The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[PauloL]

Let's recap. Asimov, with his number, was not trying to refute evolution, but support it.

Now, who here is lying, or dumber than dirt?

If you're not a liar, can you post here where did I say a word about Asimov's position in relation to Darwinism?

Anyway, Asimov offered honestly probabilities for hemoglobin, his "hemoglobin number", 4x10E619, but couldn't explain plausibly how Nature overcame that.

Asimov finished his "hemoglobin number" thoughts with:

But these 'neutrinos' are computing units, remember. Let us suppose that each computing unit is a really super-mechanical job, capable of testing a billion different amino-acid combinations every second, and let us suppose that each unit keeps up this mad pace, unrelentingly, for three hundred billion years. The number of different combinations tested in all that time would be about 10E179.

This number is still approximately zero as compared with the hemoglobin number. In fact, the chance that the right combination would have been found in all that time would be only 1 in 4 x10E440.

Later, Asimov says:

It would seem then that if ever a problem were absolutely incapable of solution, it is the problem of trying to pick out the exact arrangement of amino-acids in a protein molecule out of all the different arrangements that are possible.

Everybody knows you have a different opinion. And that you can't offer a plausible explanation how Blind Watchmaker overcame the problem of hemoglobin (by supernatural selection of correct positions?). You keep offering manipulative rhetoric to the point of negating probabilities and accusing Asimov of false calculations just to discredit me.

[thedoc]

You insist that DNA explains it all. I already told you that the probability you have 423 nucleotide bases arranged in a sequence that will produce a chain of hemoglobin is 1 in 10E190 again.

Your probability is meaningless, natural selection didn't have to develop that exact sequence, it just had to develop a sequence that works and there are many existing today, some work better than others. Once there was a sequence that works, natural selection can continue to develop better systems and there are only a few choices with each step. The ones that don't work are discarded and the ones that work will continue, the one that works best will eventually dominate the others but it might not totally replace them if the others work well enough. And the existing sequence might not be the only one that will work, it just happens to be the one we have, just like with all the possible planets in the universe, it just happened that this is the one with the right conditions for life to develop. Is that your next claim? that the Earth was chosen as the place for life to develop? If it hadn't happened here, life would have developed somewhere, and someone would call that planet special.

[davidm]

You insist that DNA explains it all. I already told you that the probability you have 423 nucleotide bases arranged in a sequence that will produce a chain of hemoglobin is 1 in 10E190 again.

Your probability is meaningless, natural selection didn't have to develop that exact sequence, it just had to develop a sequence that works and there are many existing today, some work better than others. Once there was a sequence that works, natural selection can continue to develop better systems and there are only a few choices with each step. The ones that don't work are discarded and the ones that work will continue, the one that works best will eventually dominate the others but it might not totally replace them if the others work well enough. And the existing sequence might not be the only one that will work, it just happens to be the one we have, just like with all the possible planets in the universe, it just happened that this is the one with the right conditions for life to develop. Is that your next claim? that the Earth was chosen as the place for life to develop? If it hadn't happened here, life would have developed somewhere, and someone would call that planet special.

This is exactly right, but I agree with the Lone Ranger that the best thing to do is give up responding to this guy. I've stopped reading his posts. As Lone said, he's either dumb as dirt or a liar. I believe he is both.

[thedoc]

This is exactly right, but I agree with the Lone Ranger that the best thing to do is give up responding to this guy. I've stopped reading his posts. As Lone said, he's either dumb as dirt or a liar. I believe he is both.

I think you are correct but every once in a while I like to "Run my ideas up the flag pole and see if anyone salutes."

[PauloL]

Once there was a sequence that works, natural selection can continue to develop better systems and there are only a few choices with each step.

Can you demonstrate that? That the first 2 nucleotide bases worked, then the first 3, or 4, or 8 if you like, worked, until a 423-nucleotide bases DNA works in producing a hemoglobin chain?

Is that your next claim? that the Earth was chosen as the place for life to develop? If it hadn't happened here, life would have developed somewhere, and someone would call that planet special.

That is a rhetoric question completely off-topic just to discredit me and not answering topic core questions.

[PauloL]

This is exactly right, but I agree with the Lone Ranger that the best thing to do is give up responding to this guy. I've stopped reading his posts. As Lone said, he's either dumb as dirt or a liar. I believe he is both.

Davidm exhausted almost all Evolutionaut's arguments on the impossibility of hemoglobin (or its DNA), even if he missed a few widely ventilated. But because all his arguments were inconsistent, he gave up.

Once Davidm doesn't have his own ideas and is committed to defending Evolutionomics and nothing more than Evolutionomics, he needs approval from guys in other evolutionists forums who decide for him. Of course, he then embodies those people's ideas to feel they're his own.

[thedoc]

I think you are correct but every once in a while I like to "Run my ideas up the flag pole and see if anyone salutes."

I had assumed that PauloL would not salute, I doubt he even understands what I posted.

[PauloL]

I had assumed that PauloL would not salute, I doubt he even understands what I posted.

I might think the same about you.

But I always salute you as you know.

More than that, I even tried once to help you on your doubts caused by your father.

At the time you didn't question my understanding.

Yet questions remain open. Wanna try?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Once there was a sequence that works, natural selection can continue to develop better systems and there are only a few choices with each step.

Can you demonstrate that? That the first 2 nucleotide bases worked, then the first 3, or 4, or 8 if you like, worked, until a 423-nucleotide bases DNA works in producing a hemoglobin chain?

Is that your next claim? that the Earth was chosen as the place for life to develop? If it hadn't happened here, life would have developed somewhere, and someone would call that planet special.

That is a rhetoric question completely off-topic just to discredit me and not answering topic core questions.

No doubt you are copy-pasting from 'bullshitingenesis' website. Dear Paulolol, the beauty of scientifically proven facts is that they CAN be demonstrated if you feel you need more evidence than years of research and peer-reviewed verification, provided you are willing to make the effort. It's not up to doc to prove anything to you. And if you are so sure of your position then why would you need to resort to outright lies and copy-pasted gobbledygook? The truth is easy. No need to lie when you are telling the truth.
Ps. It's 'haemoglobin' you philistine.

[Arising_uk]

... Evolutionauts ... Evolutionomics ...

What are these meant to mean?

[thedoc]

... Evolutionauts ... Evolutionomics ...

What are these meant to mean?

The words don't mean anything, they are made up derogatory terms by creationists to discredit those who hold the theory of evolution.

[thedoc]

Once there was a sequence that works, natural selection can continue to develop better systems and there are only a few choices with each step.

Can you demonstrate that? That the first 2 nucleotide bases worked, then the first 3, or 4, or 8 if you like, worked, until a 423-nucleotide bases DNA works in producing a hemoglobin chain?

Where did I claim that only 2 nucleotide's were needed to transport oxygen? The first links in the chain might have had an entirely different function, nature and evolution often takes a structure that is preforming one function and adapts it to preform some other unrelated function. I don't know how long the first chain was that carried oxygen but apparently evolution continued to make it longer to improve the efficiency.

[davidm]

thedoc, give it up. You're trying to teach simple arithmetic to a pig. It doesn't work. Granted, an ordinary pig is smarter than PauloL, so I just want to stress that I am not trying to insult pigs here. Pigs are quite smart, actually.

[thedoc]

thedoc, give it up. You're trying to teach simple arithmetic to a pig. It doesn't work. Granted, an ordinary pig is smarter than PauloL, so I just want to stress that I am not trying to insult pigs here. Pigs are quite smart, actually.

I used to use the same argument when a friend of mine would tell someone else that they were lower than pond scum, I would tell him to stop insulting pond scum like that or it would really mess up his layout.

[Greta]

Every now and then a gem will appear in a news blog:

As a biologist, I have sometimes been confronted with: "I guess you believe in evolution". The person is usually surprised when I say, no, I don't.

And I don't "believe" in evolution because science is not a belief-based system. The current scientific explanation of how all organisms came to be at this time on earth is based on an enormous body of knowledge developed through observation and experimentation. This explanation may change as further scientific evidence comes to light, but it is the best explanation for the knowledge we have at the moment.

If the person persists that evolution is nonsense, then I often ask them what their opinion is of quantum mechanics, to which they usually reply they have no opinion because they do not know anything about it. So I ask them to explain to me what evolution is, because logically they must therefore have knowledge of the concept of evolution in order to have an opinion about it. The conversation usually stops there.