Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,603 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 324,637
Pageviews Today: 642,368Threads Today: 327Posts Today: 6,406
11:57 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

 
FHL(C)
Offer Upgrade

12/22/2004 11:50 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Fair use:

[link to www.icr.org]

EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
- IMPACT No. 317 November 1999
by Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.*

© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved
Charles Darwin was daydreaming when he wrote that he could visualize "in some warm little pond," with all sorts of salts and electricity, the spontaneous generation of the first living cell.1 Darwin´s dream of the magical powers of salts and electricity may have come from his grandfather. Mary Shelley wrote of him in 1831 in her introduction to Frankenstein. "They talked of the experiments of Dr. Darwin . . . who preserved a piece of vermicelli in a glass case, till by some extraordinary means it began to move with voluntary motion." She goes on to speculate that galvanism (electricity) was the extraordinary means.2All theories need testing, so I bought some vermicelli pasta, kept it in salt water in a test tube for a month, and never saw any motion, voluntary or otherwise. I also used a tesla coil to conduct "galvanism" through it to a fluorescent bulb. The bulb lit and the vermicelli eventually began to cook, but never came to life.

"Darwin´s bulldog," Thomas Huxley, had a vision of himself on the early earth as "a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from non-living matter."3 In Huxley´s day, the cell was blissfully considered simply a blob of protoplasm. Huxley also may have read Mary Shelley´s subtitle to Frankenstein, "The Modern Prometheus."2 Prometheus was the Greek mythical Titan, who formed a man of clay, then animated it. This myth may be the earliest reference to abiogenesis, the animation of inorganic materials. In order not to leave that possibility untried, I fashioned a clay man and directed the tesla-coil spark over it to light the bulb. The clay man was not animated.

Evolutionists currently invoke the "primeval soup" to expand the "warm little pond" into a larger venue, the oceans. They aim to spontaneously generate the first cell so they must thicken the salt water with (take a breath) polysaccharides, lipids, amino acids, alpha helixes, polypeptide chains, assembled quaternary protein subunits, and nucleotides, all poised to self-combine into functional cellular structures, energy systems, long-chain proteins and nucleic acids.4Then during an electrical storm, just the right mix of DNA, mRNA, ribosomes, cell membranes and enzymes are envisioned in the right place at the right time and the first cell is thunderbolted together and springs to life.5 That marvelous first cell, the story goes, filled the oceans with progeny competing in incredible polysaccharide, lipid, amino acid, nucleotide, and cannibalistic feasts. The predators thereby thinned the soup to the watery oceans we have today while the prey escaped by mystically transmuting themselves into the current complex animals and plants, or perhaps vice versa because no one was there to record it. We are assured by the disciples of Darwin and Huxley that the "once upon a pond" story to obtain a blob of protoplasm is still sufficient for the spontaneous generation of the cell as we know it today. All demur when asked for evidence. All balk when asked to reverse-engineer a cell in the laboratory in spite of the fact that laboratories rival nature and reverse engineering is orders of magnitude easier than engineering an original design. One wonders why they balk if cell stuff is so easily self-generated and carbon molecules seem to have such an innate tendency to self-combine.

To test simply the alleged self-combining tendency of carbon, I placed one microliter of India (lampblack) ink in 27 ml. of distilled water. The ink streaked for the bottom of the test tube where it formed a dark haze which completely diffused to an even shade of gray in 14 hours. The carbon stayed diffused, not aggregated as when dropped on paper. At this simple level, there is no evidence that the "primeval soup" is anything but fanciful imagination.

In science, the burden of evidence is on the proposer of the theory. So although the evolutionists have the burden of providing evidence for their fanciful tales, they take no responsibility for a detailed account or for any evidence demonstrating feasibility. Contrarily, they go so far as to imply that anyone holding them to the normal requirements of science is feebleminded, deranged, or evil. For example, Professor Richard Dawkins has been quoted as saying, "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I´d rather not consider that)."6 Instead of taking proper responsibility for the burden of evidence, the evolutionist propagandizes by the intimidation of name calling.

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist´s burden of evidence to see where it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability."7

Richard Dawkins implicitly agreed with Yockey by stating, "Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one."8The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins´ own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in 1050 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of magnitude.9

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of Small Probability.9

I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski´s one chance in 10150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not chance, as Dembski´s criterion and Yockey´s probability may prove it is not, then it must have happened by design, the only remaining possibility.

Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in 1075, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski´s criterion of one chance in 10150. The simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,10 If these raw materials could be evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell´s construction site, then we may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has 4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that standard.

Reproduction may be called a regularity because billions of people have witnessed billions of new individuals arising that way, and in no other way, for thousands of years. The origin of life was a unique event and certainly not a regularity. Therefore, according to mathematical logicians, the only possibilities left are that life either was generated by chance or by deliberate design. The standard for impossible events eliminated evolution so the only remaining possibility is that life was designed into existence. The probability of the correctness of this conclusion is the inverse of the probability that eliminated evolution, that is, 104,478,296 chances to one.

Although the certainty of design has been demonstrated beyond doubt, science cannot identify the designer. Given a designer with the intelligence to construct a cell and all life forms, it is not logical that he would construct only one cell and leave the rest to chance. The only logical possibility is that the designer would design and build the entire structure, the entire biosphere, to specified perfection. That seems to be as far as science can go.

Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these conclusions is 104,478,296 (1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one. This evidence suggests a Designer who designed and built the entire biosphere and, for it to function, the entire universe. Primary and secondary sources from history properly provide additional information on the Designer because the biological sciences are not equal to that task.

References
1 Darwin, F., ed (1888) The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, London: John Murray, vol. 3, p. 18.
2 Shelley, Mary W. (1831) Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus, London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, Introduction, p. 9.
3 Huxley, Thomas H. (1870) "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis" in (1968) Collected Essays of Thomas H. Huxley, vol. 8, Discourses Biological and Gelogical, New York: Greenwood Press, p. 256.
4 Behe, Michael J. (1996) Darwin´s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, New York: Touchstone, pp. 262-268.
5 Denton, Michael (1986) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, p. 263.
6 Johnson, Phillip E. (1993) Darwin On Trial, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, p. 9.
7 Yockey, Hubert P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255, 257.
8 Dawkins, Richard (1996) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., p. 146.
9 Dembski, William A. (1998) The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5,209,210.
10 Morowitz, H. J. (1966) "The Minimum Size of Cells" in Principles of Biomolecular Organization, eds. G.E.W. Wostenholme and M. O´Connor, London: J.A. Churchill, pp. 446-459.

* Dr. Mastropaolo is an adjunct professor of physiology for the ICR Graduate School.
PleasedTMeetU HopeUGuessMyName  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Just as long as you keep pumping that peter there FHL(c)... Do you shoot a load, every time you post a load of shit like this?

lmao
Confounded  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Yes Evolution DOES have it´s problems, but that doesn´t automatically make the Creation theory correct by default. That´s just bad logic.
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
That´s what made Dr Burisch such an interesting scientist to encounter!
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
you are a deluded fuckin moron

sure, and santa exists and asprin causes cancer and drinking one diet soda will give you perminate serious brain damage.
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Where the fuck you been? And when you going back?
ac  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Yeah, it makes much more sense that some guy with a white beard created everything in 7 days. Get a life and quit taking up bandwidth.
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
FHLC..
When will you learn????

That the truth is.God did not make man from a piece of clay.....God EVOLVED us....over a long period of time. If the evolvement did not take place on Earth, then Adam was brought here and evolved elsewhere..It does´nt matter..the FACT is GOD and The Holy Spirit EVOLVED MAN IN THE BEGINNING.....
Belive it or not, God evolves Himself with the universe............
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Assigning probability to evolution is completely moronic. Anyone who does it is simply incompetent.

[link to www.talkorigins.org]
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
What a boring bitch!
FHL(C)  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
YHVH rules,
lol
worship YHVH.
Undead  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
FHL(C):

I bring simple proof of evolution.

Cockroaches vs. RAID


RAID and other poison manufactures must change formulas every so often because the roaches become immune if you spray enough of them with the same stuff.

In other words, they evolve by natural selection.
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
LMAO Undead!! Not dead yet...!!
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Ha!
Pandora Complex  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Pandora´s Bump!
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Or bacteria against antibiotics. Why do you think there are new resistant strains of diseases? Because of natural selection.
ashesandsackcloth  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Good post FHL(C)
d  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
"the only possibilities left are that life either was generated by chance or by deliberate design."

happenstance
ac  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
or we could be one big alien experiment and we were all originally created in test tubes then set out on this wonderful world to see how we would adapt.
Kind of like the original computer game of "life".
Undead  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
AC 2:27

Maybe God gets board and likes to make new diseases in his spare time.
William Gayley Simpson  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
This part of "evolution" theory has always bothered me-

Life simply generates itself from non-life, it´s an unstoppable process that springs form a certain set of conditions whereby at some point an inorganic piece of of something becomes a single celled organism which for reasons yet to be explained begins a headlong rush to change into other things, whether fish fowl or mammalian.

Question-

Why isn´t this taking place now?
Where are the observable non-living things turning into single celled organisms? Where are the lizards turning into birds? There should be an entire planet filled with things in the process of becoming one or the other, but there aren´t.
The usuaal counter argument is that it "takes a really, really long time" for this to occur. OK, so then where are the things that are in the midst of this transition? They should be visible to us because after all the premise is that life simply comes from non-life and is an unstoppable force. It shouldn´t matter how long it takes because at any given moment there ought to be a snapshot of these things happening, mid transition.
But there aren´t. It´s like the theory works, but not the reality. Some single celled organism is sitting in a petri dish about to become complex (or his kids, at any rate) and the scientist comes along and all of a sudden their like "sheet man, be cool, here he comes, look like something else."

Where are the things in mid course? Where are the transitional life forms? Where is life being created from non life.

That seems more relevant than the theory but no one addresses it.

Adaptation I buy, evolution or the creation of life from non life spontaneously isn´t demonstrable.
sackcloth  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Here is a fantastic site for those interested.
[link to www.s8int.com]
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
william frogs don´t turn into birds.
but if you want to know how non´living stuff goes to single celled..

read about wilhelm reichs´ bions.
and his experiements with the grass fusions.
William Gayley Simpson  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Believe it or not I have read the Reich studies. I think Reich is a fraud. No one has ever independently verified those studies and once he headed down Orgone Box Lane, it was all over but for the hymns.
Omphaloskepsis  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Evolution is fact-based, religion is faith.
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
later stuff of reich´s is a bit off.

[link to www.orgonelab.org]

they verify his stuff.
double blind tests on orgone accumulators and its health use has been done in germany, and they use them to some extent in the medical practice over here.

his cosmic stuff later on was off i think. he was paranoid, and being harrassed.
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
mean to say they use them over there (in germany)
William Gayley Simpson  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
[link to www.orgonelab.org]

they verify his stuff.

It´s his lab.

You can´t be paid by a guy to verify his work and call that objective.
William Gayley Simpson  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
"Evolution is fact-based"

Ummmm, no, not actually.

Has anyone ever observed life spontaaneously created from inorganic material? That´s the hook they hang their entire "theory" upon and so far, bupkus.
William Gayley Simpson  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
"Evolution is fact-based"

Ummmm, no, not actually.

Has anyone ever observed life spontaneously created from inorganic material? That´s the hook they hang their entire "theory" upon and so far, bupkus.
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
it´s not Reich´s Lag???

it´s the project (non-profit) child of James DeMeo...no relation ship.

anyhow. no worries. They have a room sized accumulator up there, and I´ve been in it. It´s pretty obvious its´ more than a mere faraday cage.
most people build the things wrong and let it collect DOR, so they never verify it.
and yes, it is a hard somewhat subjective science to verify.





GLP