Darwin's Fraudulent Tautology

[ChemEngineer]

"It survives because it's more fit.  It's more fit because it survives."  

 

This is the essence of mediocre Charles Darwin's vile, racist tautology.  His ignorance begins with the very title of his bible for atheists:

On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life.

 

The primitive blacks would soon be eliminated, said Charles, a very poor student in college.

Millions of years are relentlessly offered as the "solution" for any problem facing random mutation followed by magical "selection."

Sorry but statistics do not change over long periods of  time.  Whether you flip a coin every second or once in 100,000 years, it's still 50/50.

Whether the next amino acid is added tomorrow or in 10,000 years, it could be any of 20 different amino acids - 1 chance in 20.

Carry that out for 5,000 different proteins in the human body.  Begin by calculating the insuperable statistics of synthesizing titin, 33,450 amino acids long.  What is 1/20 to the 33,450th power?  For one protein?

Impossible  is 1 in 10 to the 50th. 

 

[Tristen]

Hi CE,

As a Biblical creationist myself, I generally agree with your sentiment. I would only offer caution against attacking Darwin himself (i.e. characterising him as "mediocre", ignorant, and "a very poor student"). Since this form of argument speaks to his person rather than his position, your attacks here are logic fallacies (a.k.a. Ad-Hominem attacks). It detracts from the rational argument and opens doors for opponents to muddy the discussion.

I also think your definition of "impossible" is arbitrary. I understand that sometimes this figure is quoted (i.e. 10^-50), but it has no basis in objective logic. Any probability incorporating a real number is not logically "impossible". Some probabilities may be absurdly unlikely or improbable (to say the least), but not technically "impossible".

Cheers and God bless you.

[one.opinion]

 

On 5/10/2020 at 8:33 AM, ChemEngineer said:

The primitive blacks would soon be eliminated, said Charles, a very poor student in college.

I've not seen this assertion before. Do you know where it came from?

On 5/10/2020 at 8:33 AM, ChemEngineer said:

Sorry but statistics do not change over long periods of  time.  Whether you flip a coin every second or once in 100,000 years, it's still 50/50.

Whether the next amino acid is added tomorrow or in 10,000 years, it could be any of 20 different amino acids - 1 chance in 20.

Yes, you've read my thoughts on this topic. In my opinion, divine action is a more plausible explanation than random chance for the origination of the first cells.

On 5/10/2020 at 8:33 AM, ChemEngineer said:

Begin by calculating the insuperable statistics of synthesizing titin, 33,450 amino acids long.  What is 1/20 to the 33,450th power?  For one protein?

Why do you suppose the nucleic acid sequence for the titin protein arose without any precursor? https://jcs.biologists.org/content/95/4/535.long

[one.opinion]

By the way, good to "see" you @Tristen. I hope you and your loved ones are well!

[ChemEngineer]

50 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

 

I've not seen this assertion before. Do you know where it came from?

Yes, you've read my thoughts on this topic. In my opinion, divine action is a more plausible explanation than random chance for the origination of the first cells.

Why do you suppose the nucleic acid sequence for the titin protein arose without any precursor? https://jcs.biologists.org/content/95/4/535.long

Read the complete title of Darwin's book.  He doubles down on his claim inside.  How surprising that you have not heard it before. Moreover, the Founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a virulent racist who created her abortion mill to get rid of blacks in America.  She said as much.

 

You have repeatedly rebuked ME for what you claimed were misunderstandings or misinterpretations, and here you admit the most incredible ignorance about Charles Darwin AND polypeptides.  They are NOT "nucleic acid" sequences.  They are amino acid sequences.  Nor does your link make any reference to lack of precursors.

There could not have been any precursors to proteins because they are statistically impossible, individually and then multiplied by the thousands.

Edited May 11, 2020 by ChemEngineer

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, ChemEngineer said:

Read the complete title of Darwin's book. 

I've read the complete title. The title uses "races" in a way that extends well beyond humans.

From (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species):

Quote

With Murray's persuasion, the title was eventually agreed as On the Origin of Species, with the title page adding by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.^[3] In this extended title (and elsewhere in the book) Darwin used the biological term "races" interchangeably with "varieties", meaning varieties within a species.^[76][77] He used the term broadly,^[78] and as well as discussions of "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants",^[79] there are three instances in the book where the phrase "races of man" is used, referring to races of humans.

Admittedly, Darwin would be considered a racist by today's standards. However, he was a strong abolitionist, and his scientific theory would suggest that all humans come from common ancestry - and that no human population should be the property of another. 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16503-hatred-of-slavery-drove-darwin-to-emancipate-all-life/

 

17 minutes ago, ChemEngineer said:

Moreover, the Founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a virulent racist who created her abortion mill to get rid of blacks in America.  She said as much.

How is Margaret Sanger relevant to the scientific discussion?

I'm still missing any support for the claim that Darwin said "The primitive blacks would soon be eliminated". Do you have support for this assertion?

27 minutes ago, ChemEngineer said:

You have repeatedly rebuked ME for what you claimed were misunderstandings or misinterpretations

I've shown you the logical fallacies in your argumentation. If you took it as a rebuke, it was not through my doing.

29 minutes ago, ChemEngineer said:

You have repeatedly rebuked ME for what you claimed were misunderstandings or misinterpretations, and here you admit the most incredible ignorance about Charles Darwin AND polypeptides.  They are NOT "nucleic acid" sequences. 

Yesterday, I had thought you were genuine in your correct assertion that I should not criticize another's reading comprehension. You have now revealed yourself to be completely one-sided in your urging for respectful dialogue.

I'm going to assume that you really do know that proteins are encoded by DNA sequences, and just thought you had a good opportunity for a "zinger".

33 minutes ago, ChemEngineer said:

There could not have been any precursors to proteins because they are statistically impossible, individually and then multiplied by the thousands.

If God directly created the first cells, then there is the raw material is available for further molecular evolution. The human titin protein, and the gene for the protein, did not have to spring into existence directly from monomeric building blocks.

[ChemEngineer]

39 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Yesterday, I had thought you were genuine in your correct assertion that I should not criticize another's reading comprehension. You have now revealed yourself to be completely one-sided in your urging for respectful dialogue.

I'm going to assume that you really do know that proteins are encoded by DNA sequences, and just thought you had a good opportunity for a "zinger".

 

You claim I lack reading comprehension.  That is the type  of condescension practiced by Leftists and atheists AFTER they put their words and claims in our mouths.  No, I  do not lack reading comprehension and I resent your misguided claim.

I did not misquote you when I pointed out your claim that proteins are "nucleic acid sequences."  They most assuredly are NOT and your attempt to make your statement right by saying they are synthesized by DNA is entirely different, and you know it.

 

Now please go talk to someone  else.  We are getting nowhere and that is wasteful and unproductive.  We agree that Darwinism alone  is inadequate.  That's good enough.  Atheists will lump you in with me, claiming "you just don't understand evolution."   They always double down.  It explains whatever they want it to explain, just "select" this or that. Until you get to the end of the line. Then it's perfect.  How patently unscientific. 

[one.opinion]

28 minutes ago, ChemEngineer said:

We agree that Darwinism alone  is inadequate.

For the record, I believe a purely naturalistic chemical abiogenesis is an inferior explanation to divine action.

We also agree that God is the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

I do have a much different view on the unfolding of life, but that's ok! And yes, I have been lumped by atheists into a "creationist" category, which I don't resent in the least.

God bless!

[ChemEngineer]

21 hours ago, Tristen said:

Hi CE,

As a Biblical creationist myself, I generally agree with your sentiment. I would only offer caution against attacking Darwin himself (i.e. characterising him as "mediocre", ignorant, and "a very poor student"). Since this form of argument speaks to his person rather than his position, your attacks here are logic fallacies (a.k.a. Ad-Hominem attacks). It detracts from the rational argument and opens doors for opponents to muddy the discussion.

I also think your definition of "impossible" is arbitrary. I understand that sometimes this figure is quoted (i.e. 10^-50), but it has no basis in objective logic. Any probability incorporating a real number is not logically "impossible". Some probabilities may be absurdly unlikely or improbable (to say the least), but not technically "impossible".

Cheers and God bless you.

It is more than ironic that the *scientific* community pays obeisance to Charles Darwin like few other persons in history.  Any challenge to Darwinism is almost always met with the condemnation, "You don't understand evolution," and "It's as well established as gravity."

So we should rely on the word of a mediocre student of the nineteenth century and his two step tautology, "Random mutation, followed by selection." 

"It survives because it's more fit and it's more fit because it survives"?

 

Now let me address objective logic.  Imagine a man in an imaginary space ship that can navigate through sand at mach speeds.  There are fifteen spheres full of sand, the size of our solar system out to Pluto.  Fifteen of them.  In ONE of those spheres is a single unique grain of sand.

The space man has to locate it on his FIRST AND ONLY TRY. That's one chance in 10 to the 50th power. It takes fifteen spheres out to Pluto to hold that many grains of sand.  ONE TRY ONLY!  You don't get an infinite number of tries.  You don't even get 1,000 or 50 or 10. 

One try only. And you don't think that fits "objective logic"?  You can fathom someone finding that single grain of sand on his first try?

My dear friend, a  PhD in organic chemistry, agrees with me on that definition of impossible.  Mathematicians can say what they want.  Nil is nil.  Remember that next time you see a very long sandy beach, or an expanse of sand dunes in a massive desert.  Child's play.  Trivial compared with 15 solar systems full of sand. In fact, Richard Dawkins agrees with 10 to the -40 as being "impossible."  He says so in his books.

 

[Tristen]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

By the way, good to "see" you @Tristen. I hope you and your loved ones are well!

Thanks One - hope you and yours are doing well also. I've been engaging more in the "Worthy Pavilion" section of late - so still around.