Posted on 06/15/2017 12:50:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
Zero times anything is zero. The odds of life just happening by chance are zero.
This universe just springing into being by chance is impossible. It takes a leap of blind faith to believe in evolution, unguided or guided. Of course, there are tiny changes within kinds. It seems to me usually when the evolutionists make their case, they point to these tiny changes.
The analogies to the improbability of evolution by a random process are endless.
A hurricane blows through a junkyard and assembles a fully functioning 747 jet.
Scrabble pieces are randomly spilled out on the board, and they spell out the Declaration of Independence word for word. (Source: Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt).
A monkey sits at a typewriter and types thousands of pages. He types out word for word, with no mistakes, the entire works of Shakespeare.
The odds against our universe, of the earth, of the creation, to have just come into being with no intelligent design behind the grand scheme are greater than all of these impossible scenarios.
Forget the works of Shakespeare. What are the odds of a monkey randomly typing away simply spelling the 9-letter word “evolution” by chance? That doesn’t sound too hard, does it?
Dr. Scott M. Huse, B.S., M.S., M.R.E., Th.D., Ph.D., who holds graduate degrees in computer science, geology, and theology, wrote a book about creation/evolution back in the early 1980s, The Collapse of Evolution. Huse has done extensive study on these questions of random probability. I had the privilege of interviewing him about it for Dr. D. James Kennedy’s television special, “The Case for Creation” (1988). It was a type of Scopes Trial in reverse---filmed on location in Tennessee, in the very courtroom where the 1925 monkey trial took place.
Later, Huse created a computer program to see what are the odds of a monkey typing the word “evolution”? He notes that the odds are 1 in 5.4 trillion, which statistically is the same thing as zero. Any casino that offered such horrible odds would lose customers quickly, because no one would ever win. Forgive my bluntness, but the suckers have to win something before they start losing big.
Here’s what Scott told me in an email: “The typical personal computer keyboard has 104 keys, most of which are not letters from the alphabet. However, if we ignore that fact and say the monkey can only hit keys that are letters of the alphabet, he has a one in twenty-six chance of hitting the correct letter each time.
“Of course, he has to hit them in the correct sequence as well: E then V then O, etc. Twenty-six to the power of nine (the number of letters in the word “evolution”) equals 5,429,503,678,976.
“So, the odds of him accidentally typing just the 9-letter word ‘evolution’ are about 1 in about 5.4 trillion …From a purely mathematical standpoint, the bewildering complexity of even the most basic organic molecules [which are much more complicated than a nine-letter word] completely rules out the possibility of life originating by mere chance.”
Take just one aspect of life---amino acids and protein cells. Dr. Stephen Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science at Cambridge University. In his New York Times bestselling book, Darwin’s Doubt (2013), Meyer points out that “the probability of attaining a correct sequence [of amino acids to build a protein molecule] by random search would roughly equal the probability of a blind spaceman finding a single marked atom by chance among all the atoms in the Milky Way galaxy---on its face clearly not a likely outcome.” (p. 183)
And this is just one aspect of life, the most basic building-block. In Meyer’s book, he cites the work of engineer-turned-molecular-biologist, Dr. Douglas Axe, who has since written the book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (2016).
In the interview I did with Scott Huse long ago, he noted, “The probability of life originating through mere random processes, as evolutionists contend, really honestly, is about zero…. If you consider probability statistics, it exposes the naiveté and the foolishness, really, of the evolutionary viewpoint.”
Dr. Charles Thaxton was another guest on that classic television special from 1988. He is a scientist who notes that life is so complex, the chances of it arising by mere chance is virtually impossible. Thaxton, now with the Discovery Institute, has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, and a post-doctorate degree in molecular biology and a Harvard post-doctorate in the history and philosophy of science.
Thaxton notes, “I’d say in my years of study, the amazing thing is the utter complexity of living things….Most scientists would readily grant that however life happened, it did not happen by chance.”
The whole creation points to the Creator. Huse sums up the whole point: “Simply put, a watch has a watchmaker and we have a Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.”
meanwhile in super reality land- (Since your into insulting those you disagree with)
[[“Our findings imply that horizontal transfer of double-stranded RNA viral genes is widespread among eukaryotes and may give rise to functionally important new genes,”]]
Over the last two decades, with the completion of entire genome sequences for numerous organisms, scientists have been comparing DNA sequences for similar genes found in different organisms. These comparisons have shown that not all genes can be explained through a typical evolution-by-common-descent model where all genetic information is passed through VGT. In other words, some organisms share similar genes that are not found in their alleged “common ancestors,” as they would be expected to if Darwinian evolution is true. As Institute for Creation Research geneticist Dr. Jeff Tomkins notes, these genes are referred to as “orphan” genes (Tomkins, 2013). The question then arises, where did these genes come from, if not from an ancestor? Thus, in an effort to explain the presence of genes that are not found in supposed evolutionary ancestors, some researchers have utilized the concept of HGT to explain these genes even in multicellular eukaryotes. It should be noted that HGT is a controversial topic and not all evolutionists accept the HGT hypothesis for the origin of genes. Additionally, utilizing HGT to explain the presence of these genes is a large step beyond the actual “observed” cases of HGT. Again, while HGT is observed in bacteria and in a few parasite-host relationships, there is no observed mechanism for genes to spread between multicellular organisms in a horizontal fashion (Tomkins, 2015).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=5216
Again- HGT is nothing but hypothesis in regards to multicellular organisms that you are apparently trying to pass off as established fact?
“The fact is, there is currently no evidence that HGT can occur in the wild between multicellular organisms. Further, there are no observed mechanisms for this transfer to take place.
The fact that the genes identified in the study quoted above impacted important enzymes and metabolic pathways implies that these genes are part of complex and integrated networks—they do not represent minor functions in many cases. Taken together, it is clear that relying on HGT to explain the spread of “foreign” genes is a stretch, at best, and currently is lacking key pieces of evidence. This is not the first time—and will not be the last time—that evolutionists strain to interpret straightforward evidence. The fact that genes cannot be attributed to VGT and common descent could, instead, be interpreted to mean that these genes were placed there by design, which would be the simplest and most obvious explanation.”
Same link
[[If the researchers had actually compared the genomic DNA, very little similarity would have been discovered—in other words, they didn’t do their homework correctly. In fact, they admitted their claim that the gene was foreign—or where it originated from—was purely hypothetical, when they stated that “absolute certainty in the assignment of most HGT is unachievable.”
Third, no mechanism of HGT for any of the hundreds of alleged “foreign genes” they found was either discovered or even suggested. This is due to the fact that the only cases where such gene transfer occurs in nature typically involves a clear host-parasite relationship.]]
http://www.icr.org/article/8673
Hmmm, symbiotic relationships after all- parasites in other words- an organism which lives by parasitic action on it’s host-
And who created the stars?
Again, we can play this game allll day.... haha
What game? You seem to be playing with yourself.
No, and yet they're quite fit among human hosts because of their evolved ability to hijacking human "specific' physiology by injecting their code into human host genotypes.
>>(Since your[sic] into insulting those you disagree with)
""I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD ETERNAL HOSTILITY
TO EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN"
--Thomas Jefferson
Are you seeking the truth - or reflexively defending a Created Thing -- the dogma of the temple of Y.E.D. -- Young Earthster Dominionists?
Despite what your Y.E.D. Newspeak Dictionary (2017 edition) might declare -- Natural Selection and Fitness are an integral part of Evolutionary science.
psy·cho·sissīˈkōsəs/noun
It doesn't matter whether a psychotic disconnect from reality is induced by Cultural Marxism or through religious dogma - the end result is the same:
"According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare.What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages.The first stage being "demoralization". It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism.Most of the activity of the department [KGB] was to compile huge amount / volume of information, on individuals who were instrumental in creating public opinion. Publisher, editors, journalists, uh actors, educationalists, professors of political science. Members of parliament, representatives of business circles. "--KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov--Soviet Subversion of the Free Press (Ideological subversion, Destabilization, CRISIS - and the KGB)
Correct, Darwin's basic evolution theory only attempted to explain speciation as a result of 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Neither require high order mathematics or probability theory to grasp, since both can be observed in nature and science labs.
The word "abiogenesis" only references one of several hypotheses for how life may have originated on Earth.
Correct. Remember first, we're talking about Abiogenesis here, not Darwin's basic evolution theory.
Abiogenesis is just one hypothesis covering origin of life and includes many ideas, some more strongly confirmed than others.
And a key point to grasp about Abiogenesis is that under the right conditions, some chemical reactions become not improbable, but inevitable.
So scientific work in this area includes identifying both the necessary conditions and the chemical responses.
Where chemistry can be shown to "complexify" there scientists think may lie a path from chemistry to biology.
But it's all still hypothesis, some weakly confirmed theory and very little observed facts.
That's how science works.
Biologically they are exactly the same, a fact evolution deniers like to pretend is otherwise.
The only difference is a matter of word definitions --by "adapt" we usually mean shorter term, smaller modifications, whereas "evolve" can also refer to longer term speciation.
But there's no difference in what actually happens in 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
"you two are talking above my head about splicing"
--280 of 328
--Bob434 to HLPhat
Uhuh. Rather than seeking an educational remedy for that basic scientific ignorance, your prefered behavior is to regurgitate self-pleasing doctrine from the temple of Y.E.D.
Meanwhile - The ability to splice their genetic code into a host phenotype is one of the naturally selected behaviors that enable different species of viruses to evolve so rapidly... and demonstrative great fitness in the process!
[[Uhuh. Rather than seeking an educational remedy for that basic scientific ignorance, your prefered behavior is to regurgitate self-pleasing doctrine from the temple of Y.E.D.]]
You’re a nasty little piece of work huh? You feel better about yourself now?
[[the dogma of the temple of Y.E.D.]]
Grow up=-
But Darwin's theory of speciation through evolution is based on no such thing.
In fact Darwin knew nothing about inherited traits, much less DNA.
He merely proposed that speciation occurs over long periods of 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Nothing discovered since Darwin's time falsifies his basic theory.
As for intelligent design, that is a given for believers.
Only the "how" of it is a matter of discussion & disagreement.
Just as Big Bang Theory deals with everything EXCEPT the Big Bang (it deals with the evolving state of the universe during all the times AFTER the Big Bang), so the modern theory of biological evolution (which has evolved a lot since Darwin, though still retains his basic ideas) deals with all the times AFTER the beginning of life and says nothing about how life began.
I’m posting this to you just to emphasize what you’ve already said. I know you know all this.
Exactly right, or whatever other processes He may have used.
Remarkable similarities in DNA among species, both closely and distantly related, help confirm basic evolution theory.
Protein coding DNA especially is subject to natural selection and so retains identical features across species.
By contrast, non-coding DNA seems to have no effect on natural selection, so mutations accumulate there much more quickly.
Having simply recognized the how the ability of viruses to splice their genetic code into a host phenotype is one of the naturally selected behaviors that enable different species of viruses to evolve so rapidly... and demonstrative great reproductive fitness in the process?
YOU BETCHA!
Funny how self-evident facts like those can short-circuit the dendrites of the fallible and uninspiring tyrant-wanabes whose favorite historical pass time is assuming dominion over the faith (and vocabulary) of others.
[Evolution]
...the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)
Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution. — Nature
In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive. — Pamela WeintraubEvolution | Evolution Definition by Merriam-Webster (NOT the Y.E.D. Newspeak Dictionary)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution
[Fitness]
Medical Definition of fitness. : the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductively fertile offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes.
Fitness | Fitness Definition by Merriam-Webster (NOT the Y.E.D. Newspeak Dictionary)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fitness
"EDUCATE THE COMMON PEOPLE"
--
Thomas Jefferson
Most if not all anti-evolution arguments have been posted on these threads at one time or another.
And all have been shown as bogus, repeatedly.
Sorry you missed those discussions.
[[Despite what your Y.E.D. Newspeak Dictionary (2017 edition) might declare]]
[[or reflexively defending a Created Thing]]
[[It doesn’t matter whether a psychotic disconnect from reality is induced]]
I mistook you for someone capable of civil discussion- My mistake- Goodbye kid
:-)
Take a good at the temple of Y.E.D.’s craftsmanship:
https://www.google.com/#q=gender+dysphoria
Well done, Bob!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.