You talkin' to me?You don't understand the difference between adaptation and extrapolating adaptation almost infinitely.
What are you talking about?Your Magic Wand of Selection is Zombie Science. You claim that it accomplishes exactly what you want it to accomplish, all the time.
Did you miss the part where I linked -- twice! -- to papers and articles on the evolution of hemoglobin? How about a wall of links on the topic?IF the original synthesis of a complex protein has been explained, then you would have provided a link to such evidence.
"Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, wicked or insane." - Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion
Richard Dawkins, and his legions of atheist followers, don't "react defensively." They are always offensive. Always
Your claim my "present(ing) a gap of knowledge" is unfounded, but all too typical of Dawkins and his followers.
As to "their beliefs," when it suits Darwinists, they shout "FACT, FACT, FACT" compounded by "SCIENCE, SCIENCE, SCIENCE" and "PROVEN, PROVEN, PROVEN."
Now, you have changed that proven scientific fact to a mere "belief" by your side. Your moving target can never be hit.
I consider it extremely "condescending" of your fellow Darwinists to shout "Creos" and "YECs" in every paragraph. Challenging Darwinism requires no creationism, no young earth. This isn't a gap in knowledge by such people either. They know better, they just can't help themselves from being condescending and hateful as they change the subject as quickly and irrationally as they can.
I am assuring readers that random mutations, i.e. naturalism DID NOT.
You may not agree. Please propose, then, how this fantasmagoric impossibility took place, with folding of the protein at each appropriate step.
Bear in mind that statistics don't change just because events happen slowly, or quickly. Toss a coin every second or once every 10,000 years, it's still 50/50 for heads, isn't it.
Moreover, the pretension of LOTS OF REPEATS OVER AND OVER AGAIN SOLVES "impossibility" can be seen with this thought experiment.
10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. If a man in a space suit could pick out ONE SINGLE UNIQUE grain of sand, in 10 to the 15 spheres full of sand the size of our solar system, out to Pluto, on his FIRST AND ONLY TRY, that would qualify as an impossible feat.
He doesn't get "infinity" or "millions of years to keep *selecting and selecting and selecting*. He gets ONE TRY and ONE TRY ONLY. THAT is "one try in 10 to the 50th power."
THAT is the definition, not forever trying until he finds it.
Precision - it's so lacking in Darwinism, everywhere you look. It's essential to science and rational thinking.
You don't understand the difference between adaptation and extrapolating adaptation almost infinitely.
Your Magic Wand of Selection is Zombie Science. You claim that it accomplishes exactly what you want it to accomplish, all the time.
IF the original synthesis of a complex protein has been explained, then you would have provided a link to such evidence. But as usual, all you do is make a snide reference to it.
That's irrational and not remotely scientific. But I repeat myself.
I thought this was a thread about science, then I saw it was about religion. Why are you posting in the science forum?
It's sad you've never come back to your thread.
How'd that statistics final work out for you?
Oh, man. Just like your Rhetoric 100 final.
I earned a grade of A in statistics. Moreover I graded papers for the professor as perhaps his top student.
Now if you have some specific comment on my analysis, present it. But your petty attacks on my intellect are so typical of the Left.
So inane. So unscientific and unintelligent.
Damn.
Yaay, a Lazarus thread, back from the dead, it's a miracleWhere does the word "hemoglobin" appear in the Holy Bible?
Where do you find "polypeptide synthesis" in the Holy Bible?
How about "amino acids"?
What do you know about any of those terms?
Tell the readers, if you can, why the famous Miller-Urey Experiment has been completely discredited after decades of being touted as "evidence" of something or other.
I never took any course in Rhetoric. You Leftists do excel in it, however. All talk, with an occasional snide reference thrown in.
Sad that you reject the bible and failed statistics.
Marxists like you always do.
1. You brought up the subject of Rhetoric, not I. You practice rhetoric, not I. You are the Leftist, not I.
2. You make more snide references in one sentence than I can make in five.
3. You misspelled "Bible" and ignored my request that you cite where terms of biochemistry, as I discuss, can be found in the Holy Bible, not the "bible" as you so ignorantly and dismissively call it.
4. I earned a grade of A in statistics, not a failing grade as you stated so dishonesty and disingenuously. Your horrific rhetoric shows through with every sentence.
5. I have no more time for you and added you to my Ignore List with others like you who are unable to carry on an intelligent conversation.