The Evolution Fraud

[ChemEngineer]

Hater? Interesting. I expressed no hatred towards those having a belief in an invisible thingy that supposedly, sees all, knows all and can do all (that would be a different topic to challenge). It is distressing that mankind has been killing each other over religion and their rules, for multiple millennium (sic) , when the only rule or law that should be followed would be a simple "do no harm to others."

Where is this "rule or law" that you cite written? Why haven't atheists such as Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao and Pol Pot followed it? They've murdered many more millions and much more recently than the Christians on which you atheists are obsessed.

By the way, the plural of "millennium" is "millennia." Spelling is *hard*. You have an "invisible thingy." It's called "a quantum vacuum." It made everything out of nothing. As invisible and intangible as "thingys" get, but yours is truly imaginary. You call it "science."

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate galaxy, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.

In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. Genesis 1:1 was not.

Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie,”as Christians are so snidely denigrated by atheists), before anyone else.

 

[ReinyDays]

"Reached their optimal performance." ...

I've never heard this argument ... and it's profoundly flawed ... if a plant evolves an insecticide, the insects quickly evolve a tolerance ... this is sometimes likened to an "arms race" ... as Thompson's gazelles get faster, so do cheetahs ... as oaks grow taller, so do maples ...

Evolution is a dynamic process ... the environment is always changing and organisms have to change with it or die out ...

Welcome home, ChemEngineer ... just because I disagree with you on everything doesn't mean I don't like you ...

 

[LuckyDuck]

Once in a great while someone comes along with the supposed argument of..."why hasn't the shark (insert creature name here) continued to evolve as it hasn't changed for supposedly millions of years. To that, one needs to understand that whichever of those creatures are named, they did evolve, until they achieved that form and performance to have reached their optimal performance in that state (i.e., the shark doesn't need to further advance, as it has reached its potential as a underwater predator).

"Reached their optimal performance." And WHO determines what is "optimal performance" and what is not? YOU? Please provide a very long list of species that today have reached their "optimal performance" and how you arrived at that assessment, which does NOT follow from the number of millions of years that they have remained unchanged. To claim that they're at "optimal performance" because they simply remain unchanged is begging the question.

In every nature show, the commentator ALWAYS remarks how any given animal "is perfectly adapted to its habitat or environment." All of them being "perfectly adapted" then don't need to further "evolve," do they. But alas, how does random mutation know when to stop? And the magic wand of "selection" - tiny steps, says Richard Dawkins. Tiny steps. They just keep adding up, except when you and others say they no longer did, for a few hundred million years....

1. You need to stop looking at species in terms of tens, hundreds or, thousands of years. In the case of evolution, we're dealing with "gradual" changes in creatures over "millions" of years. If in an experiment, you could have the son or daughter of two world class runners, mate with another world class runner...and so on....down the lineage, over time, there would be actual physical changes in subsequent generations bodies to be better modified to run faster than other humans. Again, remember, we're not talking in the short term of hundreds of years. Over at least tens of thousands of years, these descendants would start developing lower limbs that would have made them superior to other humans. If one looks at how people migrated, at some point, Sherpas who live in higher elevations than your average human, have, over many generations, had physical changes that allow them to survive in those higher elevations, whereas your average individual couldn't handle this. Another example are the Eskimos or Aleuts, that have various altered features that allow them to deal with the extreme, better than the peoples of warmer climates. These peoples, over time, migrated to these areas and their bodies changed to adapt to the climate they settled in (although frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to settle in the Arctic Circle).
2. The evolution of the horse has been studied very well. At one time, it was short, squat and had toes, but over millennia, it grew larger, more sleek to allow for faster running and its feet fused to eventually become hooves, to allow for even faster running. Whether you're talking sharks, squid, cheetahs, lions, horses, insects, or humans, a species will only change to the point at which it becomes most successful in its environment.
3. This penchant for the religious to say that, because we don't have "all" the answers, we must insert an invisible, all-knowing, all-seeing, can do everything, being(s) that did it all and watches over us...and...object to various well-founded "scientific" theories, based upon over a hundred years of studies, does a disservice to all who are actively trying to learn more of not just our ancestral heritage, but that of other creatures, large and small. It simply comes from a place of ignorance and refusal to learn.

 

[Hollie]

Hater? Interesting. I expressed no hatred towards those having a belief in an invisible thingy that supposedly, sees all, knows all and can do all (that would be a different topic to challenge). It is distressing that mankind has been killing each other over religion and their rules, for multiple millennium (sic) , when the only rule or law that should be followed would be a simple "do no harm to others."

Where is this "rule or law" that you cite written? Why haven't atheists such as Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao and Pol Pot followed it? They've murdered many more millions and much more recently than the Christians on which you atheists are obsessed.

By the way, the plural of "millennium" is "millennia." Spelling is *hard*. You have an "invisible thingy." It's called "a quantum vacuum." It made everything out of nothing. As invisible and intangible as "thingys" get, but yours is truly imaginary. You call it "science."

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate galaxy, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.

In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. Genesis 1:1 was not.

Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie,”as Christians are so snidely denigrated by atheists), before anyone else.

It's truly profoundly disturbing when religious extremists try to pass the Bibles off as science texts.

Contrary to their pretensions, science advanced in spite of the church.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Hater? Interesting. I expressed no hatred towards those having a belief in an invisible thingy that supposedly, sees all, knows all and can do all (that would be a different topic to challenge). It is distressing that mankind has been killing each other over religion and their rules, for multiple millennium (sic) , when the only rule or law that should be followed would be a simple "do no harm to others."

Where is this "rule or law" that you cite written? Why haven't atheists such as Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao and Pol Pot followed it? They've murdered many more millions and much more recently than the Christians on which you atheists are obsessed.

By the way, the plural of "millennium" is "millennia." Spelling is *hard*. You have an "invisible thingy." It's called "a quantum vacuum." It made everything out of nothing. As invisible and intangible as "thingys" get, but yours is truly imaginary. You call it "science."

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate galaxy, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.

In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. Genesis 1:1 was not.

Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie,”as Christians are so snidely denigrated by atheists), before anyone else.

It's truly profoundly disturbing when religious extremists try to pass the Bibles off as science texts.

Contrary to their pretensions, science advanced in spite of the church.

Yeah. One need only look at what happened to Galileo when he had the audacity to claim to the church that the Earth wasn't the "center of the universe." Islam is a modern example of ignorance and religion dictating peoples lives. Religion should never have much influence over a government; once it does, it is a quick step towards being murderous in the name of religion.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Yeah. One need only look at what happened to Galileo when he had the audacity to claim to the church that the Earth wasn't the "center of the universe." Islam is a modern example of ignorance and religion dictating peoples lives. Religion should never have much influence over a government; once it does, it is a quick step towards being murderous in the name of religion.

You're right up to the minute citing Galileo, aren't you! By golly millions killed and all Galileo's fault.
Joseph Stalin is considerably more recent than Galileo, but you don't want to talk about murderous atheists like Stalin and the even more murderous Chairman Mao, fascists both. Fascism is thoroughly Leftist. Read Liberal Fascism, if you're man enough. I'll pay for your copy, with U.S. currency that reads "IN GOD WE TRUST" ..... ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[Hollie]

Yeah. One need only look at what happened to Galileo when he had the audacity to claim to the church that the Earth wasn't the "center of the universe." Islam is a modern example of ignorance and religion dictating peoples lives. Religion should never have much influence over a government; once it does, it is a quick step towards being murderous in the name of religion.

You're right up to the minute citing Galileo, aren't you! By golly millions killed and all Galileo's fault.
Joseph Stalin is considerably more recent than Galileo, but you don't want to talk about murderous atheists like Stalin and the even more murderous Chairman Mao, fascists both. Fascism is thoroughly Leftist. Read Liberal Fascism, if your man enough. I'll pay for your copy, with U.S. currency that reads "IN GOD WE TRUST" ..... ha ha ha ha ha ha

The flaw with that tirade about Atheists is with not understanding that Atheism is a byproduct of the political ideology of communism / Stalinism. By golly, Stalin, Mao and those like them were sociopaths who used a political ideology as a vehicle for their mental illness.

"We" don't trust in gods. You gawd awful Christian folks have done enough harm to humanity in the name of your religion.

 

[ReinyDays]

Is human violence against one another by any other cause more just? ...

 

[Newtonian]

Indeed ,

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Indeed, fraud of evolutionists includes lack of doing the math - excellent point.

Another ball park estimate:

1. 10^79 amu mass of visible universe (Eddington's old estimate) (atomic mass units) [compare to your 10^80 estimate].

2. Fastest possible chemical reaction time - much less that 10^24 per second (derived from the time is takes light to traverse the nucleus of an atom) [compare to your 10^43 units of Planck time]

3. Age of universe in seconds. Based on a 14 billion year age of universe = 1.4 x 10^10. Times the number of seconds in a year [60 per minute; 60 minutes per hour; 24 hours per day; 365 days per year = 60x60x24x365 = 31,536,000 seconds in a year - please check my math.
rounding up to 100 million = <10^8 seconds per year, 10^18 seconds since universe began x 10^24 chemical reactions per second = 10^42 chemical reactions in our universe since our universe began.

So, the highest possible number of chemical reactions in our universe since our universe began is much less than 10^42 chemical reactions times c. 10^79 atoms (most atoms are more massive than 1 amu) yields <10^121 chemical reactions in our universe since our universe began.

Most estimates of probability of statistical (not informational) protein synthesis are based required organic soup + required atmosphere and only a few factors in steps from the fictional soup to proteins. Estimates vary wildly because some estimates are based on only a few (or even only one like chirality) so you will get low estimates like 10^21 and higher estimates taking more factors into consideration - as in your 10^150 quoted estimate.

I will detail this later, but the larger the universe, or the number of universes, does not change the rate of statistical protein synthesis per 10^79 amu sector. The problem of one protein synthesized in Andromeda galaxy meeting up with one protein synthesized in Milky Way 10,000 years earlier (or later) is always ignored by chemical evolutionists - but these two proteins have to be in the same place at the same time to produce the simplest possible protein chain of only 2 proteins!

Also, the law of large numbers is often ignored by chemical evolutionists. The larger the universe, or number of universes, the larger the number of trials. And the larger the number of trials the less the standard deviation from predicted probability.

This is especially true when multiple interdependent steps are involved - like the need for steps from HCN to any specific amino acid. The larger the number of steps also increases the strength of the law of large numbers.

In fact, this is why the results of chemical reactions are predictable - a very large number of atoms are involved.

 

[Newtonian]

Chem: Wow! Just browsing thread posts I find most ignore your math, and those posting on probability and statistics have ignored the multiple steps involved including the law of large numbers.

And the rate of synthesis per mass is also ignored - e.g. the rate in units of time per galaxy.

Has anyone addressed the fact that the universe is not made up of an organic soup that would allow for amino acid synthesis much less protein synthesis? E.g. even the simplest organic molecules required cannot exist within stars.

Has anyone addressed the geological (and chemical) evidence that the proposed mythical organic soup never existed on planet earth? Or has anyone found evidence that such an organic soup ever existed on any 'earthlike' planet?

 

[Hollie]

Chem: Wow! Just browsing thread posts I find most ignore your math, and those posting on probability and statistics have ignored the multiple steps involved including the law of large numbers.

And the rate of synthesis per mass is also ignored - e.g. the rate in units of time per galaxy.

Has anyone addressed the fact that the universe is not made up of an organic soup that would allow for amino acid synthesis much less protein synthesis? E.g. even the simplest organic molecules required cannot exist within stars.

Has anyone addressed the geological (and chemical) evidence that the proposed mythical organic soup never existed on planet earth? Or has anyone found evidence that such an organic soup ever existed on any 'earthlike' planet?

The obvious flaw with creationist / supernaturalist claim “the odds are too great” is that the stereotypical creationist argument relies on math they don't understand and biology they find on religious extremist websites.

Firstly, the silly chemical religionist “calculation of odds” assumes that the biological conditions formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the chemical religionist ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously,

As we see consistently, the religious extremists are unable to make any affirmative case for their gods and so are left to attack science with meaningless "what are the odds", memes that ignore some very basic elements of biology.

 

[Hollie]

Yeah. One need only look at what happened to Galileo when he had the audacity to claim to the church that the Earth wasn't the "center of the universe." Islam is a modern example of ignorance and religion dictating peoples lives. Religion should never have much influence over a government; once it does, it is a quick step towards being murderous in the name of religion.

You're right up to the minute citing Galileo, aren't you! By golly millions killed and all Galileo's fault.
Joseph Stalin is considerably more recent than Galileo, but you don't want to talk about murderous atheists like Stalin and the even more murderous Chairman Mao, fascists both. Fascism is thoroughly Leftist. Read Liberal Fascism, if you're man enough. I'll pay for your copy, with U.S. currency that reads "IN GOD WE TRUST" ..... ha ha ha ha ha ha

Religious extremists fail to understand that the slogan "in god we trust" was a disassembly of the separation of church and state under Eisenhower in the 1950's during the cold war. The Founding Fathers motto of "E Pluribus Unum" was changed to "In God We Trust" and placing "Under God" in the pledge-- both done in the 1950's and contrary to the principle of separation of church and state.

ha ha ha ha ha ha.

 

[Newtonian]

1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

That's nuts ... 1 in 10 to the 150th power isn't anywhere close to zero ... for a chemical engineer, you sure have an odd sense of what is small ... yeesh ... and your artistic talents come in short ... you're asking the wrong question ...

It doesn't matter how small the odds are of an enzyme forming in any given Planck Time Unit (PTU) ... given enough PTU's, the formation of this enzyme at least once approaches certainty, and we certainly have enough PTU's ... and thus our basic assumption, once is enough ... for example: the odds of rolling a four with a die is 1 in 6 ... but what are the odds of rolling a four at least once in a billion rolls ... not certainty, but close ... or a better example, a kilogram of methane in a vessel at 1 atmosphere pressure and 100ºC, what are the odds of absolutely NO ethane forming? ...

Now do your mathing again, this time instead of a 34,350 amino acid protein, only use the 21 enzymes needed to form this protein, the same enzymes to form any protein ... you're a chemical engineer, you should know this ...

rainy days - Thank you for commenting specifically on the math involved. Everyone, including you, oversimplifies the formation of an enzyme. That's because there are too many variable factors - I will start with just one for now:

1. A primordial soup. Most calculations of probability involve the likelihood of a primordial soup capable of synthesizing the 20 amino acids required for life. Chemical evolutionists usually deceive the public in that they fail to note that different environments are required for the synthesis of specific amino acids. And even in any one theorized environment postulated by evolutionists the probability of certain amino acids are far lower than other amino acids. The law of large numbers is why the proportions of the chemical reaction products is predictable and proven by repeated experiments.

The different environments cannot exist at the same time and same place - see my amino acid synthesis thread for more detail - but the main point is that some amino acids require wet while others require dry - some even with condensing agents. Ditto cold vs. hot and acid vs base (alkaline).

For example, in the famous Miller-Urey experiment, reports of the results are filled with fraud as per thread title. Very few sources give the chemical reaction product proportion results in their simulated environment which included Methane (CH4); ammonia (NH3); hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O) and spark discharge (simulating lightning).

I have posted the following chemical reaction product proportion list with formic acid, the predominant product synthesized by Miller as the basis for proportion comparison (i.e. formic acid is proportion 1000). Note that the list would be meaningless if the law of large numbers was not involved - otherwise the results would be wildly variant and any one synthesis experiment would have unpredictable product proportions, but at least scientists admit that the proportions are predicable. Here is the list:

(After S. Miller, 1974. Origins of Life 5, 139.) Biologically relevant amino acids an> written in italics. •Yields are relative to formic acid and presented in descending order.
Formic acid - 1000
Glycine - 270
Glycolic acid - 240
Alanine - 146
133 64 64 56 24 21 21 21 17
Lactic acid - 133
beta-Alanine - 64
Acetic acid - 64
Propionic acid - 56
Iminodiacetic acid - 24
Sarcosine - 21
a·Amino-n-butyric acid - 21
a-Hydroxybutyric acid - 21
Succinic acid - 17
Urea - 17
Iminoaceticpropionic acid - 9
N-Methyl urea - 6
N-Methylalanine - 6
Glutamic acid - 4
Aspartic acid - 3.2
a·Aminoisobutyric acid - 0.4

So, how many of you are actually willing to compare this proportion list with the actual amino acids in proteins? Time will tell - take your time you all.

And have any of you found a scientific journal (or paper, etc.) that actually gives the chemical reaction product proportion list in the famous Miller-Urey experiment - i.e. any science source not guilty of this cover-up fraud?

 

[Newtonian]

To help you all, see this list of the 20 amino acids in proteins which specifies the variant properties that is why different environments are needed for their synthesis:

Amino Acids Reference Chart

Amino acid reference chart contains the twenty amino acids found in eukaryotes, grouped according to their side chains and charge. Discover our full product line of amino acids, including Alanine, Isoleucine, Leucine, Valine, Phenylalanine, Tryptophan, Tyrosine, Aspargine, Cysteine, Glutamine...

www.sigmaaldrich.com

 

[Newtonian]

OK, I know I posted this list on this thread - not sure why I can't find it - but here is the list of the 20 amino acids in proteins again:

1. alanine - ala - A
2. arginine - arg - R
3. asparagine - asn - N
4. aspartic acid - asp - D
5. cysteine - cys - C
6. glutamine - gln - Q
7. glutamic acid - glu - E
8. glycine - gly - G
9. histidine - his - H
10. isoleucine - ile - I
11. leucine - leu - L
12. lysine - lys - K
13. methionine - met - M
14. phenylalanine - phe - F
15. proline - pro - P
16. serine - ser - S
17. threonine - thr - T
18. tryptophan - trp - W
19. tyrosine - tyr - Y
20. valine - val - V

 

[Weatherman2020]

Rocks and whatever elements you wish to add from the Periodic Table will not eventually write a Concerto, no matter how long you wait.

 

[Hollie]

1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

That's nuts ... 1 in 10 to the 150th power isn't anywhere close to zero ... for a chemical engineer, you sure have an odd sense of what is small ... yeesh ... and your artistic talents come in short ... you're asking the wrong question ...

It doesn't matter how small the odds are of an enzyme forming in any given Planck Time Unit (PTU) ... given enough PTU's, the formation of this enzyme at least once approaches certainty, and we certainly have enough PTU's ... and thus our basic assumption, once is enough ... for example: the odds of rolling a four with a die is 1 in 6 ... but what are the odds of rolling a four at least once in a billion rolls ... not certainty, but close ... or a better example, a kilogram of methane in a vessel at 1 atmosphere pressure and 100ºC, what are the odds of absolutely NO ethane forming? ...

Now do your mathing again, this time instead of a 34,350 amino acid protein, only use the 21 enzymes needed to form this protein, the same enzymes to form any protein ... you're a chemical engineer, you should know this ...

rainy days - Thank you for commenting specifically on the math involved. Everyone, including you, oversimplifies the formation of an enzyme. That's because there are too many variable factors - I will start with just one for now:

1. A primordial soup. Most calculations of probability involve the likelihood of a primordial soup capable of synthesizing the 20 amino acids required for life. Chemical evolutionists usually deceive the public in that they fail to note that different environments are required for the synthesis of specific amino acids. And even in any one theorized environment postulated by evolutionists the probability of certain amino acids are far lower than other amino acids. The law of large numbers is why the proportions of the chemical reaction products is predictable and proven by repeated experiments.

The different environments cannot exist at the same time and same place - see my amino acid synthesis thread for more detail - but the main point is that some amino acids require wet while others require dry - some even with condensing agents. Ditto cold vs. hot and acid vs base (alkaline).

For example, in the famous Miller-Urey experiment, reports of the results are filled with fraud as per thread title. Very few sources give the chemical reaction product proportion results in their simulated environment which included Methane (CH4); ammonia (NH3); hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O) and spark discharge (simulating lightning).

I have posted the following chemical reaction product proportion list with formic acid, the predominant product synthesized by Miller as the basis for proportion comparison (i.e. formic acid is proportion 1000). Note that the list would be meaningless if the law of large numbers was not involved - otherwise the results would be wildly variant and any one synthesis experiment would have unpredictable product proportions, but at least scientists admit that the proportions are predicable. Here is the list:

(After S. Miller, 1974. Origins of Life 5, 139.) Biologically relevant amino acids an> written in italics. •Yields are relative to formic acid and presented in descending order.
Formic acid - 1000
Glycine - 270
Glycolic acid - 240
Alanine - 146
133 64 64 56 24 21 21 21 17
Lactic acid - 133
beta-Alanine - 64
Acetic acid - 64
Propionic acid - 56
Iminodiacetic acid - 24
Sarcosine - 21
a·Amino-n-butyric acid - 21
a-Hydroxybutyric acid - 21
Succinic acid - 17
Urea - 17
Iminoaceticpropionic acid - 9
N-Methyl urea - 6
N-Methylalanine - 6
Glutamic acid - 4
Aspartic acid - 3.2
a·Aminoisobutyric acid - 0.4

So, how many of you are actually willing to compare this proportion list with the actual amino acids in proteins? Time will tell - take your time you all.

And have any of you found a scientific journal (or paper, etc.) that actually gives the chemical reaction product proportion list in the famous Miller-Urey experiment - i.e. any science source not guilty of this cover-up fraud?

I think the problem religious supernaturalists have with understanding biology and the origins of life is that their arguments come from religious extremist websites that have an obvious agenda to denigrate science. I note that exclusively, the extremists make no positive argument in favor of their respective gods but resort to the stereotypical “amino acids” and “primordial soup” argument which is standard creationist behavior.

Note that the Watchtower Bible Tract” (JW’s), are notorious for the spread of misinformation regarding evolution and biology.

CB010.2: Origin of the first cells

www.talkorigins.org

Claim CB010.2:
The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance. (See also Probability of abiogenesis.)

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44.

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69.
Response:

1. Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.
   
   
2. Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).
   
   
3. This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:
   
   • Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.
   • Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
   • Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
   • Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
   • The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).
   • Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
   • Something that no one has thought of yet.

Links:
Robinson, Richard. 2005. Jump-starting a cellular world: Investigating the origin of life, from soup to networks. PLoS Biology 3(11): e396.http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030396

 

[Newtonian]

Rocks and whatever elements you wish to add from the Periodic Table will not eventually write a Concerto, no matter how long you wait.

So true! And the fact is that if you do get a peptide and you wait, the peptide will degrade via entropy. Not to mention the degradation of informational molecules including the process of death of life. It doesn't go the other way without an intelligent chemist superior to human chemists.

 

[ReinyDays]

Thank you Hollie ... a far better explanation than I could ever come up with ...

The creations are asking something akin to when JFK stated in 1961 he wanted us on the Moon, why didn't we have the Space Shuttle up and running in 1962? ... what they're asking here is how a 5,000 unit poly-peptide could form from basic hydrates ...

No, we don't have our self-catalyzing molecule in hand, but it's up to creationists to prove it can't exist ... so far they've failed ... and continue to buy food at their local grocery store ...

 

[Hollie]

Rocks and whatever elements you wish to add from the Periodic Table will not eventually write a Concerto, no matter how long you wait.

So true! And the fact is that if you do get a peptide and you wait, the peptide will degrade via entropy. Not to mention the degradation of informational molecules including the process of death of life. It doesn't go the other way without an intelligent chemist superior to human chemists.

One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion with biological evolution and "abiogenesis," roughly equivalent to the origin of life. It is quite simple to point out that evolutionary biology is the study of life, and not the origin of life. And, there is no particular reason that evolutionary theory need be concerned with the origin of life.

Claims to a supernatural chemist are rather pointless when the supernaturalists can offer no rational argument for such a supernatural chemist.

So, the molecules of life were known to be quite ordinary matter. Astronomers discovered that not only were these carbon compounds common throughout the solar system, they are common through out the universe.

The discussion of the earliest molecular catalysis, peptides, genetic material, and (don't forget) lipid membranes, goes far beyond what the supernaturalist creationists can attribute to their supernatural creator chemists but I can point out that nothing in chemistry has ever been shown to have supernatural / magical elements.