Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

You don't say, not here nor in your previous message, what it is you're rebutting, but I think you're probably rebutting an argument no one here is making.--Percy

One dead giveaway which I usually observe is that he calls us "Darwinists". Anyone who uses that phrase is likely a YEC and, as you say, has no clue what the actual arguments are. I've always considered myself a Cosmological Creationist which means only that I believe that God initiated the original process. How He did it is above my pay grade. I also do not see why YECs have a problem with Theistic Evolution.

He reminds me of that idiot MD, Kleinman (German "Little man" -- thankfully absent for 507 days now (about 1½ years)), who constantly proclaimed himself to be a mathematical genius and denouncing all of us as low-grade idiots all while he was completely incapable of supporting his assertions, choosing instead to repeat the same old "references" with links to his BS ramblings. Trump's constant lies about being "a very stable genius" despite being assessed a "fucking moron" (then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson after their first Cabinet meeting) also comes to mind.I have no doubt that this new "math genius", RenaissanceMan, will also be unable to understand requests for the math model of his protein probability assertions. From what I've seen so far, his math model (assuming he even has one) completely fails to describe how the evolution of a protein works, let alone the formation of the first proto-proteins. He would also fail to understand that the validity of any calculations regarding a phenomenon depends on understanding how that phenomenon works; eg, kinematic calculations for a falling object in a vacuum that depended on heavier objects falling faster (HINT for creationists: not how it works) would not yield valid results.Lets all get our popcorn ready to watch this new creationist crash and burn by his own hand.

For the purposes of this thread, let's grant that abiogenesis is impossible. Instead, God created the first life on Earth as a simple prokaryote with the basic genetics and metabolism that is shared by all the life we see now.So exactly what is your objection to the life we see today evolving from that created ancestor? Gospel? Projection much?If you don't think natural selection occurs in biology, we can certainly start there.

To repeat an old line: "You can always tell a YEC; you just can't tell them anything."Like their ubiquitous never-defined term (loaded with heavily implied but never publicly revealed (albeit explicitly stated among themselves) invective equating it to "anti-God atheist"), "evolutionist", their obsession with "Darwinists" and "Darwinism" exposes their delusion and deception.Which is basically that they are projecting their own belief system and its problems on everybody else, more out of their inability to accept that theirs is not the only way to think. As I've often quoted Dan Barker, former life-long fundamentalist and now "America's Leading Atheist": "Fundamentalism is when your theology becomes your psychology." That is supported to their need for special "Christian counselors" because normals' counselors would not be able to reach them, just as I have found "Christian counselors" to be worse than useless. We almost literally think differently from each other as demonstrated by in-forum disagreement over what constitutes evidence and whether there does exist a need to test and verify.It appears that their need to attack "Darwinism" and Darwin himself stems from their projection of their own system onto science. I discussed that in my Message 3811 to candle2 (which you liked): Since their own system depends on the perfection of the original revelation (eg, Scripture) which in turn depends on the perfection of the source of that revelation (eg, "God"), they think that science works the same way, which couldn't be further from the truth. And since exposing the imperfections of their own "revelation" or "God" would destroy their religion, they think that exposing any imperfections in Darwin or in his original writings would destroy all of evolution, which couldn't be further from the truth. Verily, they know not how anything works.And that is why they waste so much time and effort attacking Darwin himself, when that time and effort could be put to far better and more effective use by learning what evolution really is and what its weaknesses really are, so that they can attack evolution itself instead of stupid strawman lies. That is what I have been telling creationists for decades, but they never listen: "You can always tell a creationist; you just can't tell him anything." I've been advancing this idea that there is no inherent conflict between Creation and science, including evolution. Creationists' obsession with their false dichotomy between "God and Evolution", including their false theology that disproving evolution proves God, is false and misguided to the extreme. There is no conflict and disproving evolution would no more prove "God" (whichever one) than it would prove any other of the thousands of creator gods, or even of the thousands of versions of the "Christian God". Or any other naturalistic explanation including the ones we haven't discovered yet.I've presented this before, but I can return to it if requested. Right now I'm in a rush to leave for tonight's classes (waltz, West Coast swing, nightclub two-step), so I'll just post what I've written so far.

Phat: dead giveaway which I usually observe is that he calls us "Darwinists". Anyone who uses that phrase is likely a YEC and, as you say, has no clue what the actual arguments are. I've always considered myself a Cosmological Creationist which means only that I believe that God initiated the original process. How He did it is above my pay grade. I also do not see why YECs have a problem with Theistic Evolution.---------------------------------------------------------Your "dead giveaway" is of your own making, not mine. If you had read any of Richard Dawkins' books, you would know he spreads the term "Darwinism" very generously, to give credit to the best-known author of selection fairy tales.Darwinism is defined in Wikipedia, Brittanica, Stanford Review, and countless other sources, should anyone care to do a little research before beginning their naive attack.Nor have I so much as mentioned Young Earth Creationism. To pretend that Theistic Evolution is a viable compromise seems to me very wishy-washy and overlooking the insuperable statistics I have already presented, along with the arguments of countless other scientists.Now for the calculations and references:Titin is the largest protein in the human body. It consists of 38,138 amino acid residues in a precise sequence. The first, original synthesis, whether stepwise or in one single, continuous process, consisted of "selecting," in any manner you contemplate, 1 out of the 20 amino acids making up humans, one at a time, 38,138 times in succession. The probability of this event is 1/2038,138 , which equals 1 in 1049,618, times the other factors. 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 (left-handed) amino acids, not Dextrorotary (right-handed) amino acids are present in human proteins.* So to account for this chirality factor, the first computation of 1 in 10 to the 49,618th power has to be multiplied by 1/2 to the 38,138th power (1 in 10 to the 11,480th power). [Adding exponents is multiplying the numbers they represent.]*Since all protein bonds are peptide bonds, which are equally probable as the random formation of non-peptide bonds, the previous product has to be multiplied by 1/2 to the 38,138th power again. The product of these three essential elements of original Titin synthesis is therefore 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578th power (not even multiplying by whatever is an appropriate probability for the precise folding of the extremely long chain.) [49,618 + 11,480 + 11,480 = 72,578]Finally, "selection," that magic word Darwin so popularized, demands that at each successive naturalistic step, there must be some advantage conferred to the organism, otherwise the random mutation cannot prevail and multiply. It is impossible for anyone to explain how 1072,578 small, individual steps in this original synthesis will each provide separate, useful functions en route to their final complex formula of Titin. Nobody has ever attempted such an explanation, and they probably never will.Titin is one of at least 20,000 proteins* and enzymes in humans, each of which is statistically impossible to originally design without an intelligent creator. * Entry - *188840 - TITIN; TTN - OMIM \So Darwinian evolution, from a single celled organism, to humans, is impossible times at least 20,000.The only rational conclusion is that they are creations of Nature's God, as He is called in our Declaration of Independence.What is a protein? A biologist explains#If the "sections" were pulled from many other functions, as many argue, it still requires new and separate mechanisms for each and every section, and there would have to be many trillions of trillions of them.To avoid the hurdle of 10to the -40, which is evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins' definition of "impossible," you have to restrict original polypeptide synthesis to a scant 21 amino acids, calculating chirality and peptide bonding.__________________________________In 1943, the distinguished French mathematician Émile Borel stated that “events with a sufficiently small probability never occur” (Institute of Mathematical Statistics). Dr. Borel chose a fairly safe number, 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power, or 10^-50 .Let’s look at the volume of 10^50 marbles, one centimeter in diameter.There are 100 such marbles per meter, and 100 times 1,000 per kilometer = 10^5 marbles per km .
^
Therefore 10^5 marbles cubed equals 10^15 marbles per cubic kilometer.The volume of earth is 108.3 x 10^10cubic kilometers.10^15marbles/cubic km x 108.3 x 10^10cubic km/earth = 1.083 x 10^27 marbles/earth.10^50 marbles / 1.083 x 10^27 marbles/earth = 9.234 x 10^22 earths filled.This is 923,400 billion billion earth sized spheres filled with marbles, with only one chance to pick the special unique marble on the first and only try. This is the definition of "one chance in..." No probability is ever shown as an infinite number of chances.owlcation.com2 Earth Fact SheetFacts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous HuxleyThis proof appears in my book, Brilliant Creations - The Wonder of Nature and Life. It is available athttps://www.amazon.com/Brilliant Creations________________________The misleading atheist claims that (1) science and religion are mutually exclusive, and (2) Christians are ignorant and anti-science, are both destructive lies which have led millions to abandon their religious faith.Eighty-five percent of Nobel Laureates in the Twentieth Century were Christians and Jews. They were hardly ignorant or unscientific. Modern science accords far better with Nature's God, as He is called in America's Declaration of Independence, than it does with atheist nihilism.___________________________"His (Dawkin’s) metaphor of climbing the mountain (Climbing Mount Improbable, by Richard Dawkins) is loaded with intentionality. No climber ever reached the summit of a high and difficult mountain without a powerful sense of wanting to get there. The very fact that Dawkins admits to aiming for the summit, or in his own words, “only accepting mutations that improve optical performance”, is surely the most blatant admission that his version of neo-Darwinism is, despite claims to the contrary, profoundly goal-centered and purposeful." - How Blind is the Watchmaker, by Neil Broom, page 167Mathematics Professor, John Lennox, gives a fifteen-minute lecture on what he considers the proof of God.Oxford Mathematician DESTROYS Atheism In Less Than 15 Minutes (BRILLIANT!) (youtube.com)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY8uDhaLJnk"People who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do." - Steve Jobs

dwise1: And again, science enables us to learn so many new things, whereas religion (especially yours) fights against learning anything.____________________________________________In point of irrefutable fact, scientists throughout history have marveled, as did agnostic Carl Sagan, at the wonders surrounding all of us. When any atheist or agnostic expresses wonder, all his acolytes coo and purr. But let any Christian in particular say something of a similar nature, and they are mercilessly maligned for being ignorant.“Astronomical spectroscopy is an almost magical technique. It amazes me still.” - Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, page 93(Refer to P 57 of PBD: Sagan said there is “much poor planning” in the universe, although he did not say where, and how HE would have done it differently.)I wrote to Sagan's publisher, citing many errors and self-contradictions in several of his books I checked out at the library. He wrote me back a letter, ignoring his errors and asked me to buy his newest one.
I never bought a single book he wrote, but did sell his letter on E-Bay for $125.Agnostic Carl's memorial service was held at St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City.
He is no longer an agnostic.But back to scientists and their motivations. Christians and Jews have always believed in the creative genius of Nature's God, and reasoned that He gave orderliness and coherence to the universe. Accordingly, believers sought to discover knowledge, the Latin term of which is "scientia," the root word for science.For this reason, Christians founded Harvard College, the first university in America and today the most prestigious. Every Ivy League college has a Christian charter and founders.If atheists are so enamored of science and knowledge, why is there no "Atheist University"?Why are there Jewish and Christian and Catholic hospitals across America, but not one Atheist Hospital?
Don't you atheists care about the welfare of your fellow man? No atheist soup kitchens?
No atheist orphanages? How utterly selfish of atheists, as documented in the book by Professor Arthur C. Brooks, "Who Really Cares: "Who Gives and Why It Matters."I read it. I have notes on it, should any Christian care to read some of them.

Taq:​
For the purposes of this thread, let's grant that abiogenesis is impossible. Instead, God created the first life on Earth as a simple prokaryote with the basic genetics and metabolism that is shared by all the life we see now.
​
So exactly what is your objection to the life we see today evolving from that created ancestor?_____________________________________________________________You evolutionists constantly preach your scientific sophistication and brilliance and then you proceed to ask the most absurd, most simplistic and inane questions conceivable.1. A simple prokaryote has NOTHING remotely resembling titin muscle protein inside it, much less 20,000 different proteins found in humans.2. What is inside us is NOT "shared by all the life we see."Those two points should be sufficient to end the debate, but atheists never EVER concede anything except to turn everything over in exactly the opposite direction.3. Humans have at least ten different systems, all essential for life, all interdependent, and all had to be present in the first human, but assuredly not the first prokaryote.4. Your science continues to fail you, but you step around it and make up just-so stories to continue your Darwinian fabrication.

So you have nothing to offer in response? Just a lot of stupid bullshit in your signature block THAT NOBODY WILL THINK OF READING?Please let us know when you actually have something to say.  ADDENDUM

How old is the earth?

And with the emphasized phrase in that statement and making your calculations and conclusions dependent on it you demonstrate that your conclusions are invalid (since they are based on false assumptions) and that you don't know what you are talking about.Many, if not most, amino acids in proteins are not strictly specified such that many loci can be occupied by either any of the 20 amino acids used or any of a particular type of amino acid (eg, hydrophilic, hydrophobic). Hence, there are a very large number of possible amino acid sequences that would still be the protein, titin.For that matter, titin is found in very many species, even fruit flies, and the amino acid sequences of titin in those other species are different. The fact that the same protein in different species have different amino acid sequences forms the basis of the construction of phylogenetic trees which map out how closely and remotely species are related to each other based on the differences between the amino acid sequences of their proteins. Indeed, around 1980 creationists made many claims of protein comparisons which show humans and unrelated species being more closely related based on the comparison between certain proteins; they no longer use those claims when it blew up in their faces, like when Dr. Duane Gish lied on national TV (PBS counts as national -- see my webpage, The Bullfrog Affair or when their opponents exposed those claims to be completely false as in the Creation/Evolution article, A Closer Look at Some Biochemical Data that "Support" Creation (Frank T. Awbrey and William M. Thwaites, Creation /Evolution, Issue VII, Vol.3 No.1, Winter 1982 -- also cited in my webpage).So here again we have two creationist claims which contradict each other. One says that proteins can have one and only one highly specific sequence such that any change would make that protein nonfunctional (your assumption), and the other says that many different sequences can produced the same functional protein. Which is it? And why can't creationists get their stories straight? It's almost as if they're making it all up.There's also the problem of your misunderstanding of the origin of particular proteins. Your math model (assuming you ever bothered creating one) assumes all proteins just having fallen together randomly in one single attempt by blind chance, whereas a more accurate model would be based on them having evolved (which, despite your gross misunderstanding of evolution (ie, actual evolution, not whatever strawman you call "evolution") is not the same thing as blind chance). Since you claim to have read Richard Dawkins' books, I recommend that you re-read Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker where he discusses the difference between single-step selection and cumulative selection -- those two types of selection use completely different math models, which I discuss in my Monkey Probabilities (MPROBS) (MONKEY is my version of Dawkins' WEASEL).Which brings us to the most basic questions that terrify every creationist: What do you think evolution is and how do you think it works? That is included in my question already asked of you: What are you talking about? I have no doubt that you will also flee those questions in stark terror.It's getting late.Though another question would be why are you intent on bludgeoning us non-experts with a lot of technical-sounding bullshit? If you really have questions you want answered, then why do you avoid asking the actual experts whom you can find at Cal-State University, Fullerton, Cal-State University, Long Beach, or University of California, Irvine? Instead, you engage in typical dishonest creationist bullying of your audience. Curious minds want to know.

RenaissanceMan has not defined a signature. When he replies to someone he seems to often use this format: And it ends up looking something like this: --Percy

I know that he's not actually using a signature. I'm trying to shame him into using a legible format.Obviously, he has no shame. Sadly typical creationist trait.

Actually, the human body produces a number of alternative forms of titin which range in length between ~27,000 and ~36,000 amino acid residues. The DNA for titin contains exons coding for 38,138 amino acid residues, but no actual titin protein contains this many amino acids residues. See Titin - Wikipedia. Science does not hold the view that there was ever any "first, original synthesis" of titin. Rebutting this view, as you go on to do, is pointless since it is not a view science holds. A random mutation's effect can range from strongly deleterious to neutral to strongly beneficial, and selection operates on the effects of any mutations. Selection also operates on the effects of the genetic mixing that occurs during sexual reproduction or bacterial conjugation.Your time and effort would be better spent if you focused your attention on viewpoints science actually holds.--Percy

When marveling at a beautiful sunset, wouldn't you agree that there is a significant difference between attributing it to God and not to the chance cloud formations that happened to be near the horizon when viewed from your location?Regarding your questions about atheists, you're thinking about atheism as if it were just another religion. It isn't. Atheism is the absence of belief. Assuming that everyone must have a religion is like assuming everyone must have a car.You seem to think that those who accept evolution and its theory are atheists, but most belong to a religion.--Percy