The Odds of Evolution Are Zero

Townhall.com ^ | JUne 15. 2017 | Jerry Newcombe

[Bob434]

whatever kid goodbye

[Bob434]

for anyone that may still be interested- there is no evidence that most lateral gene transference is anything more than viral infection/colonization resulting in symbiotic relationships and the whole idea that lateral gene transference shows evolution- not even evolution scientists studying that issue agree with that wild claim as pointed out several times already-

[HLPhat]

Read the comments and observe how the Temple of Y.E.D.'s religious dogma is NOT what these young people are using to refute the insanity of "gender studies", Bob:

[I Took a Gender Studies Course

So You Don't Have To]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlGSG0q-Fh4

 

If you want "civil discussion" about science then leave your Y.E.D. Newspeak Dictionary (2017 edit) in the Religion section (Class 200 – Religion) where it belongs.

Science is:  Class 500 – Science.

[aquila48]

“Sorry you missed those discussions.”

Sorry you’re missing out on Myers arguments - you might learn something you didn’t know... or are you one of those “settled science” guys?

[Agamemnon]

And a key point to grasp about Abiogenesis is that under the right conditions, some chemical reactions become not improbable, but inevitable.

Can you provide an example of an "inevitable reaction" that results in an Abiogeneiss event?

Where chemistry can be shown to "complexify" there scientists think may lie a path from chemistry to biology.

Got any particular "scientists" you can point to who speak in terms of "complexifying," or did you just pull this term our of your ass?

I am 35-year career scientist: a biologist, a chemist, and a biochemist with graduate and undergraduate degrees and I can't think of one scientist among the many I know in life sciences who would recognize your terminology or have any idea what you are talking about.

FReegards!

[BroJoeK]

VaeVictis: "Your assuming that evolution is a natural process that occurs.
Sadly, there is no evidence or observed proof that anything has every turned from one animal into another."

Sadly, there are literal mountains of evidence which some people studiously ignore & deny.
What that evidence shows is that most all evolution happens over long periods with many intermediate forms.
Sure, some people pretend there are no intermediate forms, but only by keeping their eyes tightly shut.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Your posts here have been fascinating and entertaining. Whether one agrees or disagrees with your points -- there's little doubt that the the way you make them is highly original and creative.

It's like reading the evolution creation genesis -- or something -- of a thought process .

[BroJoeK]

Then you've deliberately blinded yourself to real science.
I'm on the road today but will give you some references when I get home.

[Heartlander]

With DNA you have information in a symbolic representation and a reading frame code. But beyond this, a formalization of semantic closure would need to be in place prior to the first cell. This cannot just happen by accident. We know DNA has the following

1. Functional Information
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder

DNA contains multi-layered information and metadata (information about how to use the information in the context of the related data) and is a more efficient storage medium than anything we’ve created. So here you have instructional data that must be translated to perform specific functions at specific times (a system that describes itself and interprets its description).

Genes are a symbolic medium - and the semantic closure is the correlation that constrains and conveys what the genes represent. For example, codons only represent amino acids if you have the system in place to interpret the functional relationship of the medium (aaRS).

Consider the data input for a CAD model that is then created (physically expressed) with a 3D printer or rapid prototype machine. Now appreciate the information transfer from an idea, to the symbolic medium of software, to the specific design – the translations that must occur – and the system(s) that must already be in place to interpret the functional relationships with the proper correlation and constraints.

This would be like blind chance creating a new language with an illiterate 'nature' already having the ability to understand (although it is mindless). Keep in mind, this is a language that codes precise plans in a very specific order necessary to manifest this amazing thing we call life.

It's at this point many will state that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. But here's the rub - if initial life had purpose and reason - why would all further iterations of life just be genetic mistakes that lived without reason leading to our human consciousness?

We are left with the question, "Does human consciousness and conscience ultimately come from mindlessness?" and the philosophical ramifications of our response - the worldview that follows...

[Elsie]

Aw...  shucks...

 

[HLPhat]

>>{blah blah blah} the whole idea that lateral gene transference shows evolution { blah blah blah }

Asserts the worshiper of Y.E.D. who doesn't even understand the concept of gene splicing - and pretends Natural Selection and Fitness aren't part of the vocabulary of Evolutionary science.

[HLPhat]

>>Where chemistry can be shown to “complexify”

You mean moving against entropy in the context of increasing one system’s complexity at the expense of another?

[Kickass Conservative]

We will never know as much as we don’t know. PERIOD.

[HLPhat]

>>We will never know as much as we don’t know.

Yeah but that's what makes the inquisitive nature we were created with FUN!

Nothing wrong with trying to understand and appreciate the beautiful intricacy of Creation - until we start worshiping what we ~think, we "know"... and assuming dominion over the faith of others with our ignorance, anyhow.

[Kaslin]

Donald Rumsfeld, is that you?

[Kickass Conservative]

Well, he got lambasted for speaking the Truth, you DO go to War with the Military you have.

The only error was we weren’t dragged into it like WWII.
We chose to go to Iraq with the Military we had, unarmored Humvee’s and all that Jazz.

Just sayin’...

[HLPhat]

>>We chose to go to Iraq

Quack, Waddle...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=halliburton+rebuilding+iraq

DICK!

[Agamemnon]

Then you've deliberately blinded yourself to real science.

Oh here we go again with another stuffed shirt who thinks only he does "real" science. You intellectual pygmies are so predictable.

Real science did away with the concept of abiogenesis with Redi in the 1600's, Pasteur in the 1800s, and with the failures of the Miller-Urey experiments in the 1950's.

Your challenge is to show how you create life from that which is non-life. I'll be particularly interested to see how you over come inherently self-destructive "primordial" environments, or if you even had the sparingly possible success of creating the simplest amino acids, how you would favor selection in all the randomness of biologically active levo- forms from competitively present non-biologically active dextro- forms.

"Complexify" that!

It's OK, we'll just sit back and wait. I'll get the popcorn.

FReegards!

[DungeonMaster]

This would be like blind chance creating a new language with an illiterate 'nature' already having the ability to understand (although it is mindless). Keep in mind, this is a language that codes precise plans in a very specific order necessary to manifest this amazing thing we call life.

The evolution answer is time and chance/trial and error. Before I got saved I believed in the religion of evolution. People barely understand the number 1000 let alone the enormous numbers involved in evolutionary probability so they just believe what they don't understand.

So I watched an evolution video by J Bronowski(sp) about how termites could develop radio telescopes over time if needed. I believed like the little evolution disciple that I was.