Science indicates evolution of species.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Phantom423

I'm not sure we're talking about the same wizard here. My wizard is better.

Please post a picture. Cooperton can decide who has the better wizard.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Please post a picture. Cooperton can decide who has the better wizard.

Evolution's wizard is a monkey writing Shakespeare. But the monkey never even sat down to write anything, it just shook the typewriter and then used it as a toilet for the rest of eternity.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Please post a picture. Cooperton can decide who has the better wizard.

Evolution's wizard is a monkey writing Shakespeare. But the monkey never even sat down to write anything, it just shook the typewriter and then used it as a toilet for the rest of eternity.

That statement is a testament to your ignorance and stupidity. There are currently over 620 recognized journals and over 100,000 research articles on evolutionary biology. No doubt toilet paper to you. But real science for the rest of us.

www.scimagojr.com...

originally posted by: Phantom423

That statement is a testament to your ignorance and stupidity. There are currently over 620 recognized journals and over 100,000 research articles on evolutionary biology. No doubt toilet paper to you. But real science for the rest of us.

www.scimagojr.com...

Lots of fluff, but not one example of a population of organisms evolving. Such a waste of tax dollars for an obsolete theory.



I'm ready to discuss the impossibility of biochemical cascades evolving whenever you think you're ready. Or are you just going to throw insults as a smoke grenade and leave the discussion?

*Phantom vanishes back to where she came from*

a reply to: cooperton


Not a chance.

a reply to: Phantom423



The electron transport chain is vital for life because it creates the universal biologic energy currency known as ATP. The biochemical cascade ultimately involves the influx of H+ ions into the inner cellular membrane of mitochondria to form an electrochemical gradient much like a hydrogen fuel cell. This gradient is released through ATP synthase which acts like a turbine to generate ATP the energy currency of the cell.

The dilemma for evolution comes from the fact that all these components of the electron transport chain must be present to enable this energy formation. No known lifeform has an incomplete electron transport chain. Evolution theorizes that random mutations to genetic code can alter proteins to generate new functioning proteins.

How could all of the proteins necessary for the electron transport chain have been generated simultaneously? This is most definitely a necessity because none of these components can generate any sort of energy without all the other components in play. To add to the dilemma for evolution, all of these proteins are comprised of smaller sub-unit proteins, so each complex in the electron transport chain would require multiple perfect mutations.



So each of these sub-units would have had to been generated simultaneously within the same miraculous mutation amalgam. To add to the discrepancy of evolution with reality, it has been estimated that the odds of generating a single functional protein domain is about 1/10^64, or:

1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

according to this study.

And that's only the odds to create a random functional protein domain, let alone a relevant functional protein domain that is required for the specific task, and also, each sub-unit has multiple domains that would be necessary to code for.

So you'd have a 1/10^64 chance of creating a random functional protein domain multiple times for each sub-unit, which would then be required to mutate in symphony with multiple other sub-unit proteins to amalgamate the entire protein's quaternary structure, and then you would have to have the mutations simultaneously occurring for the other major proteins involved in the electron transport chain. Not to mention all the co-factors and co-enzymes that would be necessary to assemble all these parts properly, and the genetic modulators which would allow them to be created in proper equilibrium.

This is why evolution is impossible. You need to learn more about biology, it reveals how evolution does not line up with reality... even in billions upon billions of years, it would never happen.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Phantom423

The electron transport chain is vital for life because it creates the universal biologic energy currency known as ATP. The biochemical cascade ultimately involves the influx of H+ ions into the inner cellular membrane of mitochondria to form an electrochemical gradient much like a hydrogen fuel cell. This gradient is released through ATP synthase which acts like a turbine to generate ATP the energy currency of the cell.

The dilemma for evolution comes from the fact that all these components of the electron transport chain must be present to enable this energy formation. No known lifeform has an incomplete electron transport chain. Evolution theorizes that random mutations to genetic code can alter proteins to generate new functioning proteins.

How could all of the proteins necessary for the electron transport chain have been generated simultaneously? This is most definitely a necessity because none of these components can generate any sort of energy without all the other components in play. To add to the dilemma for evolution, all of these proteins are comprised of smaller sub-unit proteins, so each complex in the electron transport chain would require multiple perfect mutations.

So each of these sub-units would have had to been generated simultaneously within the same miraculous mutation amalgam. To add to the discrepancy of evolution with reality, it has been estimated that the odds of generating a single functional protein domain is about 1/10^64, or:

1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

according to this study.

And that's only the odds to create a random functional protein domain, let alone a relevant functional protein domain that is required for the specific task, and also, each sub-unit has multiple domains that would be necessary to code for.

So you'd have a 1/10^64 chance of creating a random functional protein domain multiple times for each sub-unit, which would then be required to mutate in symphony with multiple other sub-unit proteins to amalgamate the entire protein's quaternary structure, and then you would have to have the mutations simultaneously occurring for the other major proteins involved in the electron transport chain. Not to mention all the co-factors and co-enzymes that would be necessary to assemble all these parts properly, and the genetic modulators which would allow them to be created in proper equilibrium.

This is why evolution is impossible. You need to learn more about biology, it reveals how evolution does not line up with reality... even in billions upon billions of years, it would never happen.

Are you seriously asking for a college education to be handed to you in a conveniently summarized paragraph?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: whereislogic

How old do you think the earth is, knowing your belief can help me in understanding where you are coming from.

About 4.5 billion years.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Are you seriously asking for a college education to be handed to you in a conveniently summarized paragraph?

My thesis was on the involvement of excitotoxicity and the onset of a migraine headache. I could explain why that's irreducibly complex too. It's quite fascinating. It's essentially a defense mechanism to prevent an epileptic seizure - a brain-wide shut-down to prevent excitotoxic damage from an overactive neuronal mass. For this to have evolved by random mutation runs into the same biochemical dilemma in my posts above.

originally posted by: cooperton

How could all of the proteins necessary for the electron transport chain have been generated simultaneously? This is most definitely a necessity because none of these components can generate any sort of energy without all the other components in play. To add to the dilemma for evolution, all of these proteins are comprised of smaller sub-unit proteins, so each complex in the electron transport chain would require multiple perfect mutations.

Recently scientist have been able to get RNA to reproduce without the need to use protein as a part of it, RNA does not use protein...just DNA.

Every time I see a astronomical number of chance that is used to suggest things can not happen by chance I see that astronomical "chance" is based on having a purpose first and then trying to make it happen and not just random chance of whatever comes out of the chemical reactions with universal laws and physics guiding.

Its like throwing a baseball with the sole idea that a bird will fly into its path at the exact point that the pitcher releases the ball, how many tries over billions of years would this not happen if your sole purpose was to do just that, but by chance it can...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Recently scientist have been able to get RNA to reproduce without the need to use protein as a part of it, RNA does not use protein...just DNA.

The studies I have read that do so have some sort of involvement of proteins to facilitate the action. Genuinely interested. Can you send me a link please? Thanks.

Every time I see a astronomical number of chance that is used to suggest things can not happen by chance I see that astronomical "chance" is based on having a purpose first and then trying to make it happen and not just random chance of whatever comes out of the chemical reactions with universal laws and physics guiding.

Yet if an organism needed a particular biochemical function, it would take an unfathomable amount of time for that particular to come to be by random chance, so they couldn't rely on it's coming. the 1/10^64 odds is only for a random functional group to emerge - that's only a small portion of a protein as they are comprised of many functional groups that all need to be meticulously place. That's why the theory doesn't work.

originally posted by: cooperton

Yet if an organism needed a particular biochemical function, it would take an unfathomable amount of time for that particular to come to be by random chance, so they couldn't rely on it's coming. the 1/10^64 odds is only for a random functional group to emerge - that's only a small portion of a protein as they are comprised of many functional groups that all need to be meticulously place. That's why the theory doesn't work.

But once again if the random end product was anything it would be a trillion directions to end up with something in the end and there is 100% chance you would end up with something. Protein didn't need to be the end product, but may just happened to be....

The other side to all this is that life might not be random at all since there is a good chance it happens just about anytime conditions are right. It COULD be not random and also not intelligent design....

This article is about 9 years old but not bad.

First Life

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: cooperton

Yet if an organism needed a particular biochemical function, it would take an unfathomable amount of time for that particular to come to be by random chance, so they couldn't rely on it's coming. the 1/10^64 odds is only for a random functional group to emerge - that's only a small portion of a protein as they are comprised of many functional groups that all need to be meticulously place. That's why the theory doesn't work.

But once again if the random end product was anything it would be a trillion directions to end up with something in the end and there is 100% chance you would end up with something. Protein didn't need to be the end product, but may just happened to be....

The other side to all this is that life might not be random at all since there is a good chance it happens just about anytime conditions are right. It COULD be not random and also not intelligent design....

This article is about 9 years old but not bad.

First Life

Mutations are random. Natural selection is not. Variation + differential reproduction + heredity = natural selection. If all processes were random there would be no organizing capability for an organism to develop and maintain structure and function.

Cooperton knows nothing of basic biological processes. He goes to his online garbage cans (Creationist websites), picks out a few items and configures them for his own agenda. Crap in, crap out. Simple as that.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Cooperton knows nothing of basic biological processes. He goes to his online garbage cans (Creationist websites), picks out a few items and configures them for his own agenda. Crap in, crap out. Simple as that.

What he is suggesting is the initial creation of life with protein is way to complex to happen randomly, and it could very well not be random, but just a normal chemical process throughout the universe that if x y z happens then basic life building blocks happen as normal chemical processes. I think after that randomness kicks in as to what direction that life goes, but that still would follow non-random influences along the way. On the big scale how random is it to have an event that wiped out the dinosaurs to allow small mammals that can regulate their internal body temperatures to flourish and take over....

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Phantom423

Cooperton knows nothing of basic biological processes. He goes to his online garbage cans (Creationist websites), picks out a few items and configures them for his own agenda. Crap in, crap out. Simple as that.

What he is suggesting is the initial creation of life with protein is way to complex to happen randomly, and it could very well not be random, but just a normal chemical process throughout the universe that if x y z happens then basic life building blocks happen as normal chemical processes. I think after that randomness kicks in as to what direction that life goes, but that still would follow non-random influences along the way. On the big scale how random is it to have an event that wiped out the dinosaurs to allow small mammals that can regulate their internal body temperatures to flourish and take over....

As I mentioned previously, evolutionary biology is not about abiogenesis. It's about change over the millenia.

No one knows what the origin of life is on this planet. It could have arrived on an asteroid, it could have been planted here by an alien race, it could have come together in the mud and walked on to land. No one knows. It's all speculation.

To say that it was random chance is pure ignorance. Why? Because you need a model to define your "randomness" - a mathematical model. Once again, wiping the floor with Cooperton is an easy task. Just ask him for his mathematical model of randomness that predicts life on this planet. And yes, I said PREDICT because that's what mathematical models do - they predict something.

A Unified Theory of Randomness
Researchers have uncovered deep connections among different types of random objects, illuminating hidden geometric structures.
www.quantamagazine.org...

Jason Miller
Standard geometric objects can be described by simple rules — every straight line, for example, is just y = ax + b — and they stand in neat relation to each other: Connect two points to make a line, connect four line segments to make a square, connect six squares to make a cube.

These are not the kinds of objects that concern Scott Sheffield. Sheffield, a professor of mathematics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, studies shapes that are constructed by random processes. No two of them are ever exactly alike. Consider the most familiar random shape, the random walk, which shows up everywhere from the movement of financial asset prices to the path of particles in quantum physics. These walks are described as random because no knowledge of the path up to a given point can allow you to predict where it will go next.

originally posted by: Xtrozero



What he is suggesting is the initial creation of life with protein is way to complex to happen randomly

Abiogenesis is another can of worms. I'm talking about the impossibility of biochemical cascade evolution. These interconnected biochemical reactions require all components to be in play, and do not function if a piece is missing. This is why it could not have developed sequentially

originally posted by: Phantom423

Once again, wiping the floor with Cooperton is an easy task.

Still waiting on your response about the Evolution of the electron transport chain. You cant just say you wipe the floor with someone when you dont even respond. You dont respond because you cant. Evolutionary theory does not match with reality.

I figure the purpose of the theory of evolution is wiping the floor with people who come home from a hard day of work, to tell them they are offspring of a worm and other unreasonable magic. I'd rather have the JW's over. At least these people have understanding of creation. lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Its like throwing a baseball with the sole idea that a bird will fly into its path at the exact point that the pitcher releases the ball, how many tries over billions of years would this not happen if your sole purpose was to do just that, but by chance it can...

Good analogy, but the odds of hitting a bird with a baseball, given 650,000 pitches per year in the MLB, over 80 seasons since MLB video broadcasting began, gives you 1/52,000,000 chance at hitting a bird with a baseball. But this wouldn't be sufficient to create the electron transport chain because you need multiple protein domains, whole proteins, and chaperone proteins to facilitate its creation. It would be like pitching a whole game and hitting a bird every single time, except even lower chances than that.

It is approximately 1/52,000,000 odds of hitting a bird on a pitch, yet a successful protein domain mutation is 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 according to this study.

Multiple successful protein domain mutations would all have to happen at once, because there are multiple domains in each protein, and multiple proteins in the electron transport chain, not to mention the necessary chaperone proteins and co-enzymes to facilitate the whole thing.

It is impossible. That's why phantom has gone silent. She may come back with erroneous insults, but she will definitely not have a logical rebuttal based in relevant empirical data.

originally posted by: cooperton
yet a successful protein domain mutation is 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 according to this study.

So we have two paths here... You add an ingredient to make it happen called intelligent design, and I suggest you are missing pieces to the puzzle to take it from your obscene impossible number to something that is maybe uncommon at best when conditions are right. Your citation is even 16 years ago....

We will not solve anything here.... This is not an argument you think you can win, and as people drop off due to boredom of the same lines you pronounce yourself the winner...lol

One participation trophy to you...

a reply to: cooperton

Good analogy, but the odds of hitting a bird with a baseball, given 650,000 pitches per year in the MLB, over 80 seasons since MLB video broadcasting began, gives you 1/52,000,000 chance at hitting a bird with a baseball.

You forgot something in your calculations. Please include the odds of a bird being in that exact location at that exact moment.

Doesn't matter though. Once something happens, it happened. No matter what the odds.