The Insuperable Statistics of Polypeptide Synthesis - Hemoglobin

I thought this was a thread about science, then I saw it was about religion. Why are you posting in the science forum?

MrWonderful said:

You don't understand the difference between adaptation and extrapolating adaptation almost infinitely.

Click to expand...

You talkin' to me?

I hate to break this to you, but yes, adaptation is "almost infinite." It is not a directed process. No one controls it. Evolution did not start with the intention of making the Perfect Human. Natural selection, mutation and adaptation are continuous processes. As long as organisms exist, and wherever they exist, there will be evolution, mutation, adaptation and natural selection.

Your Magic Wand of Selection is Zombie Science. You claim that it accomplishes exactly what you want it to accomplish, all the time.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

Natural selection doesn't "accomplish" anything. It's a description of the pressures on organisms. What it does is provide a framework to explain why something like hemoglobin is what it is, does what it does, and is present in such a huge variety of organisms.

IF the original synthesis of a complex protein has been explained, then you would have provided a link to such evidence.

Click to expand...

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?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543078/
https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/1999/2/the-evolution-of-hemoglobin
http://bioquest.org/summer2006/The_Evolution_of_Hemoglobin.pdf
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/.../papers/buettnerhill1965/buettnerhill1965.pdf
http://biology.hunter.cuny.edu/mole...a Reading/Evolution of Hemoglobins review.pdf

And again, no one assumes that hemoglobin in modern humans popped out of thin air and into the human bloodstream. That's a process that took billions of years and quadrillions of iterations and mutations.

MrWonderful said:

"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.

Click to expand...

It's easier for them to argue against biblical creationism than to answer our scientific objections to their evolution by chance dogma.

MrWonderful said:

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.

Click to expand...

Given the size of our solar system compared to that of the observable universe...I like those odds.

MrWonderful said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Damn.

Mach said:

I thought this was a thread about science, then I saw it was about religion. Why are you posting in the science forum?

Click to expand...

Where 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.

Tanngrisnir said:

It's sad you've never come back to your thread.

How'd that statistics final work out for you?

Click to expand...

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.

Tanngrisnir said:

Oh, man. Just like your Rhetoric 100 final.

Click to expand...

Damn.[/QUOTE]

I never took any course in Rhetoric. You Leftists do excel in it, however. All talk, with an occasional snide reference thrown in.

MrWonderful said:

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.

Click to expand...

I never took any course in Rhetoric. You Leftists do excel in it, however. All talk, with an occasional snide reference thrown in.[/QUOTE]

Sad that you reject the bible and failed statistics.

Marxists like you always do.

MrWonderful said:

Where 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.

Click to expand...

Yaay, a Lazarus thread, back from the dead, it's a miracle

Anyway. I see no indication that Miller-Urey was "completely discredited." In fact, the equipment they used was a bit primitive, and later analysis of the original experiments, along with replications of the experiment, show that it was actually more successful than originally thought. Numerous research projects are following in their footsteps.

Just a few weeks ago, NASA announced the results of an experiment where they emulated the conditions of hydrothermal vents on the sea floor, and showed how amino acids could be formed.
News | NASA Study Reproduces Origins of Life on Ocean Floor

Tanngrisnir said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

MrWonderful said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sad that you reject the bible and failed statistics.

Marxists like you always do.