A Simple Arguement Against INTELLIGENT Design

[T'ai Chi]

Our planet evolved as did life and the life forms on it. Things don't need to be planned or designed to be complex. In fact most complexity evolves from something simple refined and modified through time. Sure it looks super duper but there doesn't need to be a more complex designer behind any of it...

Yes, things change over time, that's trivially obvious. But why do you beleive change over time = no designer?

Also, things like canyons, mountains, rivers, etc., are many orders of magnitude simpler than biology.

 

[kleinman]

Start with your case is on a 100,000 base genome. If you consider that a 500,000 base genome (near the size of the smallest free living bacteria) would take a billion generations to evolve the 16 binding site (96 loci). If you want to try to extrapolate this result to a human size genome (3-4 billion bases), you can not evolve any genes or binding sites on a genome that size by point mutations and natural selection.

I agree that it is unlikely that a complex biological mechanism could evolve by point mutation alone starting with a random gigabase genome.

Paul, ev does not simulate the evolution of a random gigabase genome, it does not simulate the evolution of a random megabase genome, it does not simulate the evolution of a random 256 base genome, it simulates the evolution of the binding sites on a genome. Ev starts with the non-binding site region on the genome as random and when the simulation is finished, the non-binding site region is still random. Only the few loci that represent the binding site region evolve.

I can’t scientifically prove to you the existence of God but I can scientifically prove that theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

What do we need to do to get you to present this proof? Do you have to say it a certain number of times first? Do we have to beg on bended knee? Do we have to wait for the second coming? Whatever it is, please let me know.

Paul, if you start from the premise that there are only two possible ways we came into being, either we were created or we came into being by known physical laws and processes, then disproving either proves the other.

If you want to beg, turn to God and beg for His mercy, you will find it in abudance.

The only movement I’ve gotten out of Paul is that he no longer says the program models reality, he now qualifies what ev models.

I never said it did. In order to say that it does, as you do, one has to completely ignore the entire evolutionary landscape except for genetic binding mechanisms.

MAT:12:36 And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
MAT:12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Paul, not only do you have to deal with God, you have to deal with google.

Before I went public with this issue, I told Dr Schneider that once evolutionists understood what ev does with realistic parameters, they would discredit the model, this is what has happened.

Could you give us the list of evolutionists who have discredited his model?

Every evolutionist on the Evolutionisdead forum, they do it diplomatically like you, they now say that ev doesn’t model the entire evolutionary landscape. We’ll see what the evolutionarians have to say on this forum once they understand what ev really predicts.

Is it me, or do we have a severe case of repeat theatre here?

I can’t help it if you are having trouble understanding the mathematics of ev but I’ll be patient with you.

Start with your case is on a 100,000 base genome. If you consider that a 500,000 base genome (near the size of the smallest free living bacteria) would take a billion generations to evolve the 16 binding site (96 loci). If you want to try to extrapolate this result to a human size genome (3-4 billion bases), you can not evolve any genes or binding sites on a genome that size by point mutations and natural selection.

and this matters? I deny the notion that a full human genome would poof and then mutate to form binding sites.

I have had evolutionists correct my grammar, but Professor joobz, your English instructors should have never let you get past 1st grade. Why don’t you rephrase that collection of words into something intelligible and I’ll try to respond to it.

It is not just the stereochemistry issue, even if you can form a molecule nonezymatically out of single enantomers, that molecule will not be stable for years. It will spontaneously racemize. If you are a subscriber to the RNA world view of abiogenesis, how do you get D-ribose. Even if you somehow obtain D-ribose, it is an unstable molecule, it will decompose in a few years. For abiogenesis to occur, you must get a large number of complex unstable molecules in the same location at the same time to somehow combine to form the first living thing. Even if you managed to form a few of these molecules, what makes you think they would be in close enough proximity to spontaneously assemble. This is not a rational scientific concept. You should understand this.

Again, you cry impossible. Sure, improbable. But I discount the impossible. I'm sure if we continue, we can continiue to hypothesize a setting where it could happen.

Fair enough professor, why don’t you perform the experiment in your laboratory. Wait, we don’t have to, just look at what the sun does to the polymers in your auto tires when they sit in the sun a few years. The polymers that make up living thing such as proteins, DNA and RNA are extremely unstable molecules that are extremely difficult to synthesize nonezymatically. You should really change your title to Alchemical Engineer.

Good luck proving abiogenesis. I can’t scientifically prove to you the existence of God but I can scientifically prove that theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

I'm still waiting to see you do this.

If you believe in abiogenesis based on your argument that it is improbable but don't discount the impossible you have already entered the realm of the paranormal. If you want to learn why random point mutations and natural selection make macroevolution mathematically impossible, this argument will unfold for you if you pay attention.

Joobz, Paul has already identified me as the “annoying creationist”. The only thing I plan to do here is show you evolutionists the mathematical impossibility of your theory. You had better prepare yourself to go back and reconsider your interpretation of your scientific observations.

I've taken interest in answering the questions. I've never labeled you as annoying, you've done so yourself.

Yes you have answered my questions professor, you think that abiogenesis is improbable but you don’t discount the impossible. That is a powerful scientific argument. Paul labeled me as an annoying creationist. That’s much nicer than him calling me a liar.

What I mean is that modern science equates data with understanding. We live in an era with a lot more data but a lot less wisdom.

This statement is intellectually vapid.

What can I say? I’m an engineer and a physician, not a poet.

Joobz posted above and I didn’t find that to be a very impressive defense of abiogenesis. There is so much speculation associated with abiogenesis that I prefer to stick with the mathematical side of things with ev, however I will say something on this issue if I can annoy an evolutionist.

Similarly, I feel your critique of the ev model to mean that evolution is wrong to be disingenuous. you make assumptions that no one would agree to as being accurate for evolution and then show why those assumptions fail to make the model work. You have been given multiple reasons why those assumptions are in accurate, yet you still hold to them. I can not abide by that.

Professor, how many cases have you run with the ev computer model? Have you even read Dr Schneider’s papers on ev? Stick with your arguments on abiogenesis that it is improbable but you don’t discount the impossible, you have investigated that issue more than you have investigated Dr Schneider’s ev computer model of evolution.

So let’s do a little arithmetic. Assuming the length of the human genome is 3 billion bases. 2% of 3 billion is 60,000,000 base differences. If the humans and chimps diverged 4,000,000 years ago and you assume an average generation time of 10 years give 400,000 generations to accomplish this 60,000,000 base differences. That works out to an average of 150 nonfatal mutations per generation.

Kleinman, your statements regard the divergence between humans and chimps 4,000,000 years ago, but for the differences in our DNA, you rely on humans and chimps as they currently are. The fact is, you have no idea how far removed we are genetically from our common ancestor. And that is the important number - the genetic difference between us and 4,000,000 year-old chimp-like animal, not the difference between modern human and modern chimp. That data not being available, your calculations appear to be irrelevant.

If humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, 4,000,000 years ago, the first descendents from each of these lines must have had very similar genomes. So cut the number of nonfatal mutations in each line in half. Humans require 75 nonfatal mutations per generation and chimps require 75 nonfatal mutations per generation to achieve the net divergence. In addition, if you read carefully what is written about the comparison of the human and chimp genome, that 98% similarity between the two genomes is based on the portions that can be compared. Any objection counselor? I warn you I grew up watching Perry Mason on TV.

You also appear to be assuming that every single one of the differences between modern humans and modern chimps arose in our DNA since we diverged. However, I am given to understand that the human genome is littered with archaic and junk DNA that does nothing. The ability to have a working apendix, for example, is probably burried in our DNA; it just isn't turned on. This leads me to think that some of the differences between humans and chimps could have been written into our DNA before we diverged. After our divergence, some of the non-working DNA already available in our common ancestor could have been switched on by some method unknown to me (or, I would suspect, you). The differences noted between modern chimps and modern humans may be a mixture of evolution and (for lack of a better term) devolution. It is important to note that the chimps or the humans might have been the ones to "devolve" or that each may have done so a bit in different directions.

Think about what you are saying counselor. You are saying that changes in the DNA before the two lines diverge are somehow not carried in the first descendents of the human/chimp lines. So mama primate ancestor gives birth to one offspring with the chimp genes and another with the human genes. Perry Mason would never make this argument.

The amount of junk DNA in our bodies leads me to one last point. Your calculations may be assuming that every single one of the mutations since our divergence 4,000,000 years ago is necessary to make us modern humans. However, it is possible that the important and working bits of DNA that differentiate us from modern chimps is really only a small portion of the total differences in base pairs between the two species. In that case, your figure of 150 non-fatal mutations per generation might even be correct. Humans may be able to withstand gross mutations in junk DNA without effect. So long as nothing tells our bodies to pay attention to the excess code, it shouldn't really matter what it says.

I hear this term junk DNA a lot from evolutionists. I guess that’s how evolutionists handle things they don’t understand by calling it junk. I’ll reiterate for you that the 98% similarity between human and chimp genomes is based on the portions of the genomes that are comparable. You should also learn that the DNA replicase system (the proteins that are involved in replicating DNA) do this with very high fidelity with accuracy in the range of only 1 error per billion bases replicated. This includes the so called junk region of DNA.

As I said, I'm not a biologist. But anyway, those were my thoughts.

Loss Leader, you have done a better job representing the legal aspects of evolution than Professor joozb has done representing the chemical engineering aspects of abiogenesis.

It has got to be genetic, every evolutionist is a thin skinned cry baby.

Joobz isn't thin skinned and he certainly isn't a cry baby. But he's correct in pointing out that some of your behavior is unbecoming an academic.

So, Foster Zygote, what are your credentials besides being a Graduate Poster and defender of thin skinned cry babies.

How does recombination increase information in the gene pool?

By itself, one simple mechanism - asymmetric recombination resulting in gene duplication.

This, then allows for more interesting point mutations - one copy continues to produce a product that fulfills the original gene function, the other can accumulate point mutations.
I didn't say point mutations are not involved in creating diversity, just that I don't think it's as important as other mechanisms.
Or genes can be aquired from another genome via heterologous recombination. Now you have a gene product in a different environment. That may not add information, but change the interpretation of the same information (i.e. pleiotropy).
Don't get so wrapped up in genome and forget that selection operates on the proteome; there's a lot of information that's not directly readable from the DNA sequence.

The problem with your concept is that the duplicated gene in order to evolve to a new gene by random point mutations is subject to the mathematics that is described by the ev model. This process is profoundly slow as can be shown by the using realistic parameters in the ev model. The other problem with your hypothesis is that you have to have the original gene to be duplicated. The evolution of the original gene to be duplicated by random point mutations and natural selection is also mathematically impossible as demonstrated by ev when realistic parameters are used.

Recombination does allow for diversity in a population but recombination (without errors) and natural selection can only cause loss of information in the gene pool you can never create a new gene by this mechanism.

Why the qualification? In the real world, does recombination occur without errors?

Of course you can create a new gene by recombination. The eukaryotic genome is inherently modular (you know, introns and exons); recombination can move pieces into and out of genes, creating new genes. I should try to find a few specific examples, but it's been a good 10 years since I was taking molecular biology coursework, so I don't have any in mind at the moment. Sorry, but I'm getting ready to be traveling tomorrow.
Then there are the transposable elements. See shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro_1999_Genetica.pdf for a review (that name brings me back - I think I exchanged few emails with Dr. Shapiro a few years back; I seem to remember he was misquoted by some anti-evolutionists).

Of course recombination doesn’t always occur without errors. If you are going to propose recombination errors as an important mechanism or evolution, I am going to ask you for some examples. I believe most recombination errors are harmful if not fatal to the organism that has these errors. Then how would these types of errors be beneficial to prokaryotes?


Transposable elements are the mechanism for forming antibodies, if you are going to propose this as a mechanism for evolution, again I would like to see examples. You still have the underlying problem that the initial transposable elements had to form somehow. Ev shows that random point mutations and natural selection is a profoundly slow process. How were the original transposable elements formed?

So let’s do a little arithmetic. Assuming the length of the human genome is 3 billion bases. 2% of 3 billion is 60,000,000 base differences. If the humans and chimps diverged 4,000,000 years ago and you assume an average generation time of 10 years give 400,000 generations to accomplish this 60,000,000 base differences. That works out to an average of 150 nonfatal mutations per generation.

You're assuming point mutations only.

Consider that a good 10% of the human genome is composed of repeated Alu elements - roughly 300bp of retrotransposable DNA that serves no known function, but can jump and replicate relatively freely. Consider w w w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=103813 26&dopt=Citation
A single Alu, differing from the original by a single point mutation, amplifying itself 1000 fold over a single generation would not shock me in the least (note that the above reference quotes an Alu copy number of >500000, and one new insertion for every 200 new births).
Also consider the role of retroposons. See biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030357
A little arithmetic shouldn't replace a lot of biology.

Let the mutations occur by any mechanism you wish. There are still an average of 150 (or 75 per species) loci changes per generation on average. If you believe that these other mechanisms of evolution will rescue Dr Schneider’s ev model, contact him and make the suggestion. I have suggested to him that he include recombination, I have even suggested to him a way of incorporating this into his model. He shows no interest.

If you are going to complain about my little bit of arithmetic replacing a lot of biology, you should lodge that same complaint when simple minded evolutionists say that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor 4,000,000 years ago because we share 98% of our genomes. That 2% of difference didn’t come by random point mutations and natural selection, it is mathematically impossible as shown by ev.

I’m a little beyond a 1st year biology student, along with my PhD in engineering and an MD degree, I also have a BS degree in advanced biological sciences. I also have a few other degrees as well that I didn’t mention.

I work for the CIA.

Don’t worry, I won’t tell anybody.

 

[Yahzi]

You put much more faith in science than I do.

That wasn't an answer.

Science has relentlessly shrunk the size of the unknown for several hundred years. Having confidence in its ability to continue this process does not seem unwarranted. Assuming it has now reached the limit and must stop would seem to require an explanation.

 

[hammegk]

... the whole ID argument is based on the premise that certain organs such as the eye could not have evolved bit by bit because there is no precursor organ an eye evolved from.

That is one formal argument that appears fruitless to date.

[derail]For some of us the real 'argument' for ID is that materialism as a philosophy leaves no room for either intelligence or design except as 'emergent properties'. (That being a scientific statement replacing goddidit.) And, that a philosophy of ~materialism implicitly depends on 'intelligence' as its' be-all and end-all.

Epistemology does not -- cannot -- address reality at this level and remains mute as to the correct, philosophic, answer. [/derail]

Sorry. My apologies.

 

[joobz]

I have had evolutionists correct my grammar, but Professor joobz, your English instructors should have never let you get past 1st grade. Why don’t you rephrase that collection of words into something intelligible and I’ll try to respond to it.

You are correct, i had written this rapidly and late, here is the corrected form.
Originally Posted by joobz
and this matters? I deny the notion that a full human genome would poof into existence and then mutate to form binding sites.

Fair enough professor, why don’t you perform the experiment in your laboratory.

I agree, it would make a very interesting experiment and I hope someone with the time and money performs it. Now, would you be so kind as to set up an experiment verifing your presumed method of abiogenesis? Some people are afraid to ask and answer hard questions. I'm not one of them. Please tell me, what is your preferred mechanism for the origin of life?

Wait, we don’t have to, just look at what the sun does to the polymers in your auto tires when they sit in the sun a few years.

This is just amusing. Why do you keep assigning time scales on the presistence of molecules in the process? Since we don't know the conditions, we can't know the kinetics. Why a few years? The polymers that make up living thing such as proteins, DNA and RNA are extremely unstable molecules that are extremely difficult to synthesize nonezymatically.[/quote] REALLY? Then how can they do dna analysis on old blood? on old relics? the DNA may be damaged, but it's there. Your definition of "really unstable" is too vague to be useful. As for RNA, it's only unstable because of the ubiquitous nature of RNAses secreted by living things.

You should really change your title to Alchemical Engineer.

You make me happy.

If you believe in abiogenesis based on your argument that it is improbable but don't discount the impossible you have already entered the realm of the paranormal.

I tell anyone I know not to play the lottery, it's a suckers bet. But does that mean the people who have won don't actually have the money? we can see in the lab chemical mechanisms that can occur that would make it feasible. Unfortunately, we haven't see a single event to prove the existence of god, so...I have to go where we have some evidence. I'm sorry to state this. I'm a reluctant agnostic. I want to believe in god, he just hasn't given me any reason to.

If you want to learn why random point mutations and natural selection make macroevolution mathematically impossible, this argument will unfold for you if you pay attention.

Yes you have answered my questions professor, you think that abiogenesis is improbable but you don’t discount the impossible. That is a powerful scientific argument. Paul labeled me as an annoying creationist. That’s much nicer than him calling me a liar.

I'm not certain what you mean by this.

Professor, how many cases have you run with the ev computer model? Have you even read Dr Schneider’s papers on ev? Stick with your arguments on abiogenesis that it is improbable but you don’t discount the impossible, you have investigated that issue more than you have investigated Dr Schneider’s ev computer model of evolution.

I don't need to review the program to critique your assumptions. It's that simple.
You keep saying, "Not enough time." Stick with thermodynamics. Show where the concept of abiogenesis isn't thermodynamically possible, then we can ignore all of your kinetic ramblings and you may have a case. But as it stands, you attack and you call names, but you haven't refuted what I have said.

Oh well, thank you for your quality debating, it has been enjoyable.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It shows an intelligent designer and an intelligently designed program can produce information.

And apparently it also shows that you have some unstated argument against the simple facts of mutation and selection in nature. Or perhaps against Minsky's Theorem:

The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, ev does not simulate the evolution of a random gigabase genome, it does not simulate the evolution of a random megabase genome, it does not simulate the evolution of a random 256 base genome, it simulates the evolution of the binding sites on a genome. Ev starts with the non-binding site region on the genome as random and when the simulation is finished, the non-binding site region is still random. Only the few loci that represent the binding site region evolve.

I did not say that Ev simulates the evolution of a random genome. I said that Ev starts from a random genome, and clearly its length matters to the simulation. If you want to make some claim about how different things would be if the initial genome was not random, you'll have to write a new simulator.

Paul, if you start from the premise that there are only two possible ways we came into being, either we were created or we came into being by known physical laws and processes, then disproving either proves the other.

What does this have to do with your unstated proof of the impossibility of evolution?

MAT:12:36 And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
MAT:12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Paul, not only do you have to deal with God, you have to deal with google.

Can we keep the Bible thumping down to a dull roar?

Every evolutionist on the Evolutionisdead forum, they do it diplomatically like you, they now say that ev doesn’t model the entire evolutionary landscape.

We agree! So how can you use Ev to disprove evolution?

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

You put much more faith in science than I do.

That wasn't an answer. Science has relentlessly shrunk the size of the unknown for several hundred years. Having confidence in its ability to continue this process does not seem unwarranted. Assuming it has now reached the limit and must stop would seem to require an explanation.

Don’t mistake the shrinking of the size of a transistor to shrinking the size of the unknown. I am not advocating the cessation of scientific research either. What I am saying that with careful mathematical analysis with an evolutionist’s (Dr Tom Schneider) peer reviewed and published computer model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection that it shows that punctuated equilibrium as postulated by Gould and macroevolution are impossible by this mechanism when realistic parameters are used in the model.

and this matters? I deny the notion that a full human genome would poof into existence and then mutate to form binding sites.

I think I agree with what you are saying but I have no idea why you should come to this conclusion. I believe it won’t happen for mathematical reasons, what are your reasons?

Fair enough professor, why don’t you perform the experiment in your laboratory.

I agree, it would make a very interesting experiment and I hope someone with the time and money performs it. Now, would you be so kind as to set up an experiment verifing your presumed method of abiogenesis? Some people are afraid to ask and answer hard questions. I'm not one of them. Please tell me, what is your preferred mechanism for the origin of life?

Joobz, I am the “annoying creationist” that Paul has been talking about, therefore my preferred mechanism for the origin of life is _______. (You may fill in the blank). Only taxpayers could be soaked for the money for your proposed experiment for abiogenesis. Let’s see those millionaire evolutionists put up the money.

Wait, we don’t have to, just look at what the sun does to the polymers in your auto tires when they sit in the sun a few years.

This is just amusing. Why do you keep assigning time scales on the presistence of molecules in the process? Since we don't know the conditions, we can't know the kinetics. Why a few years?

I guess you are trying to say that the sun didn’t exist and there were no ultraviolet rays when abogenesis occurred. There were no temperature extremes, the only chemical reactions that occurred were those which lead to the formation of life in a perfect laboratory environment of the primordial earth. If you think that ribose could last for 100 years you are not aware of the physical properties of this molecule. Why don’t you tell us how long proteins, DNA and RNA can remain before they denature, your are the chemical engineer.

The polymers that make up living thing such as proteins, DNA and RNA are extremely unstable molecules that are extremely difficult to synthesize nonezymatically.

REALLY? Then how can they do dna analysis on old blood? on old relics? the DNA may be damaged, but it's there. Your definition of "really unstable" is too vague to be useful. As for RNA, it's only unstable because of the ubiquitous nature of RNAses secreted by living things.

DNA analysis is limited to specimens with an age far shorter than those attributed to abiogenesis. DNA analysis also doesn’t do a full sequence to the DNA. Joozb, a single mutation can kill a living thing. Just because you may have remnants of DNA that can last years (maybe 70 million with that T Rex specimen), these molecules are not stable and are very rapidly denatured. Perhaps you believe that that they will be able to recover DNA from that T Rex specimen and get a full genetic code out of it. My argument is that even if you could form these molecules non-enzymatically in this pre-biotic soup, these molecules would very quickly denature. As you say, it is improbable that these molecules could form non-enzymatically, and I will add to this it is improbable that you could get all the molecules necessary to create a living thing at the same location at the same time in order to spontaneously assemble. So now you have improbable^2, I quess that still doesn’t discount impossible.

You should really change your title to Alchemical Engineer.

You make me happy

Feel free to use that title on your office at the University.

If you believe in abiogenesis based on your argument that it is improbable but don't discount the impossible you have already entered the realm of the paranormal.

I tell anyone I know not to play the lottery, it's a suckers bet. But does that mean the people who have won don't actually have the money? we can see in the lab chemical mechanisms that can occur that would make it feasible. Unfortunately, we haven't see a single event to prove the existence of god, so...I have to go where we have some evidence. I'm sorry to state this. I'm a reluctant agnostic. I want to believe in god, he just hasn't given me any reason to.

The problem with the theory of evolution is that you have to believe you can win one super lotto after another after another after another… When you say that we haven’t seen a single event to prove the existence of God, it makes me think of what one of the Soviet cosmonauts said when he went into orbit, he said I see God nowhere. When John Glenn was put into space, he said I see God everywhere. If you seek God, you will find Him.

Yes you have answered my questions professor, you think that abiogenesis is improbable but you don’t discount the impossible. That is a powerful scientific argument. Paul labeled me as an annoying creationist. That’s much nicer than him calling me a liar.

I'm not certain what you mean by this.

I’m not sure which statement you are not certain about so I’ll address all three. To consider abiogenesis as feasible by saying anything is possible is not a scientific explanation especially for someone with a PhD in chemical engineering. The second and third sentences pertain to your complaints that I would criticize you for taking such a position on abiogenesis based on your academic credentials. If you think your hypothesis is true, defend it, even if people call you a liar, annoying or crazy. Don’t be a thin skinned crybaby just because someone thinks your academic credentials should lead you to a different conclusion. If my criticism is true, reevaluate your view on abiogenesis and make your argument, if my criticism is false, shine it on as an annoying creationist’s stupid accusation. To say abiogenesis is true because anything is possible doesn’t qualify as a scientific argument, especially from someone with a PhD in chemical engineering. You better hang out with the evolutionists, they will tell you how smart your ideas on abiogenesis are.

Professor, how many cases have you run with the ev computer model? Have you even read Dr Schneider’s papers on ev? Stick with your arguments on abiogenesis that it is improbable but you don’t discount the impossible, you have investigated that issue more than you have investigated Dr Schneider’s ev computer model of evolution.

I don't need to review the program to critique your assumptions. It's that simple. You keep saying, "Not enough time." Stick with thermodynamics. Show where the concept of abiogenesis isn't thermodynamically possible, then we can ignore all of your kinetic ramblings and you may have a case. But as it stands, you attack and you call names, but you haven't refuted what I have said. Oh well, thank you for your quality debating, it has been enjoyable.

Let see, my assumption is that in order to get valid results out of a computer simulation you need to use realistic input parameters and you have decided that’s enough to discount my argument. This argument is based on thermodynamics. Information theory (the basis of Dr Schneider’s ev computer model) is directly correlated with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Even chemical engineers had to take a course in thermodynamics.

Paul, ev does not simulate the evolution of a random gigabase genome, it does not simulate the evolution of a random megabase genome, it does not simulate the evolution of a random 256 base genome, it simulates the evolution of the binding sites on a genome. Ev starts with the non-binding site region on the genome as random and when the simulation is finished, the non-binding site region is still random. Only the few loci that represent the binding site region evolve.

I did not say that Ev simulates the evolution of a random genome. I said that Ev starts from a random genome, and clearly its length matters to the simulation. If you want to make some claim about how different things would be if the initial genome was not random, you'll have to write a new simulator.

I don’t need a new simulator, the results from ev makes my point. This is part of the teaching process to those who are not familiar with ev. They need to understand that ev does not model the evolution of entire geneome, only a small portion of the genome. What happens on the rest of the genome is only important if a mutation causes a mistake.

Paul, if you start from the premise that there are only two possible ways we came into being, either we were created or we came into being by known physical laws and processes, then disproving either proves the other.

What does this have to do with your unstated proof of the impossibility of evolution?

Ev shows that the cornerstone to the theory of evolution, random point mutations and natural selection, is mathematically far too slow to explain either punctuated equilibrium or macroevolution. A major portion of the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Let’s see if the bloggers on this site have enough patience and intelligence to understand Dr Schneider’s model.

MAT:12:36 And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. MAT:12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Paul, not only do you have to deal with God, you have to deal with google.

Can we keep the Bible thumping down to a dull roar?

Paul, I thought you would find those verses interesting especially with the advent of google and other search engines.

Every evolutionist on the Evolutionisdead forum, they do it diplomatically like you, they now say that ev doesn’t model the entire evolutionary landscape.

We agree! So how can you use Ev to disprove evolution?

Let’s take a tour of that evolutionary landscape, we’ll start with ev and random point mutations and natural selection. You can be the tour guide and I’ll be the annoying creationist.

 

[joobz]

I think I agree with what you are saying but I have no idea why you should come to this conclusion. I believe it won’t happen for mathematical reasons, what are your reasons?

Your critique of the ev example is the existance of the whole human genome(poofed into existence) and that then random mutations accross the whole DNA would occur and that THIS PROCESS would take too long. I state that this makes no sense and discount it as a model of evolution. Please suggest another concept.

Joobz, I am the “annoying creationist” that Paul has been talking about, therefore my preferred mechanism for the origin of life is _______. (You may fill in the blank). Only taxpayers could be soaked for the money for your proposed experiment for abiogenesis. Let’s see those millionaire evolutionists put up the money.

Where are your proposed experiments for your proposed system? Let's see a experiment to prove ID or anything other than abiogenesis. I'd be willing to consider it. I enjoy hearing logical explanations. But again, you refuse to deny that my considerations are not chemically possible.

I guess you are trying to say that the sun didn’t exist and there were no ultraviolet rays when abogenesis occurred. There were no temperature extremes, the only chemical reactions that occurred were those which lead to the formation of life in a perfect laboratory environment of the primordial earth. If you think that ribose could last for 100 years you are not aware of the physical properties of this molecule. Why don’t you tell us how long proteins, DNA and RNA can remain before they denature, your are the chemical engineer.

I claim that temporal/locational/environmental changes could occur. That is all. You keep saying impossible and I agree that we don't know exactly. But there is nothing in our current knowledge to discount this. As knew information becomes known, I'd consider this as well. But you love to state time scales that mean nothing to me or to anyone.

DNA analysis is limited to specimens with an age far shorter than those attributed to abiogenesis. DNA analysis also doesn’t do a full sequence to the DNA. Joozb, a single mutation can kill a living thing. Just because you may have remnants of DNA that can last years (maybe 70 million with that T Rex specimen), these molecules are not stable and are very rapidly denatured. Perhaps you believe that that they will be able to recover DNA from that T Rex specimen and get a full genetic code out of it. My argument is that even if you could form these molecules non-enzymatically in this pre-biotic soup, these molecules would very quickly denature.

This is crazy. DNA, RNA. do not need to presist for 70 million years. They only needed to presist from the time of their synthesis to the time of their creation of the next iteration. Since only the forms that actually can do this would presist, it would greatly speed up their formation.

As you say, it is improbable that these molecules could form non-enzymatically,

I said non-catalytically, not non-enzymatically. Enzyme is a catalyst not all catalysts are enzymes. There's a HUGE difference. Can't you see this?

and I will add to this it is improbable that you could get all the molecules necessary to create a living thing at the same location at the same time in order to spontaneously assemble. So now you have improbable^2, I quess that still doesn’t discount impossible.

Again, you seem to ignore the concept of cooperative chemistry. Oh well. If it doesn't fit with your world view, I can see why you would.

Feel free to use that title on your office at the University.

That would be quite funny, especially when I inform everyone I was granted the degree at the University of Intelligent Design.

The problem with the theory of evolution is that you have to believe you can win one super lotto after another after another after another…

No, just 1 superlotto.

When you say that we haven’t seen a single event to prove the existence of God, it makes me think of what one of the Soviet cosmonauts said when he went into orbit, he said I see God nowhere. When John Glenn was put into space, he said I see God everywhere. If you seek God, you will find Him.

And some people claim to have seen Elvis, does this mean he still exists?

I’m not sure which statement you are not certain about so I’ll address all three. To consider abiogenesis as feasible by saying anything is possible is not a scientific explanation especially for someone with a PhD in chemical engineering. The second and third sentences pertain to your complaints that I would criticize you for taking such a position on abiogenesis based on your academic credentials. If you think your hypothesis is true, defend it, even if people call you a liar, annoying or crazy. Don’t be a thin skinned crybaby just because someone thinks your academic credentials should lead you to a different conclusion. If my criticism is true, reevaluate your view on abiogenesis and make your argument, if my criticism is false, shine it on as an annoying creationist’s stupid accusation. To say abiogenesis is true because anything is possible doesn’t qualify as a scientific argument, especially from someone with a PhD in chemical engineering. You better hang out with the evolutionists, they will tell you how smart your ideas on abiogenesis are.

You keep attacking personally. If your opinion and view was as strong as you claim, you wouldn't need to resort to these tactics.

Let see, my assumption is that in order to get valid results out of a computer simulation you need to use realistic input parameters and you have decided that’s enough to discount my argument. This argument is based on thermodynamics. Information theory (the basis of Dr Schneider’s ev computer model) is directly correlated with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Even chemical engineers had to take a course in thermodynamics.

You are claiming kinetics not thermodynamics. Prove that entropy of the universe decreases because of evolution or of site binding evolution.

To claim kinetics is your thermodynamic arguement, you have to have some known value for the activiation energy for the systems you seek to refute. and then show that their wasn't enough free energy available for these reactions to occur.

I'm throw you a bone and say maybe point mutation doesn't answer it, but that doesn't disprove evolution, only that it may take more than JUST point mutations.

 

[kleinman]

I think I agree with what you are saying but I have no idea why you should come to this conclusion. I believe it won’t happen for mathematical reasons, what are your reasons?

Your critique of the ev example is the existance of the whole human genome(poofed into existence) and that then random mutations accross the whole DNA would occur and that THIS PROCESS would take too long. I state that this makes no sense and discount it as a model of evolution. Please suggest another concept.

This is not my critique, it is the critique of evolutionist Dr Tom Schneider, head of computational molecular biology laboratory at the National Cancer Institute who wrote the ev computer program which was peer reviewed by the editors of the Oxford University Press journal and published in Nucleic Acids Research. Dr Schneider said the following in this article

Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4x10^9 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an overestimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer.

The rate of information that Dr Schneider used to evolve a human genome was based on the evolution of 96 loci on a 256 base genome and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation. Both of these values are totally unrealistic. If you simply use a realistic mutation rate of 1 mutation per 1,000,000 bases per generation, his estimate of 1 billion years to evolve a human genome becomes 4 trillion years. His estimate becomes even more preposterous when you use longer genomes. Consider that the smallest genome in any free living organism is about 500,000 bases.

Dr Schneider’s model of evolution by point mutations and natural selection is not a trivial calculation but it is understandable with some study. His model has been criticized for years by IDers and Dr Schneider has defended his model for as long. What nobody did until I looked at his model was do a parametric study of the model. What you find is that the mathematics of ev contradict several key hypothesizes of the theory of evolution when you use realistic parameters in the model. I happen to believe that Dr Schneider’s model is a plausible simulation of random point mutations and natural selection and the results should be considered both by evolutionists and creationists.
The full text of this article is available at:
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/ev.html

Joobz, I am the “annoying creationist” that Paul has been talking about, therefore my preferred mechanism for the origin of life is _______. (You may fill in the blank). Only taxpayers could be soaked for the money for your proposed experiment for abiogenesis. Let’s see those millionaire evolutionists put up the money.

Where are your proposed experiments for your proposed system? Let's see a experiment to prove ID or anything other than abiogenesis. I'd be willing to consider it. I enjoy hearing logical explanations. But again, you refuse to deny that my considerations are not chemically possible.

The mathematical proof that I offer is not related to abiogenesis. It addresses the concept of random mutation and natural selection as the means of increasing information in the genome. If you want something to consider about abiogenesis, pull this paper:
Rates of decomposition of ribose and other sugars: Implications for chemical evolution
You can find it at:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/18/8158

I guess you are trying to say that the sun didn’t exist and there were no ultraviolet rays when abogenesis occurred. There were no temperature extremes, the only chemical reactions that occurred were those which lead to the formation of life in a perfect laboratory environment of the primordial earth. If you think that ribose could last for 100 years you are not aware of the physical properties of this molecule. Why don’t you tell us how long proteins, DNA and RNA can remain before they denature, your are the chemical engineer.

I claim that temporal/locational/environmental changes could occur. That is all. You keep saying impossible and I agree that we don't know exactly. But there is nothing in our current knowledge to discount this. As knew information becomes known, I'd consider this as well. But you love to state time scales that mean nothing to me or to anyone.

Perhaps your anything is possible argument may convince Foster Zygote but pull that article I linked to above, they measured the temporal properties of Ribose. There are other examples of properties of biologic materials that demonstrate short half-lives that I will post as well if you wish. These are measured physical properties of the molecules that have to be involved in the formation of life.

DNA analysis is limited to specimens with an age far shorter than those attributed to abiogenesis. DNA analysis also doesn’t do a full sequence to the DNA. Joozb, a single mutation can kill a living thing. Just because you may have remnants of DNA that can last years (maybe 70 million with that T Rex specimen), these molecules are not stable and are very rapidly denatured. Perhaps you believe that that they will be able to recover DNA from that T Rex specimen and get a full genetic code out of it. My argument is that even if you could form these molecules non-enzymatically in this pre-biotic soup, these molecules would very quickly denature.

This is crazy. DNA, RNA. do not need to presist for 70 million years. They only needed to presist from the time of their synthesis to the time of their creation of the next iteration. Since only the forms that actually can do this would presist, it would greatly speed up their formation.

Joobz, abiogenesis is supposed to take a billion years or more. This is not a chemical reaction carried on in a reactor in your laboratory where you are feeding in components and removing a product in a tightly controlled environment.

As you say, it is improbable that these molecules could form non-enzymatically,

I said non-catalytically, not non-enzymatically. Enzyme is a catalyst not all catalysts are enzymes. There's a HUGE difference. Can't you see this?

Why don’t you tell us which nonezymatic catalyst will catalyze the replication of DNA?

and I will add to this it is improbable that you could get all the molecules necessary to create a living thing at the same location at the same time in order to spontaneously assemble. So now you have improbable^2, I quess that still doesn’t discount impossible.

Again, you seem to ignore the concept of cooperative chemistry. Oh well. If it doesn't fit with your world view, I can see why you would.

Why don’t you explain how cooperative chemistry solves this problem for abiogenesis.

Feel free to use that title on your office at the University.

That would be quite funny, especially when I inform everyone I was granted the degree at the University of Intelligent Design.

I don’t think the University of Intelligent Design would give you a degree. I don’t think IDers would think that “anything is possible” constitutes a scientific proof of abiogenesis. Only Foster Zygote would buy that one.

The problem with the theory of evolution is that you have to believe you can win one super lotto after another after another after another…

No, just 1 superlotto

That explains why we see abiogenesis occurring on a weekly basis.

When you say that we haven’t seen a single event to prove the existence of God, it makes me think of what one of the Soviet cosmonauts said when he went into orbit, he said I see God nowhere. When John Glenn was put into space, he said I see God everywhere. If you seek God, you will find Him.

And some people claim to have seen Elvis, does this mean he still exists?

Last time I checked, Elvis didn’t create the universe.

Let see, my assumption is that in order to get valid results out of a computer simulation you need to use realistic input parameters and you have decided that’s enough to discount my argument. This argument is based on thermodynamics. Information theory (the basis of Dr Schneider’s ev computer model) is directly correlated with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Even chemical engineers had to take a course in thermodynamics.

You are claiming kinetics not thermodynamics. Prove that entropy of the universe decreases because of evolution or of site binding evolution.

This is not my computer model, it was written by Dr Tom Schneider of the National Cancer Institute based on Information Theory. These are his claims, not mine. I have only done a parametric study with his computer model.

To claim kinetics is your thermodynamic arguement, you have to have some known value for the activiation energy for the systems you seek to refute. and then show that their wasn't enough free energy available for these reactions to occur.

In the next few days, I’ll start explaining how Dr Schneider’s model works.

I'm throw you a bone and say maybe point mutation doesn't answer it, but that doesn't disprove evolution, only that it may take more than JUST point mutations.

That is the argument that evolutionists have fallen back on once the mathematical results of this model become apparent when realistic parameters are used. It turns out to be a weak argument because virtually every other mechanism for making a new gene ultimately depends upon random point mutations and natural selection to get the process started. Random point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone for genetic evolutionary theory. The bone you have thrown is the back bone.

 

[articulett]

Yes, things change over time, that's trivially obvious. But why do you believe change over time = no designer?

Also, things like canyons, mountains, rivers, etc., are many orders of magnitude simpler than biology.

Are galaxies and universes simpler than biology? Why do you believe that change over time = designer?

I've seen complexity evolve over time so often, that I think a designer is the exception rather than the rule.

And considering the waste of potential life forms and suffering of sentient beings and jerry-rigging of old genes and traits evident both in the genome and in new phenotypes, I think the design is quite obviously unintelligent just as the internet is "unintelligent" yet it contains complexity, appears designed, and is filled with complex information.

 

[hammegk]

The bone you have thrown is the back bone.

And the Just-So-Story masquerading as Modern Evolutionary Theory gets another re-re-re-revision ...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And the Just-So-Story masquerading as Modern Evolutionary Theory ...

If you don't pay attention, everything is a just-so story.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

I not only pay attention, I actually consider all the aspects of my beliefs. What's your excuse?

.... I think the design is quite obviously unintelligent just as the internet is "unintelligent" yet it contains complexity, appears designed, and is filled with complex information.

Nope; no design there ... just random changes. ROTFL.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I not only pay attention, I actually consider all the aspects of my beliefs. What's your excuse?

So what was the problem with evolution again?

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

So what was the problem with evolution again?

Other than all the mightas, maybes, woulda/coulda/shoulda weaseling in every paper ever published that disappears and becomes certainty as we move up to the popular press nothing I know of. Giving you abiogenesis and living structures, the Mendelian parts are even obviously correct so the statement "Evolution Is A Fact" is not an outright lie.

What's not to like? As a materialist, it's all you've got or will ever have, and completely justifies your chosen-without-fact-or-basis worldview.



Re the OP: Are there any arguments against ID that aren't "simple"?

 

[joobz]

This is not my critique, it is the critique of evolutionist Dr Tom Schneider, head of computational molecular biology laboratory at the National Cancer Institute who wrote the ev computer program which was peer reviewed by the editors of the Oxford University Press journal and published in Nucleic Acids Research. Dr Schneider said the following in this article
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/ev.html

The rate of information that Dr Schneider used to evolve a human genome was based on the evolution of 96 loci on a 256 base genome and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation. Both of these values are totally unrealistic. If you simply use a realistic mutation rate of 1 mutation per 1,000,000 bases per generation, his estimate of 1 billion years to evolve a human genome becomes 4 trillion years. His estimate becomes even more preposterous when you use longer genomes. Consider that the smallest genome in any free living organism is about 500,000 bases.

Dr Schneider’s model of evolution by point mutations and natural selection is not a trivial calculation but it is understandable with some study. His model has been criticized for years by IDers and Dr Schneider has defended his model for as long. What nobody did until I looked at his model was do a parametric study of the model. What you find is that the mathematics of ev contradict several key hypothesizes of the theory of evolution when you use realistic parameters in the model. I happen to believe that Dr Schneider’s model is a plausible simulation of random point mutations and natural selection and the results should be considered both by evolutionists and creationists.
The full text of this article is available at:
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/ev.html

This was the critique I claim. You change the parameters to a rate of mutation you deem as appropriate. Why is the the better rate? What mutatgenic species are you assuming? What is the energy source for this claim. Stop evading that point. I deny this change in the model. That doesn't mean I agree with the model as it was published just that I discount your "better" version of it.

The mathematical proof that I offer is not related to abiogenesis. It addresses the concept of random mutation and natural selection as the means of increasing information in the genome.

where is this mathmatical proof? I ask simply, Show me where thermodynamics is violated. the only proof you've given has been a kinetic arguement. You claim a thermodynamic background, but you must know that kinetics IS NOT thermodynamics.

If you want something to consider about abiogenesis, pull this paper:
Rates of decomposition of ribose and other sugars: Implications for chemical evolution
You can find it at:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/18/8158

Interesting article. But please don't tell me you rely always on 11 year old data. Check into:
A. Ricardo, M. A. Carrigan, A. N. Olcott, and S. A. Benner
Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose
Science, January 9, 2004; 303(5655): 196 - 196
and for a current review:
Muller UF
Re-creating an RNA world
CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR LIFE SCIENCES 63 (11): 1278-1293 JUN 2006
for a more up-to-date understanding. Again, this most likely won't prove it for you. You'll still claim a "IMPOSSIBLE!" stance.

Perhaps your anything is possible argument may convince Foster Zygote but pull that article I linked to above, they measured the temporal properties of Ribose. There are other examples of properties of biologic materials that demonstrate short half-lives that I will post as well if you wish. These are measured physical properties of the molecules that have to be involved in the formation of life.

see above comment.

Joobz, abiogenesis is supposed to take a billion years or more. This is not a chemical reaction carried on in a reactor in your laboratory where you are feeding in components and removing a product in a tightly controlled environment.

again, i never claimed this. Stop intentially misinterpreting my statements.

Why don’t you tell us which nonezymatic catalyst will catalyze the replication of DNA?

well. did i say DNA? We were originally talking about protein. We were talking about how catalysts (non-enzymatic) can be used to generate stereospecificity. Stop making this a moving target arguement.

The bone you have thrown is the back bone.

clever word play, doesn't mask the fact that your arguements lack any substance.


I've answered nearly every question you've asked (except for the snide ones). But you've failed to answer any of mine.
1.) What is your mathmatical proof?
2.) How does the ev model(and thereby evolution) violate thermodynamics?
3.) What hypothesis do you purpose that replaces the notion of evolution? what unifing theory explains fossil record, genetics, proteomics, and evolutionary evidence in molecular biology?
4.) What experiments do you propose to use to test this hypothesis?

I've been very patient with you and your remarks. I have shown you respect this entire time. Please show me the same and answer my questions.

 

[delphi_ote]

Why is design prohibited from being as good as it needs to be?

It's not. That just makes the designer a bit of a jerk.

 

[kleinman]

This was the critique I claim. You change the parameters to a rate of mutation you deem as appropriate. Why is the the better rate? What mutatgenic species are you assuming? What is the energy source for this claim. Stop evading that point. I deny this change in the model. That doesn't mean I agree with the model as it was published just that I discount your "better" version of it.

Dr Schneider used a mutation rate 100 times faster (not 10 times faster than he claims) than the HIV virus which are dependent upon a host to reproduce. For free living organisms (prokaryotes) the mutation rate is anywhere from about 500 to 10^9 times slower than the rate Dr Schneider used. The average mutation rate for prokaryotes is about 4000 times slower and I used that rate to compute the 4 trillion years to evolve the human genome.

This model is based on 2nd law principles not 1st law principles so energy conservation is not the issue. Once you understand the model it will be more clear. Tomorrow I will start posting on the “Annoying Creationist” thread the underlying theory and basic principles of the program.

I am not making a better version of the program. Most of my data was obtained using Paul’s java version of the program where you can easily duplicate my results. I simply did what Dr Schneider recommended in his publication. I studied the effects of varying genome length, mutation rate, and population on the model.

where is this mathmatical proof? I ask simply, Show me where thermodynamics is violated. the only proof you've given has been a kinetic arguement. You claim a thermodynamic background, but you must know that kinetics IS NOT thermodynamics.

I'll start presenting the mathematical proof tomorrow.

I don’t believe the laws of thermodynamics are being violated. I believe the model is a valid simulation of random point mutation and natural selection. I do have some small objections to Dr Schneider’s selection process which if properly modeled would actually slow the evolution process even further but I am not going to push that point right now.

Kinetics is a subset of thermodynamic, kinetics simply means motion. What Dr Schneider has done has used Information Theory which is mathematically related to the 2nd law of thermodynamics to set up an accounting system for point mutation and natural selection. There is some terminology and concepts that you will have to learn to have an understanding of the model and I’ll start describing them tomorrow on the “Annoying Creationist” thread.

Interesting article. But please don't tell me you rely always on 11 year old data. Check into:
A. Ricardo, M. A. Carrigan, A. N. Olcott, and S. A. Benner
Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose
Science, January 9, 2004; 303(5655): 196 - 196
and for a current review:
Muller UF
Re-creating an RNA world
CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR LIFE SCIENCES 63 (11): 1278-1293 JUN 2006
for a more up-to-date understanding. Again, this most likely won't prove it for you. You'll still claim a "IMPOSSIBLE!" stance.

I really don’t think that the physical properties of Ribose have changed much in 11 years. How old is the physical property data in the back of your chemical engineering text? I wonder why the Egyptians did use Borate to preserve their mummies. Maybe they wouldn’t have turn to dust in 5000 years.

Joobz, abiogenesis is supposed to take a billion years or more. This is not a chemical reaction carried on in a reactor in your laboratory where you are feeding in components and removing a product in a tightly controlled environment.

again, i never claimed this. Stop intentially misinterpreting my statements.

Are you proposing the punctuated abiogenesis theory?

The bone you have thrown is the back bone.

clever word play, doesn't mask the fact that your arguements lack any substance.

Wear your bib tomorrow because I’m going to start feeding you substance. When you are ready, I’ll put some meat on that back bone.

I've answered nearly every question you've asked (except for the snide ones). But you've failed to answer any of mine.
1.) What is your mathmatical proof?
2.) How does the ev model(and thereby evolution) violate thermodynamics?
3.) What hypothesis do you purpose that replaces the notion of evolution? what unifing theory explains fossil record, genetics, proteomics, and evolutionary evidence in molecular biology?
4.) What experiments do you propose to use to test this hypothesis?
I've been very patient with you and your remarks. I have shown you respect this entire time. Please show me the same and answer my questions.

Patience, joobz

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Other than all the mightas, maybes, woulda/coulda/shoulda weaseling in every paper ever published that disappears and becomes certainty as we move up to the popular press nothing I know of. Giving you abiogenesis and living structures, the Mendelian parts are even obviously correct so the statement "Evolution Is A Fact" is not an outright lie.

Huh?

Can you describe a specific problem, other than "until it's a fact like 2+2=4, I'm going to say it's a crock"?

~~ Paul