There's not enough time in the world for mutations to create new proteins

a reply to: cooperton

This is what rings true for me.

The idea of evolution by natural selection, first described by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace, requires differential survival due to some individuals having greater evolutionary fitness. Whether that fitness is affected by genetic disorders, venomous saliva or enlarged offspring, heritable variation can only arise by mutation. Evolution is simply not possible without random genetic change for its raw material.

www.nature.com...#:~:text=If%20the%20mutation%20has%20a,it%20is %20called%20an%20adaptation.

a reply to: cooperton

Yes, that's how the body works. And we describe it in ways we can understand it. It doesn't mean we have literal machines crawling around in us moving things around.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
DNA discovered 1860's

Darwin lived until the 1880's

A swing and a miss.

The guy that isolated/discovered it died without knowing it's role in genetics and he died 13 years after darwin so how was Darwin supposed to know?

It wasn't until the 1930s and later that this role was figured out.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: cooperton

Humans invented the code to understand how it works... naturally without human organization and categorization the concept of a code wouldn't exist.

It's just a way for us to interpret how that specific aspect of the universe works.

And remember we always limit ourselves within our observations as there are many unanswered questions where conventional ways and means just don't jive with the truth of the reality observed.

That's how it should work. And we shouldn't deny it either, knowing we aren't perfect and that there's more to discover is what keeps science going forward.

I don't understand why people who try and dismiss evolution think those who accept it are stuck at a dead end while they cling onto this ides of some eternal being whipping up life in a lab which is just a dead end mindset.

a reply to: daskakik

I forgot about that aspect. It's role wasn't even known for a while, people just knew what it might be.

I like your Threads Cooperton. It becomes very obvious that the chance for Chance is statistically impossible when looking at proteins. They say there are over 50,000 of them in the human body. And it would take a primordial soup the size of the universe and many many many lifetimes of our universe for just 1 of these to fold on itself correctly by accident.

The unscientific statements that flaunt the truth by people like those of strongfp, basically saying they don't really care about reality, remind me of what is happening in society today where people have thrown biology out the window completely stating that male and female are imaginary.

I don't like calling people names, but listen to this bozo talk about gender fluidity:

Neil deGrasse Tyson

These people will make up any old nonsense and believe it. And they are the wise and intellectual ones of the world.

Just about as wise and worthy to be followed as the officials in charge of saving those peoples' lives in Maui, Hawaii.

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: cooperton

Humans invented the code to understand how it works... naturally without human organization and categorization the concept of a code wouldn't exist.

It's just a way for us to interpret how that specific aspect of the universe works.

And remember we always limit ourselves within our observations as there are many unanswered questions where conventional ways and means just don't jive with the truth of the reality observed.

That's how it should work. And we shouldn't deny it either, knowing we aren't perfect and that there's more to discover is what keeps science going forward.

I don't understand why people who try and dismiss evolution think those who accept it are stuck at a dead end while they cling onto this ides of some eternal being whipping up life in a lab which is just a dead end mindset.

It requires an inquiring mind and one's religious beliefs should be put to the side.

Our work has furthered the understanding of the fundamental nature of protein folding, what genes are, and uncovered the unexpected conclusion that misfolded proteins can drive evolution, just as they can cause disease.

www.lakeforest.edu...

So the proteins were designed to replicate with an infinitesimal rate of error.

A reply to: cooperton

originally posted by: strongfp


That's how it should work. And we shouldn't deny it either, knowing we aren't perfect and that there's more to discover is what keeps science going forward.

I don't understand why people who try and dismiss evolution think those who accept it are stuck at a dead end while they cling onto this ides of some eternal being whipping up life in a lab which is just a dead end mindset.

That's exactly what I am doing here, assessing empirical science and showing we ought to move on from this dead-end theory.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: cooperton

Yes, that's how the body works. And we describe it in ways we can understand it. It doesn't mean we have literal machines crawling around in us moving things around.

It is called cellular machinery for a reason. They didn't just pick a name out of a hat. Biological organisms have design written all over, there's even the word logical in biological. It is a testament to its design

a reply to: randomuser

It does seem like objectivity gets thrown out the window. That's crazy that Neil is denying one of the most basic part of biology

a reply to: cooperton

Why doesn't this imply that live is old, very old, older than the universe itself if must be?

Just because earth isn't around long enough for your chances calculation (which don't actually work the way you think) to produce life, doesn't mean it isn't random, maybe just much older...

So you’re saying there’s a chance?

I mean stepping away from the, evolution is impossible, position for just a second. That, I assume, would mean that the creator created every thing from a Black hole to Higgs Bosun and everything in between? Every perfect protein, ever strand of DNA, every creature, plants and things we might not yet know about? Right down to the cellular level, the atomic level indeed. That’s pretty insane. Not sure how that would work. I mean it is a lot of work.

Oh and as this universe is almost infinite and there appear to be many, then pretty much all things must be possible. So it is highly likely that there is a God. Almost impossible for there not to be. However, the work involved creating the flora and fauna of just this planet would be pretty much insane. Where did the blueprints come from?

a reply to: cooperton

It's clearly not a dead end science since it's still being proven right over and over...

Also, you're right we didn't just pick a name out of a hat, we used terminology to describe what we saw. That doesn't mean there's a designer of what we observe and describe it.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: strongfp


That's how it should work. And we shouldn't deny it either, knowing we aren't perfect and that there's more to discover is what keeps science going forward.

I don't understand why people who try and dismiss evolution think those who accept it are stuck at a dead end while they cling onto this ides of some eternal being whipping up life in a lab which is just a dead end mindset.

That's exactly what I am doing here, assessing empirical science and showing we ought to move on from this dead-end theory.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: cooperton

Yes, that's how the body works. And we describe it in ways we can understand it. It doesn't mean we have literal machines crawling around in us moving things around.

It is called cellular machinery for a reason. They didn't just pick a name out of a hat. Biological organisms have design written all over, there's even the word logical in biological. It is a testament to its design

a reply to: randomuser

It does seem like objectivity gets thrown out the window. That's crazy that Neil is denying one of the most basic part of biology

Join the club, everyone seems to be assessing empirical evidence then dismissing it.

www.youtube.com...

The computational biologist Eugene Koonin thinks people should get used to theories not fitting together. Unification is a mirage. “In my view there is no – can be no – single theory of evolution,” he told me. “There cannot be a single theory of everything. Even physicists do not have a theory of everything.”

www.theguardian.com...



New trends in evolutionary biology published in Royal Society (joint discussion)

royalsocietypublishing.org...

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Are you kidding? You criticize Darwin for his pride, athiesm, ect.. but your whole theory is just "God did dat, because bible say so".

Otherwise, interesting thread.

Your argument is based on natural organisms. COVID was created in a lab and didn't go through the gauntlet of evolution, it is mutating at a faster rate due to the entirely new environment. Most mutations do fail, it's just that this mutates at a higher rate

Non-specific reply:

That's gotta be a false dilemma. Or some other misapplied idea out of context. The Devil's in the details with rhetorical deception to arrive at a predetermined point.

It's best not play into the argument.

People can clearly see whatever they want, but at a certain point, a devious head snake takes over and endlessly puppets the person with an obsession to try to convince as many as possible they are right. Even when it takes all kinds of mental gymnastics and fallacy to keep their argument in a perpetually affirmed position.

Playing on that opponents court is the rhetorical equivalent of opiate withdrawal. Dysphoric, skin crawling, general discomfort Just hit your head against the wall, it's the same freaking thing.

If god exists I think it may be showing the same concern he did with Captain Ahab after he went all crazy over a whale. At the same time I don't think God minds altering the encyclopedia of knowledge. It's not like a six day genesis needs to be literal anymore. Genesis needs to be in GeV (electron volts) not cubits. I think God even likes hilarious questions asked of some fallible person's 2000 year ago interpretation of the history of the universe.

Did Noah have clone polyps that would bud off and grow a new Noah, and that's how he lived to over 950?

originally posted by: Degradation33
Non-specific reply:

That's gotta be a false dilemma. Or some other misapplied idea out of context. The Devil's in the details with rhetorical deception to arrive at a predetermined point.

It's best not play into the argument.

People can clearly see whatever they want, but at a certain point, a devious head snake takes over and endlessly puppets the person with an obsession to try to convince as many as possible they are right. Even when it takes all kinds of mental gymnastics and fallacy to keep their argument in a perpetually affirmed position.

Playing on that opponents court is the rhetorical equivalent of opiate withdrawal. Dysphoric, skin crawling, general discomfort Just hit your head against the wall, it's the same freaking thing.

If god exists I think it may be showing the same concern he did with Captain Ahab after he went all crazy over a whale. At the same time I don't think God minds altering the encyclopedia of knowledge. It's not like a six day genesis needs to be literal anymore. Genesis needs to be in GeV (electron volts) not cubits. I think God even likes hilarious questions asked of some fallible person's 2000 year ago interpretation of the history of the universe.

Did Noah have clone polyps that would bud off and grow a new Noah, and that's how he lived to over 950?

I just like numbers. These are all numbers you can get out of peer-reviewed papers and what not... I'm shocked it was allowed to be published to be honest. People can believe whatever they want. There's dogma from the atheists as well as the theists

originally posted by: quintessentone

Join the club, everyone seems to be assessing empirical evidence then dismissing it.

It was soft tissue in dinosaur bones that really made up my mind. This clearly shows dinosaurs aren't as old as the evolutionary timeline insists. The way they ostracized the researcher who found it too showed you the true colors of this community. Surely enough it was eventually found that mostly all dinosaur bones still have soft tissue, so now the community back-pedals. They increase their dogma rather than admit the theory could be wrong

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: cooperton

It's clearly not a dead end science since it's still being proven right over and over...

There's no relevant application to reality from this theory. There's no example of organisms evolving into something else, E. Coli remains E. Coli even after 75,000 generations, no signs of becoming any other kind of prokaryote. The theory relies on faith, not proof.

Also, you're right we didn't just pick a name out of a hat, we used terminology to describe what we saw. That doesn't mean there's a designer of what we observe and describe it.

Sure it just says that biology behaves as though it is designed.

a reply to: cooperton

They increase their dogma rather than admit the theory could be wrong

Some do, some don't.

As I posted above scientists getting together in a joint meeting to discuss the origin of life is a step forward and to date they claim very little forward movement in this discipline is a reality, hence the $10 Million dollar prize for a patentable theory to create life from scratch...that was in 2019, to date 'crickets' (nadda).

Do we need to know the origin of life to give our lives meaning? Or to never know the origins of life to give our life meaning in God?

originally posted by: quintessentone


Do we need to know the origin of life to give our lives meaning? Or to never know the origins of life to give our life meaning in God?

Evolution runs the danger, if it is wrong, that it would be leading people into thinking this life is inevitably meaningless, all returns to eternal nothingness after death. If we generated from organic matter without any intelligent input, then this is a mere accident that will go away along with our awareness of it forever. This is quite daunting, I lived facing that abyss for a while when I was an atheist.

If you are convinced this life is erroneous, when in fact it is something of importance that perpetuates beyond this realm, then being stuck in the evolutionary mindset is dangerous. Pascal's wager and what not. Whereas if evolutionists are right, and we all return to nothingness, then it really didn't matter anyway, even if you did 'waste' time pursuing a God that doesn't exist.

For these reasons I really don't think evolution is a worthwhile theory whatsoever. It is not repeatable in a lab, and doesn't offer any ontological value. It promotes genocide, greed, survival of the fittest, and so on.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: quintessentone


Do we need to know the origin of life to give our lives meaning? Or to never know the origins of life to give our life meaning in God?

Evolution runs the danger, if it is wrong, that it would be leading people into thinking this life is inevitably meaningless, all returns to eternal nothingness after death. If we generated from organic matter without any intelligent input, then this is a mere accident that will go away along with our awareness of it forever. This is quite daunting, I lived facing that abyss for a while when I was an atheist.

If you are convinced this life is erroneous, when in fact it is something of importance that perpetuates beyond this realm, then being stuck in the evolutionary mindset is dangerous. Pascal's wager and what not. Whereas if evolutionists are right, and we all return to nothingness, then it really didn't matter anyway, even if you did 'waste' time pursuing a God that doesn't exist.

For these reasons I really don't think evolution is a worthwhile theory whatsoever. It is not repeatable in a lab, and doesn't offer any ontological value. It promotes genocide, greed, survival of the fittest, and so on.

If we found out that our lives will end into nothingness, I suspect people would take on different ways of accepting and dealing with it. Some may make the most meaningful life they possibly can and that would look different for each person, while others may become despondent and have a 'what does it matter in the end' attitude. It appears we are all living that way now.

I have already decided to make my life meaningful in ways that are meaningful to me personally. If I suddenly learned that this is all there is or that this is not all there is, it won't change anything for me, except that that one important question in my mind is finally answered.