Scientific Challenge To Darwinists

[TooMuchFun]

SINCE YOU DARWINISTS "understand abiogenesis," why don't YOU explain the impossibility of hemoglobin synthesis.
Human hemoglobin consists of 574 amino acids arranged in a very precise sequence, which sequence is folded in such a complex manner that humans cannot make a single hemoglobin molecule in a laboratory. There are 20 different amino acids.
So the number of possible sequences is 20 to the 574th power or 10 to the 747th power.


Explain exactly how the impossible task of assembling the one correct sequence of human hemoglobin, out of 10^747 possible others, was accomplished, KNOWING FULL WELL that every step in the assembly demands, according to your "selection" tautology, that each intermediary have a useful function which selectively preserves that step to the exclusion of most if not all others.  I say impossible because impossible can be defined as 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power.  Richard Dawkins defines it as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th.  There are only ~10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.

Your "proof," as you are always demanding of others, will require, oh, about 10 to the 700 steps, and intermediaries, and 'selection" processes.
That is just for ONE polypeptide, understand.


But try anyway.

(Nobody ever has, and nobody ever will.)

[TooMuchFun]

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with. Both religion and science need for their activities the belief in God" - Max Planck

“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.” - Jun-Yuan Chen, Chinese paleontologist who is an acknowledged expert on the Cambrian explosion

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.

According to anthropologist Tom Kemp, in his famous review, Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals, “In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.”

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." (Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

"Nine tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." (Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?" (Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." (Dr. John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in "The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought")

"Complex molecules that are essential to particular organisms often have such a vast information content as...to make the theory of evolution impossible." (Bird, Origin of Species Revisited, Vol. 1, pg. 71)

"A close inspection discovers an empirical impossibility to be inherent in the idea of evolution." (Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Swedish botanist and geneticist, English Summary of Synthetische Artbildung, pg. 1142-43, 1186.)

"At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." - Robert Jastrow, physicist and cosmologist, God and the Astronomers, page 116

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago [Darwinian evolution] is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science." (Dr. James Conant [chemist and former president of Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.)

[billvon]

SINCE YOU DARWINISTS "understand abiogenesis," why don't YOU explain the impossibility of hemoglobin synthesis.

Human hemoglobin consists of 574 amino acids arranged in a very precise sequence, which sequence is folded in such a complex manner that humans cannot make a single hemoglobin molecule in a laboratory. There are 20 different amino acids.

So the number of possible sequences is 20 to the 574th power or 10 to the 747th power.

 

 

Explain exactly how the impossible task of assembling the one correct sequence of human hemoglobin, out of 10^747 possible others, was accomplished, KNOWING FULL WELL that every step in the assembly demands, according to your "selection" tautology, that each intermediary have a useful function which selectively preserves that step to the exclusion of most if not all others.  I say impossible because impossible can be defined as 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power.  Richard Dawkins defines it as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th.  There are only ~10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.

Your "proof," as you are always demanding of others, will require, oh, about 10 to the 700 steps, and intermediaries, and 'selection" processes.

That is just for ONE polypeptide, understand.

 

 

But try anyway.

 

(Nobody ever has, and nobody ever will.)

1) Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis.  They are two completely different topics.

 

2) Hemoglobin is the oxygen-transporting molecule in mammals.  The evolutionary path for oxygen transporting molecules is a fairly "easy" one in that from the very first animals with a circulatory system, there was a molecule that provided that function.  At first it was water; oxygen dissolved in water and was transported around the animal.  Water is a poor way to transport oxygen, so as soon as a random mutation expressed a molecule that transported oxygen even slightly better than water, it was conserved.  There was no need for a molecule to spring into being, with all parts correctly expressed, to be useful.

[TooMuchFun]

Synthesizing polypeptides for the first time is so "easy" that today's biochemists can't reproduce hemoglobin in the laboratory.

Nobody but YOU said anything about "spring(ing) into being" except you.  

What you fail to understand is that irrespective of the timetable for synthesis, all the statistics are applicable.  It's still one of a possible twenty different amino acids, whether the "selection" is made today or in 10,000 years.  1/20 remains 1/20, just as if you flip a coin now or in 10,000 years.  Time doesn't make it any easier.

 

"A random mutation expressed a molecule."  You call that science?  "Expressed a molecule"?

 

On any biochemistry exam that remark would earn you an "F" grade.

 

Incidentally, Darwinists simply LOVE to try to separate abiogenesis from Darwinian evolution.  Sorry, you need to explain "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES."

The first single-celled life form was a specie.  Explain it, and then explain how it went from a few hundred precise polypeptides to the hundreds of thousands in all life forms today, which "selected" 1 out of 20 different amino acids, step by painstakingly slow step.

Edited September 30, 2018 by TooMuchFun

[A-wal]

1) Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis.  They are two completely different topics.

This!

 

It is very strange that something that supposedly happened by chance we can't even do on purpose.

 

All we need to do it set up a situation where a molecule uses what's around it to make a copy of itself. If it's a decent copy then it will also use what's around to make a copy of itself. We then carry on feeding it material to keep going and watch it evolve until it mutates enough to become airborne. Then we lock the door behind us and come back in a million years to say hello to the tiny 'aliens' flying around in their tiny planes.

[Vmedvil2]

Ya, did you say that was 574 amino acids, that is simple that is only like 1,722 base pairs of code, they have synthesized viruses with codes much longer than that synthetically. Probably no one has seen a reason to generate that gene synthetically yet, but yes it could easily be done but these sort of things cost money around .11 dollars per base pair, people usually do not waste time on making genes that can be commonly harvested via synthetic biology for $200 you can get it made, if you want to waste your money on getting a gene that can be easily harvested from natural genetic material made synthetically.

 

Edited September 30, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[exchemist]

The idea that evolution is a fairytale, even though it is universally accepted by science, would seem to require that there be some sort of conspiracy within science to keep a bad theory going, presumably in the face of evidence of some kind to the contrary. Sadly we are not so far offered any hints as to what this conspiracy may be, or what the contrary evidence might be. Though I have little doubt it will involve "the Left", or "liberals", in some shape or form*.

 

Perhaps someone will elucidate.

 

 

* though perhaps I should leave lizard people out of it, this time round :)

Edited September 30, 2018 by exchemist

[TooMuchFun]

The idea that evolution is a fairytale, even though it is universally accepted by science, would seem to require that there be some sort of conspiracy within science to keep a bad theory going, presumably in the face of evidence of some kind to the contrary. Sadly we are not so far offered any hints as to what this conspiracy may be, or what the contrary evidence might be. Though I have little doubt it will involve "the Left", or "liberals", in some shape or form*.

 

Perhaps someone will elucidate.

 

 

* though perhaps I should leave lizard people out of it, this time round :)

 

1.  The Left controls academia in the United States.  For that reason, we have claims of "climate change" and paranoia to a high degree.

2. Also because the Left controls academia, the archaic *theory* of Darwin is worshiped as a religion, and no dissent is tolerated.  This is because the Left DEMANDS an explanation, and if Darwinism is discarded, then WHAT, the Left demands, will "take  its place!"

 

In point of fact, NOTHING need "take its  place."  The simple answer is, "We don't know."  Same answer as in so many other questions, not the least of which is why do masses attract, and with ultimate precision, as if all masses "know" the distance and mass of the others.  What do we know about gravity waves?  Pretty much nothing.

[hazelm]

1.  The Left controls academia in the United States.  For that reason, we have claims of "climate change" and paranoia to a high degree.

2. Also because the Left controls academia, the archaic *theory* of Darwin is worshiped as a religion, and no dissent is tolerated.  This is because the Left DEMANDS an explanation, and if Darwinism is discarded, then WHAT, the Left demands, will "take  its place!"

 

In point of fact, NOTHING need "take its  place."  The simple answer is, "We don't know."  Same answer as in so many other questions, not the least of which is why do masses attract, and with ultimate precision, as if all masses "know" the distance and mass of the others.  What do we know about gravity waves?  Pretty much nothing.

Any and every group of any persuasion whatsoever always has its "my way or no way" worshipers.  I pay them no heed.  I prefer "my way" of knowing all sides of the debate.  If that isn't what science is, that is what science should be.  That is why, when I simply want to know the basic premise of any belief,  I prefer a simple "Yes" or "No".  Opinions can come later -- if I have any, which I often do not.

 

I have explained elsewhere where I think I was confused.  I hope I have it right now. 

[billvon]

Synthesizing polypeptides for the first time is so "easy" that today's biochemists can't reproduce hemoglobin in the laboratory.

Nobody but YOU said anything about "spring(ing) into being" except you.  

What you fail to understand is that irrespective of the timetable for synthesis, all the statistics are applicable.  It's still one of a possible twenty different amino acids, whether the "selection" is made today or in 10,000 years.  1/20 remains 1/20, just as if you flip a coin now or in 10,000 years.  Time doesn't make it any easier.

Exactly.  And the odds of all that happening "by accident" are astronomically small.

 

But if you make one change at a time, and throw out every change other than changes that work, then it becomes far more likely.  And once that happens, time DOES make it more likely.

 

 

"A random mutation expressed a molecule."  You call that science?  "Expressed a molecule"?

 

On any biochemistry exam that remark would earn you an "F" grade.

 

 

I would welcome an F in any course you gave; it would indicate I'm not a fool.

 

Random mutations affect DNA (and the subunits of DNA known as genes.)  DNA is used as a template to create RNA.  RNA (of several different varieties) then perform protein translation, one amino acid at a time.  These proteins are the molecules that are expressed by a gene.

 

Google "gene expression" for more info.  It's biology 101.

 

 

Incidentally, Darwinists simply LOVE to try to separate abiogenesis from Darwinian evolution.

 

Just as physicists love to separate fission from fusion.  Because they are two different things.

 

 

Sorry, you need to explain "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES."

 

Sure.  What don't you understand about it?

 

The first single-celled life form was a specie.  Explain it, and then explain how it went from a few hundred precise polypeptides to the hundreds of thousands in all life forms today, which "selected" 1 out of 20 different amino acids, step by painstakingly slow step.

 

OK you have a lot of things confused here.

 

The first life form was most likely not a cell; it was most likely a self-replicating molecule, like the one synthesized at Scripps recently.

 

Some time well after that, a mechanism (likely RNA) arose where that self-replicating molecule could 'save changes' made to its structure, and could accurately reproduce that new structure. At that point heredity became a factor; replicated offspring could now inherit changes made by random mutations in the parent.  At this point (not before) evolution began.

 

Once evolution began, complexity that improved the survival of the organism was conserved.  And thus complexity of the genome - as well as complexity of the organism - began to grow.  At some point it reached the level of complexity that you would consider a "cell."

[GAHD]

Any and every group of any persuasion whatsoever always has its "my way or no way" worshipers.  I pay them no heed.  I prefer "my way" of knowing all sides of the debate.  If that isn't what science is, that is what science should be.  That is why, when I simply want to know the basic premise of any belief,  I prefer a simple "Yes" or "No".  Opinions can come later -- if I have any, which I often do not.

 

I have explained elsewhere where I think I was confused.  I hope I have it right now. 

Science isn't "knowing all sides of the debate" That's a lot closer to Engineering. Science is a system used to be able to reliably determine the underlying mechanics of the universe. Systems don't know things, they DO let you come to know things. ;)

 

That bit of hair splitting out of the way...

 

SINCE YOU DARWINISTS "understand abiogenesis," why don't YOU explain the impossibility of hemoglobin synthesis.

Human hemoglobin consists of 574 amino acids arranged in a very precise sequence, which sequence is folded in such a complex manner that humans cannot make a single hemoglobin molecule in a laboratory. There are 20 different amino acids.

So the number of possible sequences is 20 to the 574th power or 10 to the 747th power.

 

 

Explain exactly how the impossible task of assembling the one correct sequence of human hemoglobin, out of 10^747 possible others, was accomplished, KNOWING FULL WELL that every step in the assembly demands, according to your "selection" tautology, that each intermediary have a useful function which selectively preserves that step to the exclusion of most if not all others.  I say impossible because impossible can be defined as 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power.  Richard Dawkins defines it as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th.  There are only ~10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.

Your "proof," as you are always demanding of others, will require, oh, about 10 to the 700 steps, and intermediaries, and 'selection" processes.

That is just for ONE polypeptide, understand.

 

 

But try anyway.

 

(Nobody ever has, and nobody ever will.)

Well, there's a few possible pathways. First off though, you got a few things quite wrong AFAICT:

1. "according to your "selection" tautology, that each intermediary have a useful function" Nope, not at all. First off there are hundreds of "useless" genes in every genome we've manged to get a good picture of. The only selection criteria is that is is capable of procreation. After that environmental factors do tend to weed out the weakest links, as well as the unlucky. Compare sickle cell anemia, a rather nasty "bad adaption" that nonetheless is quite pronounced. Turns out that it's pronounced because it happens to (in very select circumstances) be better at surviving to procreate than more functional blood cell coding. Weird, it's almost like a random mutation of otherwise "perfect" genes managed to make it past some omniscient filter...
2. "Explain exactly how the impossible task of assembling the one correct sequence of human hemoglobin..." Why only human hemoglobin? Why not crustacean heme which is based on copper instead of iron? Why not in insects? See, cherrypicking one small region isn't exactly the smartest thing to do. It's very easy to fall into moving the goalposts. Still though, it's not impossible. Do you understand statistics? Do you understand how any non-zero probability of occurrence converges on 1 over time? If not, take a 3rd year stats class at your local uni and get back to me. :)
3. "Your "proof," as you are always demanding of others..." yup, people do like to have proof. Have you heard about the Invisible pink unicorn? The thing about dis-proving evolution is that it's VERY EASY TO DO. The problem is that when you try to, the sample will probably evolve.

    

 

 

[TooMuchFun]

Any and every group of any persuasion whatsoever always has its "my way or no way" worshipers.  I pay them no heed.  I prefer "my way" of knowing all sides of the debate.  If that isn't what science is, that is what science should be.  That is why, when I simply want to know the basic premise of any belief,  I prefer a simple "Yes" or "No".  Opinions can come later -- if I have any, which I often do not.

 

I have explained elsewhere where I think I was confused.  I hope I have it right now. 

 

As if you are the only one who knows all sides of the debate.  Please, spare the world such arrogance, such condescension.

[hazelm]

GAHD - Science isn't "knowing all sides of the debate" That's a lot closer to Engineering. Science is a system used to be able to reliably determine the underlying mechanics of the universe. Systems don't know things, they DO let you come to know things. ;)

That bit of hair splitting out of the way...

 

If Science doesn't know things, how are they going to let me come to know things? "Go ask Wiki"? 

 

I assume you meant "scientists" don't know things.  But, while an answer from a scientist would be more than welcome,  I was asking anyone who had been involved it reading about or arguing about two basic lines of thought.  It turned out to be simpler than I thought.  The difference is in the belief or disbelief of biogenesis. 

[TooMuchFun]

Science isn't "knowing all sides of the debate" That's a lot closer to Engineering. Science is a system used to be able to reliably determine the underlying mechanics of the universe. Systems don't know things, they DO let you come to know things. ;)

 

That bit of hair splitting out of the way...

 

Well, there's a few possible pathways. First off though, you got a few things quite wrong AFAICT:

1. "according to your "selection" tautology, that each intermediary have a useful function" Nope, not at all. First off there are hundreds of "useless" genes in every genome we've manged to get a good picture of. The only selection criteria is that is is capable of procreation. After that environmental factors do tend to weed out the weakest links, as well as the unlucky. Compare sickle cell anemia, a rather nasty "bad adaption" that nonetheless is quite pronounced. Turns out that it's pronounced because it happens to (in very select circumstances) be better at surviving to procreate than more functional blood cell coding. Weird, it's almost like a random mutation of otherwise "perfect" genes managed to make it past some omniscient filter...
2. "Explain exactly how the impossible task of assembling the one correct sequence of human hemoglobin..." Why only human hemoglobin? Why not crustacean heme which is based on copper instead of iron? Why not in insects? See, cherrypicking one small region isn't exactly the smartest thing to do. It's very easy to fall into moving the goalposts. Still though, it's not impossible. Do you understand statistics? Do you understand how any non-zero probability of occurrence converges on 1 over time? If not, take a 3rd year stats class at your local uni and get back to me. :)
3. "Your "proof," as you are always demanding of others..." yup, people do like to have proof. Have you heard about the Invisible pink unicorn? The thing about dis-proving evolution is that it's VERY EASY TO DO. The problem is that when you try to, the sample will probably evolve.

    

 

 

1.  Useless genes are not preserved by Darwinian *selection* are they.  So they may be disregarded.

2.  If you can't even get past the impossibility of one polypeptide, adding thousands of others only increases your difficulties.

3.  You don't seem to know that science doesn't do "proofs."  Or as Carl Sagan wrote, "Nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics."

He might have added, "And by atheists, Darwinists, and climate change priests."  They're all certain.

[hazelm]

As if you are the only one who knows all sides of the debate.  Please, spare the world such arrogance, such condescension.

Sorry you took it that way but I do think you mis-read what I was saying.  Please try again?

[billvon]

1.  Useless genes are not preserved by Darwinian *selection* are they.  So they may be disregarded.

2.  If you can't even get past the impossibility of one polypeptide, adding thousands of others only increases your difficulties.

3.  You don't seem to know that science doesn't do "proofs."  Or as Carl Sagan wrote, "Nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics."

He might have added, "And by atheists, Darwinists, and climate change priests."  They're all certain.

1) "Useless genes" are neither preserved nor discarded.  Since it takes energy to discard them, they are generally retained.  (Which is one reason we have so much non-coding DNA.)

 

2) Since self-assembling dipeptides are well known, it's hardly impossible.

[GAHD]

1.  Useless genes are not preserved by Darwinian *selection* are they.  So they may be disregarded.

2.  If you can't even get past the impossibility of one polypeptide, adding thousands of others only increases your difficulties.

3.  You don't seem to know that science doesn't do "proofs."  Or as Carl Sagan wrote, "Nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics."

He might have added, "And by atheists, Darwinists, and climate change priests."  They're all certain.

I like how you seamlessly moved the goalposts as mentioned in #2 in your response to #1 while simultaneously disregarding the questions posed about your understanding in specific areas. Also, GJ ignoring the observed and recorded evolution of complex energy pathways linked in #3. C'mon, be better than that, you're besmirching the reputation of us trolls everywhere.

 

Edited September 30, 2018 by GAHD