Evolution Cruncher

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Have you ever seen a Pigeon chick?

RX

Uzoyenzani leyo nyoni?

ps: If you want to know what the above means, find a Zulu to interpret it for you😉

Originally posted by dj2becker

Btw: In case you don't know, a lot of "Chemistry" is based on unproven theory.

You get more and more ridiculous.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You don't seem to grasp the complexity of a single living cell. Cells, by the way, are the building blocks of life.

Seeing as I spend the days at work in a molecular biology lab in a plant science institute I think I get a little glimpse of the complexity of cells. What is your position of expertise?

Originally posted by dj2becker
By the way, you cannot shift the burden of proof on me.

Why?

Most of humanity, including the RC church and the Anglian / Episcopal chaurch are perfectly comfortable with evolution. For some bizare reason the rednecks in the US bible belt have made discrediting modern genetic science a totemic issue. From your wierd minority position you have an awful lot to do to convince the rest of us. Perhaps if you travelled away from the bible belt, or read some serious newsmedia you'd realise how far out from the rest of us you are. Ultimately your obsession with this issue will discredit your religion; you should save some integrity before you sink without trace

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
You get more and more ridiculous.

Then please provide some info to prove me wrong... Or is your can you only resort to name-calling when you are stumped?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Seeing as I spend the days at work in a molecular biology lab in a plant science institute I think I get a little glimpse of the complexity of cells. What is your position of expertise?

Do you know what the probability is that a bunch of molecules can form a living cell in all its complexity just by random chance?

btw: I study Physics and Chemistry.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Why?

Most of humanity, including the RC church and the Anglian / Episcopal chaurch are perfectly comfortable with evolution. For some bizare reason the rednecks in the US bible belt have made discrediting modern genetic science a to ...[text shortened]... gion; you should save some integrity before you sink without trace

What you are doing is unscientific. In scientific terms it is called "shifting the burden of proof." It would be the same as me saying to you to prove that God does not exist. I't is impossible to do this. That is why it is impossible to prove a negative. That is why you have to prove the positive.

Besides, if the majority of people believe something then it doesn't mean that it is true. If just makes it more absurd when the majority of people believe something that has never been proved to be right. And when you find a problem in their theory they get upset because it takes away the foundation of their world-view. Do you know that the majority of people believe in evolution because it is the easier thing to believe. Evolution is basically aimed at destroying all moral values. If you are not willing to be challanged in your belief then you are being dishonest.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you know what the probability is that a bunch of molecules can form a living cell in all its complexity just by random chance?

btw: I study Physics and Chemistry.

You have displayed time and again that you lack even a rudimentary knowledge of probability theory. Be careful little boy when playing with knives. While they can be very valuable tools, they can also remove digits from the hands of the untrained.

Originally posted by telerion
You have displayed time and again that you lack even a rudimentary knowledge of probability theory. Be careful little boy when playing with knives. While they can be very valuable tools, they can also remove digits from the hands of the untrained.

Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. So seeing you are the Probability expert, this should give you something to think about:

"The information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated that given a pool of pure, activated biological amino acids, the total amount of information which could be produced, even allowing 109 years as evolutionists posit, would be only a single small polypeptide only 49 amino acid residues long.9 This is about 1/8 the size (therefore information content) of a typical protein, yet the hypothetical simplest cell above needs at least 256 proteins."

http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkrev2.asp

Originally posted by dj2becker
Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. So seeing you are the Probability expert, this should give you something to think about:

"The information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated that given a pool of pure, activated biological amino acids, the total amount of infor ...[text shortened]... simplest cell above needs at least 256 proteins."

http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkrev2.asp

Did you lose a carat on during transport?

Should it read "10^9" or are evolutionists only positing 109 years?

Also, you again have failed to supply what I ask. I am not asking you to give me declaration of what some guy says. I want either a link to the actual calculation, from which the assumptions that give rise to the sample space, fields, and p-measure are available, or I want you show me the calculations yourself. Hint: You may need to try a different method than cut n paste for this exercise.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. So seeing you are the Probability expert, this should give you something to think about:

"The information ...[text shortened]... east 256 proteins."

http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkrev2.asp

so impatient. double-click

Originally posted by telerion
I think the availability of information via the Web has had a deleterious effect on young dj2. If any one of us were to discuss these subjects with him verbally in a forum of peers, he would quickly realize that he is arguing from a position of astonishing ignorance. Unfortunately, internet forums allow dj2 to easily dodge questions or offer up fatuous re ...[text shortened]... as, but it has also given lazy thinkers an avenue to avoid critical thought and honest research.

Indeed.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you know what the probability is that a bunch of molecules can form a living cell in all its complexity just by random chance?

btw: I study Physics and Chemistry.

If you want to talk with any authority on technical issues stay away from websites. They can be very informative or very misleading. The problem with websites is anyone can out anything on there. If you're serious about science start reading scientific journals where all articles are peer reviewed before publication; you will soon become aware of the real complexities. You will also enjoy a new avenue of excitment.

As to probabilities I can;t answer because I don't know. What I do know is that most cell processes are highly improbable, all of the reaction kinetics are wrong in some metabolic pathways: they should never work. However, the beauty of these pathways are the enzymic catalysis that aloow them to prceed at low temperatures with highly specific products, and the interelationships between each stage along a pathway.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. So seeing you are the Probability expert, this should give you something to think about:

"The information ...[text shortened]... east 256 proteins."

http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkrev2.asp

What sense does it make to view one test tube and say it will be near impossible , when the size of the original system was the entire planet?
I've said life from non-life is a certainty, period.
For you to maintain that life didn't start in it's constituent matter, is actually absurd.
The theoretics of whether a particular experiment will produce the desired results have zero weigh for obvious reasons , The original system :
1) didn't have to produce a particular outcome
2) had ALL the possible materials available
3) had every form of EMR available
4) was extremely dynamic
5) was the entire planet
Put all that in a test tube and give is a about a billion years and........ or better still quantify the entire system and punch those numbers into your calculations (either Probability or Information theories or both) and then see how the numbers look.

But I'm not going to do it for you since I can see intuitively we are dealing with numbers so large that it guarantees the outcome is certainty.

2nd edit
Oh , and I forgot this,,, We already HAVE the outcome of the original system , WE are part of it.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
I have no faith in evolution, I need no faith in evolution. The works of Darwin, Mendel, Crick & Watson, Hardy & Weinberg and a host of others are a set of tools I use in my job. I don't need to believe in them, I have no emotional at ...[text shortened]... he tools of my trade, they work.

You just don't get it do you?

What do you do?

EDIT - NM, I just saw your later post.