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

I think Coop every 4 to 6 months brings up this same line over and over.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I think Coop every 4 to 6 months brings up this same line over and over.

Could be because they still cannot create life in a lab even with a $10 Million prize offered since 2019.

originally posted by: quintessentone

Could be because they still cannot create life in a lab even with a $10 Million prize offered since 2019.

But do we need his same arguments a few times a year?

What was primal earth like?

Anyhow, let's say God was the sparked life, then what happened?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: quintessentone

Could be because they still cannot create life in a lab even with a $10 Million prize offered since 2019.

But do we need his same arguments a few times a year?

What was primal earth like?

Anyhow, let's say God was the sparked life, then what happened?

Are you kidding? A few times a year compared to the same arguments cropping up every few days?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: rounda
a reply to: cooperton

It's futile to try to reason with non believers.

The universe sprang from nothing because it had to.

Which means the laws of physics don't actually exist.

Which means science is a lie.

Which means science is lying about the universe springing from nothing all by itself.

I am neither a believer nor a non-believer, I just don't know the truth and blind faith is not my way of living life.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have faith in man made religion.

I also don't have blind faith in science. Especially when they can't explain something without breaking their own "laws."

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: rounda
a reply to: cooperton

It's futile to try to reason with non believers.

The universe sprang from nothing because it had to.

Which means the laws of physics don't actually exist.

Which means science is a lie.

Which means science is lying about the universe springing from nothing all by itself.

There is no proof the universe sprang from nothing, it is an assumption rooted in the fact that the universe is expanding. It could constantly expand and contract, or maybe it has always been at bursting point until 14bn years ago. Nobody knows. We have a heat map and an accelerating expansion rate, that's all.

And yet, scientists will, and have, died on that hill.

And we will continue to push one viewpoint in public schools, but won't allow the other to be presented.

And there's evidence the universe isn't expanding, but there's millions of people who believe it is.

a reply to: cooperton

Here's that full quote from Darwin:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: cooperton

Here's that full quote from Darwin:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."

Why do we still have things like hereditary diseases?

Shouldn't the carriers have all died out long ago?

originally posted by: rounda
Why do we still have things like hereditary diseases?

Shouldn't the carriers have all died out long ago?

I guess those pesky diseases just keep getting passed on somehow.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: cooperton

Here's that full quote from Darwin:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."

He could find no such case at the time due to lack of medical knowledge on the interdependence of organs, tissues, cells, organelles, DNA, and proteins. Mostly all parts of the body rely on other aspects of the body, as we now know. Even within an organ itself, there are aspects that could not have come to be by piece-by-piece mutation because the whole is needed to be intact. such as the stomach:

Stomach Acid

Stomach acid consists of three chemicals - HCl, NaCl, and KCl. When food enters the stomach, it triggers stomach cells to release this slew of digestive chemicals. But, how does the stomach avoid being digested in the process? Cells in the lining of the stomach produce a buffer solution, that prevents that acidity from digesting the stomach lining. So which came first, the acid to digest the food? or the stomach lining to protect from self-digestion? Obviously both are needed for proper functioning. This is irreducible complexity.



It is not as if stomach acid is easy to produce either. Ion pumps in parietal (stomach) cells need to pump H+ protons against a concentration gradient up to ratios of 3,000,000 to 1. Even if this great feat was somehow sufficed by sequential mutations, it would need to be tightly regulated both chemically and neurologically. Mutations have never been shown to add novel interconnected functions like this.

The body then has indicators to show when the food is properly digested. This triggers the pyloric sphincter to open



If not for this valve, food would not have its proper time in the stomach, and without the proper signaling cues, it would behave erratically. This is just the very basics of all the necessary functions for a stomach to work. At the cellular level it gets even more interdependent and finely tuned. It is impossible for all of these functions to have come to be by step-by-step mutation, because all of these components are necessary for proper functioning.

originally posted by: quintessentone

I can believe in that, but how can it be studied in a repeatable and empirical manner? Certainly we never will be able to using our existing 'stay in the box' science.

Probably the closest experiment has been the double slit experiment, followed by Wheeler's delayed choice to reinforce its conclusions.

There's also experiments that show consciousness can de-localize itself from the body. But at the end of the day, "proving" consciousness as fundamental might be as difficult as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, you can't quite know everything without it changing.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I think Coop every 4 to 6 months brings up this same line over and over.

This is new math. I never did the calculations for the given mutation probability of an enzyme fold, and then relating that to the number of microbes on the planet. I'm honestly shocked no one else has done that math, probably because it shows the odds are an asymptote to impossibility.

originally posted by: rounda

Why do we still have things like hereditary diseases?

Shouldn't the carriers have all died out long ago?

When we say evolution we are basically saying reproduction, and so any evolutionary changes stop after the reproduction years. If we are not having babies in our 60s then there is no evolution happening at that age. God is perfect, but evolution is more like "just good enough", and so whatever allows a person to survive through their reproduction years will be passed on.

Sickle cell anemia is a good example of reducing one's life by many decades but helps to get people through the reproduction years as Malaria doesn't affect people with Sickle cell.

I think the bigger question would be if God created life why are there hereditary diseases?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: rounda

Why do we still have things like hereditary diseases?

Shouldn't the carriers have all died out long ago?

I think the bigger question would be if God created life why are there hereditary diseases?

Religions explain that.

a reply to: cooperton
Yeah, Im kinda in the Lamarkian minddset on this...makes so much more sense.

a reply to: cooperton

That's just an incredulity argument. It's not valid. You're looking at a highly developed system and asking how it came to be, but completely ignoring over 1bn years of complex life evolution and development.

Your argument is ridiculously juvenile. It would be funny if I didn't know you were serious. Maybe that makes it funnier?

originally posted by: rounda

Religions explain that.

Not really, man is still imperfect without hereditary diseases....

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

That's just an incredulity argument. It's not valid. You're looking at a highly developed system and asking how it came to be, but completely ignoring over 1bn years of complex life evolution and development.


Your argument is ridiculously juvenile. It would be funny if I didn't know you were serious. Maybe that makes it funnier?

Go ahead believe your unintelligent design theory I don't care dude lol. It's by its own definition the dumbest origin theory in the history of forever. You couldn't get dumber than it really. Even some person who has an IQ of 4 would have a better chance at creating life than dumb luck creating life.

It's sad how many people believe this trash theory just because enough people told them to. And don't say it's because of the science, I can't recall you ever having an intelligible, relevant response to any of my posts regarding the science. Instead you resort to condescension, your only sad defense, so your mind can sleep at night still thinking its a mutant ape-like thing grandchild because for some reason you think that's an idea worth fighting for..

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Not really, man is still imperfect without hereditary diseases....

It's recorded in the fall of humankind in Genesis. I know you have Bible-phobia though, so you can also refer to any of the recorded golden ages of most cultures, which describe an ancient prestigious humankind where health and longevity were prototypical.

a reply to: cooperton

I'm not replying to your tantrum, it's there for all to see.

Regarding your arguments, you haven't ever - I mean not one single time, EVER - produced evidence of your god. All you do is show how modern, complex biological systems are, to you, improbable or even impossible. Because of your laughable young Earth beliefs, you ignore almost all of biological history,

You prove NOTHING.

originally posted by: cooperton
It's recorded in the fall of humankind in Genesis. I know you have Bible-phobia though, so you can also refer to any of the recorded golden ages of most cultures, which describe an ancient prestigious humankind where health and longevity were prototypical.

Can I refer to other cultures for their origin and creation beliefs?

I mean, how much more or less true can they be compared to the Bible?

How does this Golden Age fit into the Bible? Where is it?

Because I remember sin coming into the picture asap, and other than long lives, nothing but wars and such. Doesn't sound like a very golden age to me.

Not to mention those other cultures weren't worshipping your God.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Not to mention those other cultures weren't worshipping your God.

Hey WakeUpBeer

I was praying to FSM the other day, and suddenly realized that I was praying for him more than praying to him.

Perhaps God of the Gaps should enter into the discussion.