No matter how many times you shrilly shriek "fact, fact, fact," Darwin's tautology does NOT become factual. There are far too many scientists, statisticians, biologists, biochemists, and paleontologists who dispute his archaic nonsense from 1859.
Shortly thereafter, Ernst Haeckel fabricated his drawings to support Darwinian nonsense. Haeckel's fraud has been repeated up through the 21st Century in biology books.
Revolting. Ignorant.
Let's look at the insuperable statistics of original protein synthesis by any natural means.
The oldest and biggest error in all of science is Darwinian evolution, insistently claimed as "fact, fact, fact." "Proven."
Repeating the same error loudly, insistently, authoritatively, does not make it so. The most compelling scientific evidence against Neo-Darwinism (and there is surely a very great deal) is the Insuperable Statistics of Original Polypeptide Synthesis.
Once the organic machine gets going, yes we can all see adaptation, i.e. "change in allele frequency." That is assuredly not the same as all extant life originating from the Last Universal Common Ancestor, as biologists teach everywhere. Here is why.
Titin is the largest protein in the human body. It consists of 38,138 amino acid residues in a precise sequence. [Omin]
The first, original synthesis, whether stepwise or in one single, continuous process, consisted of "selecting" 1 out of 20 amino acids making up humans, one at a time, 38,138 times, or 1/20 to the 38,138th power or 10-49,618. The pretense of claiming that "sections" of any protein were "assembled" overlooks the unassailable fact that any "section," however small, had to be assembled under the same statistical constraints. Whether one does the computations in one step or 1,000 steps, the figures are beyond dispute. They get a great deal worse, in fact.
Only Levorotary amino acids were used, so 10 to the -49,618 has to be multiplied by 1/2 to the 38,138th power or 10 to the -11,480. One more time for all consecutive peptide bonds, which are equally probable as the random formation of non-peptide bonds, thus 1/2 to the 38,138th power. The product of these three essential elements of original Titin synthesis is 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578th power (not counting whatever calculation is appropriate for the precise folding of the chain.)
Titin is one of at least 20,000 different polypeptides in humans. [NCBI] These general calculations apply to each of them regarding any naturalistic synthesis, using of course the appropriate power.
[Omin] -
Entry
- *188840 - TITIN; TTN
- OMIM
\
NCBI.-
The Size of the Human Proteome: The Width and Depth - PMC
If the "sections" were taken from many other functions, as many argue, it further complicates the process by necessitating new and separate advantageous Darwinian "selections" for each intermediary, and there would have to be many thousands of them to reduce the impossibility down below the 10-40 threshold Richard Dawkins concedes as being "impossible."
In fact, to avoid Dawkins' impossible hurdle of 10-40, you have to restrict original polypeptide synthesis to a scant 21 amino acid residues, calculating chirality and peptide bonding.
TRH, or thyroid reducing hormone, is the smallest protein in the human body at 243 amino acids in length. Even this is statistically insuperable by any naturalistic mechanism.
An authority on statistics, Emile Borel, has stated that any event with a probability of 1 in 10 to the 50 or less is impossible. It can never happen.
To provide some statistical perspective, 10to the 50 marbles one cm in diameter would fill 92 trillion spheres the size of earth.
Now imagine a hypothetical spaceship capable of navigating through marbles and you choose one of 92 trillion spheres the size of earth and then single out the one unique marble of sand, identifiable only under a microscope, on your first and only attempt. You do not get an infinite number of tries.
The definition is "1 chance in 10 to the 50", not an infinite number of chances in 10 to the50.
You cannot get around this impregnable wall with simple "A>B>C>D." That is alphabetization, not science.
"But what will we teach biology students without Darwinian evolution?"
You're all scholars. Teach science as it is known and confirmed, not as it was hypothesized by an uneducated, mediocre young man, living on his father's wealth, whose wishful thinking propounded deadly racism that produced Adolph Hitler's designs to follow *evolution* and produce the Master Race, murdering millions of "inferiors".
These biologists and scientists had this to say, for you to repeat, with sincerity:
“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)
“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)
“It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection…. I find this view antecedently unbelievable – heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense. The empirical evidence can be interpreted to accommodate different comprehensive theories but in this case the cost in conceptual and probabilistic contortions is prohibitive.” – Atheist professor Thomas Nagel
“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)
“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)
™ Version 4.2
