Big Mouth can't differentiate between "then" and "than."
But, hey, he's got a cute mustache, like so many other homosexuals wear, to hide their stretch marks.

And you don’t know the difference between a lie ( you’re a chem engineer ) and the truth ( you’re a fraud).
You don’t even know the periodic table. And worse, you’re a coward.

 

[Hector12]

Moderator said I should post my thoughts before quoting others'.
Here they are.
1. The Godless Left preaches Darwinism under claim of "fact, fact, fact." That is utterly preposterous in view of the many tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of biochemists, biologists, medical doctors, mathematicians, statisticians, computer experts and other learned people who have studied and continue to study how impossible is the claim of random mutations transmogrifying water dripping on rocks to human beings.

 

[sealybobo]

Oh, but they do. Monkey to man. See the monk monk? Your grandpa?
View attachment 728330
That was the evolution they taught. Cro Magnum man was a plaster caste of part of a skull and a jawbone that they had in a drawer. That stage never existed. And the one with the spear? Extinct! The evolutionary train stopped there!
Google single celled organisms. One celled organisms were always complex otherwise they would not have existed.
Eyes are complex. There was never such a thing as a simple eye.
Google DNA. It is a design incapable of being produced by a pond...

Neanderthals are known to contribute up to 1-4% of the genomes of non-African modern humans, depending on what region of the word your ancestors come from, and modern humans who lived about 40,000 years ago have been found to have up to 6-9% Neanderthal DNA

If we all came from the same tribe of humans that means early humans left Africa, got lighter and fucked other species.

We all came from the same black humanoids. Whites weren't here back in the beginning.

We are all related.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Researchers recently inspected the upper and lower jaw of an ancient European ape. Their conclusions suggest that humanity’s forebearers may have arisen in Europe before migrating to Africa, potentially upending a scientific consensus that has stood since Darwin’s day.

New fossils suggest human ancestors evolved in Europe, not Africa

Experts argue the jaws of an ancient European ape reveal a key human ancestor.

bigthink.com

 

[surada]

Had we known about DNA back then we wouldn't even know the name Darwin now. It proves him wrong...

ChemEngineer

Evolution is at work in African elephants now. Because poachers/predators have killed off elephants with big tusks they have been eliminated from the gene pool. Elephants with small tusks or no tusks are being born.

 

[Leo123]

Neanderthals are known to contribute up to 1-4% of the genomes of non-African modern humans, depending on what region of the word your ancestors come from, and modern humans who lived about 40,000 years ago have been found to have up to 6-9% Neanderthal DNA

If we all came from the same tribe of humans that means early humans left Africa, got lighter and fucked other species.

We all came from the same black humanoids. Whites weren't here back in the beginning.

View attachment 766608We are all related.

So whites are an advancement in human development because blacks came first? What kind of racist thinking is that?

 

[Leo123]

ChemEngineer

Evolution is at work in African elephants now. Because poachers/predators have killed off elephants with big tusks they have been eliminated from the gene pool. Elephants with small tusks or no tusks are being born.

That's more like breeding for specific features in selected species. It has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[alang1216]

That's more like breeding for specific features in selected species. It has nothing to do with evolution.

That is the very definition of Darwinian evolution: a change in the gene pool caused by selection pressure.

 

[sealybobo]

So whites are an advancement in human development because blacks came first? What kind of racist thinking is that?

Oh Im' sure white conservatives believe that's true. If you believe that white men are rightfully 90% of Americas CEO's in the fortune 500 because they are the best and brightest, then you must think that's true.

What percent of America is white man? What percent of ceo's are white men? Why? In a country as diverse as America. Think about it. Indians, Chinese, Japanese, all the hispanics, Now add to that women. In a country as diverse as America, how else do you defend so many CEO's being white men? You must think they are the most intelligent???

We are an advanced mutation that was better at concurring others and taking what wasn't ours.

But hey, it's not over yet. China may become the new superpower. Whites soon will be 49% of the population. But I don't believe that's true because in 1 or 2 generations Indians, Mexicans and other immigrants just assimilate into white society. The only ones who stay who they are is black people. Even they're getting lighter actually.

 

[Dagosa]

That's more like breeding for specific features in selected species. It has nothing to do with evolution.

Hilarious. It has everything to do with evolution and that’s exactly how evolution works. Geesus, poachers aren’t breeding elephants. They are doing what a natural predator would do to any species. What’s you’re story ? “ god” works through poachers ? If you’re going to use the word “ evolution” in a sentence, at least fking look up the meaning of it.

 

[The Irish Ram]

How do you know it never went from simple to complex? You’re making assertions without facts? The earliest organisms were simple and became more complex. Why would DNA be any different? No one says we were ever monkeys. To say that just illustrates your ignorance of the topic.

No, they were not. Single celled amoebas had and still have complex DNA.
There is no sign of the billions and billions of transition animal bones that would have to be here for the # of bones between the original species and the evolved one. We should be walking on them there should be so many.
Adaption of a species is far different than evolving into a completely different species.

 

[Dagosa]

No, they were not. Single celled amoebas had and still have complex DNA.
There is no sign of the billions and billions of transition animal bones that would have to be here for the # of bones between the original species and the evolved one. We should be walking on them there should be so many.
Adaption of a species is far different than evolving into a completely different species.

Only when talking about length of time.
It’s like the comparison of weather to climate. Local weather events are nothing like climate, but with the long term accumulation of weather events, the climate can change.
When one population of a species adapts so much over time it can no longer mate with the parent species, it’s a different species. It doesn’t happen over night.
If a species population doesn’t adapt to changing conditions, it becomes extinct. That is how climate change is related to evolution.

 

[surada]

That's more like breeding for specific features in selected species. It has nothing to do with evolution.

That is evolution.

 

[ChemEngineer]

That is evolution.

Your ignorance is on full display.
"Evolution" is supposed to "select" based solely on improvement for survival, NOT artificially breeding animals to have short legs, long hair, or loose skin. Highly bred animals are weaker and see the veterinarian far more often. You obviously didn't even know that elementary fact.

After Richard Dawkins averred that "evolution's only goal is to perpetuate more of its own breed," one scholar noted that Richard Dawkins, and about eight other atheists combined had fewer offspring than Osama bin Laden. Therefore these atheists were failing at the "evolution" they preach to the world.

Amusing, but facts always fall on deaf ears of atheists and Darwinists.
Incidentally, I have many hateful atheists and Leftists on my Ignore List, but occasionally I get a glimpse of their insane profanity which they obviously think makes their inane arguments more rational, more acceptable. The contrary is true. Scholars do not stand before audiences and sling vulgar epithets and insults, as so many atheists/Leftists/Darwinists do here and elsewhere so often.

The Selection Fraud

selectionfraud.blogspot.com

 

[Hollie]

Your ignorance is on full display.
"Evolution" is supposed to "select" based solely on improvement, NOT artificially breeding animals to have short legs, long hair, or loose skin.

After Richard Dawkins averred that "evolution's only goal is to perpetuate more of its own breed," one scholar noted that Richard Dawkins, and about eight other atheists combined had fewer offspring than Osama bin Laden. Therefore these atheists were failing at the "evolution" they preach to the world.

Amusing but facts always fall on deaf ears of atheists and Darwinists.
Incidentally, I have many hateful atheists and Leftists on my Ignore List, but occasionally I get a glimpse of their insane profanity which they obviously think makes their inane arguments more rational, more acceptable. The contrary is true. Scholars do not stand before audiences and sling vulgar epithets and insults, as so many atheists/Leftists/Darwinists do here and elsewhere so often.

The Selection Fraud

selectionfraud.blogspot.com

The most glaring bit of ineptitude about your understanding of science matters is the stereotypical religious extremist notion of

Evolution" is supposed to "select" based solely on improvement,

The impression you have that it does so literally reeks of something you were taught at your fundamentalist madrassah. If that is the case, you are promoting falsehoods on their behalf. Lay off the fundie creation ministries.

As is so typical for fundamentalist Christians, your revulsion for science is typically connected with a complete lack of schooling on the matters of science.

Evolution is not directional. It does not advance linearly or directionally from simple to complex. The only direction evolution always moves is towards “more fit.” And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target. Natural selection decides what genetic variation promote fitness and similarly, those genetic variations which hinders fitness. It is populations which experience a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer. This results in the corresponding physical traits that promote fitness evolving in the direction of even greater fitness. Genetic variation is constantly being added by mutations on the DNA molecule.

Jeebus H. Christ but it's embarrassing for everyone but you to see you display your complete lack of a science vocabulary as you dump falsehoods and errors that come out of your Sunday snake handling clown show.