Evolutionists improbable becoming probable argument

What are you trying to demonstrate here?Do you think the theory of evolution is false because Dawkins only had one kid? Do you think the theory of evolution is false because poor people tend to have more kids than rich people? What exactly are you arguing?

From the beginning (mid-1980's) of discussing creationism, I have used the approach of taking their claims at face value and discussing their own claims with them. That never worked since their response immediately turned to angry invective (which escalated as I persisted with my direct questions about their claim). You see, I made the mistake that they took their own claims seriously and that they understood them; over time I came to realize that they were trying to cover up for the fact that they didn't understand their own claims -- had no clue -- and used anger to cover that up and to drive me away (I survived 28 years of an abusive marriage, so it takes a helluva a lot of stupid crap to scare me away).Two decades ago on another forum, a creationist accidentally revealed their secret. After demolishing his stupid sea-salt claim, I asked him why creationists use such unconvincing claims, to which he said: "You only find them unconvincing because you are not yet convinced." With that light coming on in my head, I immediately used it to compare how that difference in motivation makes such an enormous difference between scientists (seeking to discover new facts, so honesty and testing is of utmost importance) and creationists (just want something that sounds convincing regardless of how false it is, so no place for honesty or testing), which I started to convert to a web page, Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists (still under construction, so my mentions of it here are the only links to it ... though it has found its way into Google's database if you search on that title).This is also why all creationist and fundie arguments are so stupid and, of course, unconvincing. If you ever doubt that, not only need you do little more than look at what so many of them have posted here and in other forums, but watch some atheist call-in videos or critique videos of creationist videos. Or watch some creationist or fundie videos -- we ain't making up none of their stupid shit.And the really tragic part is that they think that their arguments are so phenomenally good and "convincing", but only because they are themselves already convinced and they won't even consider examining and evaluating their own arguments. They are too convinced to realize how utterly stupid they sound. And then they have the unmitigated gall to get mad at us for not becoming convinced, blaming it on our own "hatred of God" (et alia nonsensical accusations) instead of realizing that we cannot be convinced by unconvincing nonsense that is also flagrantly false. We've already speculated that "he" is nothing more than an AI, but an AI that is too stupid to do anything more than lift quotes and dump them in our laps like steaming plops of fresh manure. I mean, it cannot even preserve any degree of formatting, that's how stupid it is.But such incompetent AIs are just plain sad when they are hosted in meatsacks. ChemEngineer just might have been a person previously, before his brains were scooped out and replaced with that buggy AI. There's an expression in German for asking someone if they're stupid: "Hast du einen Vogel?" (Do you have a bird?). The common interpretation is the idea that there must be a bird living inside your head and its constant squawking keeps you from being able to think. Another interpretation is that your cranium is hollow, providing a cage for a bird, often accompanied by a poetic description of how happy that bird is flying around in that vast emptiness inside your head.

It's a cult tactic.Not exaggerating - apologetics is for the cult members, not anyone else. It's the same with door-to-door proselytizing, like the Jehova's Witnesses do, or the Mormon missions.The intent is not to convert new people. if it happens, it's a bonus.The intent is to make the cult members feel even more rejected by the "outside world." To recognize unbelievers are "lost" or "evil." Make them more dependent on the church, make them more socially isolated except for the specific relationships the church wants to foster.In the case of apologetics...similar to conspiracy theories, you wind up with a tribalized separation of "enlightened" believers who "know the truth," and the poor misguided or even maliciously deceptive unbelievers. It's all about establishing a difference between the in-group and the out-group, reinforcing the in-group identity subsuming the individual identity, and ensuring that the believer will feel isolation/alienation/threatened by the out-group.It has never been about cogent arguments or establishing rational belief through evidence.

You seem to be making the same mistake that Darwin and many of his time did in assuming that human evolution proceeds in ways that line up with the particular values of your culture and time. Particularly in the English-speaking world, many of us live in absurd luxury relative to most of the history of humanity, and more to the point consume many more resources. It's certainly more individually enjoyable to live that way, but it's not at all sure at this point that aspiring to that lifestyle is a good long-term strategy for humanity's survival. And the question is complicated by the extent to which those slums are an inseparable byproduct of the luxuries. "Most Darwinian" is a nonsensical concept in the first place, but especially here since the cause for almost all of the differences you list is down to economic, social, and political factors rather than anything particularly to do with biology.

Or more specifically, the traits listed by ChemEngineer are not genetically heritable so they wouldn't be affected by Darwinian processes anyway. added by edit a few hours later as thoughts kept cooking away in my brain . . .I do think there could at least be some interesting discussion as it relates to modern human populations and economic development.For the vast majority of the history of our species we were hunter gatherers who moved about in small bands. If we are adapted to anything it is this lifestyle, and we were are really good at. We used our brains to adapt this type of lifestyle to the environments and ecologies we found ourselves in, everything from polar wastelands to tropical forests. We all lived this way until about 10,000 years ago when a few isolated groups discovered farming. In fact, the hunter gatherer lifestyle was something we inherited from our Homo ancestors, and the same lifestyle was practiced by our contemporaneous cousins, the Neanderthals and Denisovans.The advent of farming did see a big increase in human populations. It was essentially a sedentary and more reliable form of the hunter gatherer lifestyle. We tamed our prey so they were easy to hunt, and we grew the plants we needed where we were instead of moving about and harvesting them as we came across them. At the same time, a reduction in the variety of diet and the spread of communicable diseases did cause problems for humans, but this was made up for by having lots of kids who probably survived a bit better than previously.The Farming Revolution didn't see a big change until very recently with the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the mid 1700's. This is where things really changed. As the infamous Peter Zeihan often says, kids are an asset on a farm because they are free labor. You have as many as you can put up with. Kids in a city are a cost, so you have far fewer of them. When you look at almost every country that has moved from an agrarian economy to an industrialized economy you see a massive reduction in birth rates as people move in from the countryside and into the industrialized cities, especially in modern economies where child labor is frowned on.TL;DR
Humans didn't evolve to work in industrialized economies. We evolved to be hunter gatherers, and did an ok job at adapting to farming. It isn't surprising at all to see populations booming in non-industrialized or developing nations, especially given the limited access to family planning.

Douglas Axe has shown that only 1 in 10 to the 77th polypeptide sequences are active.
The fatuous pretense by Darwinists/atheists is that a few polypeptide sequences is all that is needed to achieve any and all functions. This is wishful thinking to pretend that Darwin was right.
Evidence does not support this but presenting evidence is useless to Darwinists/atheists.
You have your religion and will not be bothered by contrary facts.It is for that reason that Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent drawings have been preached to your members for 100 years after he was exposed in court as a fraud.Please continue to squawk to each other and pat each other on the back. A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent | A topnotch WordPress.com site

No, he didn't. He showed that mutations in one section of one protein had a 1E-77 probability of producing one type of function which is beta-lactamase activity. Probabilities for one function in one sequence is not applicable to all functions in all genetic backgrounds.To drive this point home, beta-lactamase activity was found in randomly assembled variable regions in a library of 1E9 antibodies. That's the same activity, but found multiple times in a library of 1 billion sequences, well below the 1E77 number given by Axe.

quote:

---

Multitarget selection of catalytic antibodies with β-lactamase activity using phage display
Melody A Shahsavarian et al, 2017

​

β-lactamase enzymes responsible for bacterial resistance to antibiotics are among the most important health threats to the human population today. Understanding the increasingly vast structural motifs responsible for the catalytic mechanism of β-lactamases will help improve the future design of new generation antibiotics and mechanism-based inhibitors of these enzymes. Here we report the construction of a large murine single chain fragment variable (scFv) phage display library of size 2.7 × 10^9 with extended diversity by combining different mouse models. We have used two molecularly different inhibitors of the R-TEM β-lactamase as targets for selection of catalytic antibodies with β-lactamase activity. This novel methodology has led to the isolation of five antibody fragments, which are all capable of hydrolyzing the β-lactam ring. Structural modeling of the selected scFv has revealed the presence of different motifs in each of the antibody fragments potentially responsible for their catalytic activity. Our results confirm (a) the validity of using our two target inhibitors for the in vitro selection of catalytic antibodies endowed with β-lactamase activity, and (b) the plasticity of the β-lactamase active site responsible for the wide resistance of these enzymes to clinically available inhibitors and antibiotics.
Multitarget selection of catalytic antibodies with β-lactamase activity using phage display - PubMed

---

If memory serves, there are proteases that have a 1 in a few thousand chance of emerging from random sequence.ID/creationist claims about the probability of function in protein sequences is pretty laughable. No, they haven't. This is another myth that creationists like to tell.