Has evolution run its course

[Phillip Diller]

The references are in my signature. Search "Giving Up Darwin" by David Gelernter. Essentially there are 20 amino acids to make up a DNA strand which averages 250 molecules. So schoolboy arithmetic is 20 to the 250th power for each strand of DNA. It's mathematically impossible because everything in life has to be just so.

Your math illustration is extraordinarily conservative as it does not take into account the precise sequencing of those amino acids. Given that there are something on the order of 1,000 naturally occurring amino acids, the probability of randomly selecting the right amino acid for each location in a chain of 250, selecting only L-amino acids and getting them to bond only by peptide bonds, is unimaginably small. The matter of bonding alone makes the natural synthesis of proteins virtually impossible as amino acids only form peptide bonds about 50% of the time. So highly improbable is the random formation of even a single 100 unit protein that evolutionists have been reduced to suggesting that the first life-form survived and thrived without any of them - a concept totally without any experimental support. And there is no coherent narrative for living cells to transition from functioning w/o proteins to being absolutely dependent on them for their survival. The ONLY rational explanation for life is GOD.

 

[church mouse guy]

Your math illustration is extraordinarily conservative as it does not take into account the precise sequencing of those amino acids. Given that there are something on the order of 1,000 naturally occurring amino acids, the probability of randomly selecting the right amino acid for each location in a chain of 250, selecting only L-amino acids and getting them to bond only by peptide bonds, is unimaginably small. The matter of bonding alone makes the natural synthesis of proteins virtually impossible as amino acids only form peptide bonds about 50% of the time. So highly improbable is the random formation of even a single 100 unit protein that evolutionists have been reduced to suggesting that the first life-form survived and thrived without any of them - a concept totally without any experimental support. And there is no coherent narrative for living cells to transition from functioning w/o proteins to being absolutely dependent on them for their survival. The ONLY rational explanation for life is GOD.

Oh, I am alluding to the article in my signature that says 20 amino acids.

 

[Walpole]

Watch this --->

And this --->

 

[church mouse guy]

Evolution and deep time or millions & millions of years are Greek ideas revived in the Enlightenment but the Greeks borrowed it from Hinduism. Darwin was never a Christian and his theory is not scientific.

Scripture tells the history of the Creation about 6,000 years ago.

Evolution is scientifically impossible because of the mathematical complexity of DNA.

 

[Deacon]

Scientifically impossible?

And yet here before us today we see the Covid19 virus evolving before us into different strains.
We see how that virus effects a population, weeding out some, leaving others unchanged.

This is how evolution works; small changes over time.

Rob

 

[Walpole]

Scientifically impossible?

And yet here before us today we see the Covid19 virus evolving before us into different strains.
We see how that virus effects a population, weeding out some, leaving others unchanged.

This is how evolution works; small changes over time.

Rob

Unfortunately there is a lot of this in the world today, especially amongst Christians...

 

[church mouse guy]

Scientifically impossible?

And yet here before us today we see the Covid19 virus evolving before us into different strains.
We see how that virus effects a population, weeding out some, leaving others unchanged.

This is how evolution works; small changes over time.

Rob

Evolution teaches that all life evolved from a single cell. It is a Hindu idea. No one ever denied that you can breed dogs until you get a French poodle, which is what you are talking about.

You left out the part about the complexity of DNA.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Scientifically impossible?

And yet here before us today we see the Covid19 virus evolving before us into different strains.
We see how that virus effects a population, weeding out some, leaving others unchanged.

This is how evolution works; small changes over time.

Rob

Forms of evolution based on creation are not really in question. This particular form is much better classified as adaptation and exhibits a sophistication dependent on creative involvement.

The adaptability observed in nature operates much like AI, but at a much higher level. If there were no creative involvement, then we are left with the circular or regressive absurdity that organisms survived by adapting to the point of being able to adapt.

 

[church mouse guy]

Forms of evolution based on creation are not really in question. This particular form is much better classified as adaptation and exhibits a sophistication dependent on creative involvement.

The adaptability observed in nature operates much like AI, but at a much higher level. If there were no creative involvement, then we are left with the circular or regressive absurdity that organisms survived by adapting to the point of being able to adapt.

There's micro evolution and macro evolution. No one has ever disputed micro evolution. Because of the complexity of DNA, what Darwin was talking about in macro evolution is mathematically scientifically impossible.

 

[Phillip Diller]

Using Covid as an example of evolution is both predictable and poor. Do variants of Covid represent corruption or improvement? The fact remains that all Covid forms are still incapable of self-replication, so the changes that we see lack evidence of any improvement is their ability to survive.

 

[timtofly]

Forms of evolution based on creation are not really in question. This particular form is much better classified as adaptation and exhibits a sophistication dependent on creative involvement.

The adaptability observed in nature operates much like AI, but at a much higher level. If there were no creative involvement, then we are left with the circular or regressive absurdity that organisms survived by adapting to the point of being able to adapt.

Since change has only been around for 6000 years, there has not been enough time to prove evolution, except what change we can see in the lab. New species keep appearing and no one asks why? Instead they try to see how they fit in some virtual evolutionary tree.

 

[church mouse guy]

Since change has only been around for 6000 years, there has not been enough time to prove evolution, except what change we can see in the lab. New species keep appearing and no one asks why? Instead they try to see how they fit in some virtual evolutionary tree.

New species or natural selection within a species? What is the link to the new species that have evolved?

 

[Yeshua1]

New species or natural selection within a species? What is the link to the new species that have evolved?

How can there be real new species, as thought God ceased from doing thst on day 7 in genesis?

 

[timtofly]

God created the Garden after the day of rest. God can create at any time. I pointed out that scientists have no explanations. All they can do is find a spot on their tree.

 

[church mouse guy]

God created the Garden after the day of rest. God can create at any time. I pointed out that scientists have no explanations. All they can do is find a spot on their tree.

What examples do you have?

 

[timtofly]

What examples do you have?

I don't have any examples. They keep talking about finding new species off and on in the news. If you search online , I am sure it would take hours to read all about them over the last 10 to 20 years.

 

[37818]

New God created the Garden after the day of rest.

No. The garden was made on the 6th day, Genesis 2:7, Genesis 2:15 and Genesis 2:21-22, Genesis 1:27-31.

 

[church mouse guy]

I don't have any examples. They keep talking about finding new species off and on in the news. If you search online , I am sure it would take hours to read all about them over the last 10 to 20 years.

There aren't any examples of new species. Evolution is scientifically impossible.

 

[timtofly]

No. The garden was made on the 6th day, Genesis 2:7, Genesis 2:15 and Genesis 2:21-22, Genesis 1:27-31.

Numbers do not prove anything. You cannot put your interpretation into Genesis 1. You can believe anything you like. God says that after the 7th day, a 1000 years on earth later, God planted a Garden, and put Adam in it. Adam was 1000 years old, when God planted the Garden. If you cannot accept this one fact, you have accepted the deception of Satan in 2 Thessalonians 2. Satan does not want anyone to know there was 1000 years of perfection before the fall. God let Satan deceive us in that fact. This 1000 year time frame messes up a lot of current evolution and 14 billion year old history that Satan has decieved humanity with.

 

[timtofly]

There aren't any examples of new species. Evolution is scientifically impossible.

They are new, because they have randomly popped up in places they were not seen in prior to, or places that scientist claim, they would not have worked in their evolutionary thought processes.