the result ruins the blood and kills ...

the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 17
Next Last
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#1 Apr 2, 2010
Murray Eden of MIT
explained that life could not begin by “random selection.” He noted that,

if randomness is removed, only “design” would remain,—

and that required purposive planning by an Intelligence.

He showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. Coli (which has very little DNA), with 5 billion years in which to produce it.

Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.

He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells). Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides.

Yet, Eden pointed out, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!

For more on the Wistar Institute, read the following book:
Paul Moorhead and Martin Kaplan (eds.),
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution,
Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#2 Apr 2, 2010
Since when is chemistry random?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#3 Apr 2, 2010
ROFL!!!

An Electrical Engineer???

Not that being an EE is all that bad. I was studying to be one once, before I decided to jump off the deep end and go into topology.

But you are quoting an EE about biology and evolution? Really? Why not the neighborhood fry cook?

LMAO

Concerning the "odds"...From TalkOrigins...

Quote

1. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).

2. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

3. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.

4. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

End quote

For more information, see...

Musgrave, Ian. 1998. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and probability of abiogenesis calculations.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abio...

Stockwell, John. 2002. Borel's Law and the origin of many creationist probability assertions.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/bore...

Eden's calculations are a case of GIGO...Garbage In, Garbage Out. He uses incorrect assumptions, which lead to meaningless answers. His calculations are, in all likelihood, correct, but are useless unless his basic assumptions are also correct. They aren't.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#4 Apr 2, 2010
Oh, and BTW Junior...

ANOTHER THREAD???

How long before you abandon this one?
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#5 Apr 2, 2010
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Oh, and BTW Junior...
ANOTHER THREAD???
How long before you abandon this one?
It's kind of like eating an apple. Mission accomplished, no need for the core.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#6 Apr 2, 2010
Please identify your cut and paste source.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#7 Apr 2, 2010
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
Please identify your cut and paste source.
The typical mindless non thinking evolution zombie marching orders.

Attack the source, claim it is not credible. Create a big smoke screen due to the fact that there is no evidence for evolution.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#8 Apr 2, 2010
BTW...something to consider that you source left out.

Gene duplication.

It sometimes happens in reproduction that a section of DNA gets duplicated so that there are now TWO copies of a gene where there had been one.

This allows some interesting things to happen. As long as ONE of these copies stays like the original, the gene's function is fulfilled. The OTHER copy can mutate, allowing for new functions to arise.

In the case of beta-globin, one part of the hemoglobin pair, we humans have (IIRC) SIX copies of this gene. Five are functional, producing beta-globin. ONE of these genes is now a pseudo-gene...a gene that is no longer functional.

Note that last...we (every last human) has a mutated beta-globin gene. And we aren't all dead. Seems that a blood protein gene CAN mutate without killing the host.

Once again we see a case of a creationist site leaving out part of the story. Sure, what he wrote SOUNDS good...until you look at the facts he left out.

In other words, he lied to you...and you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#9 Apr 2, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's kind of like eating an apple. Mission accomplished, no need for the core.
More like Bush's Mission Accomplished.

9 years later and we're still fighting.

Except in the creationist case, it's 150 years later, and you STILL haven't come up with anything except lies.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#10 Apr 2, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The typical mindless non thinking evolution zombie marching orders.
Attack the source, claim it is not credible. Create a big smoke screen due to the fact that there is no evidence for evolution.
No...just a case of intellectual honesty. If you didn't write it, you cite who did.

It's a case of courtesy as well. Something you seem to have a hard time with.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#11 Apr 2, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's kind of like eating an apple. Mission accomplished, no need for the core.
Eating an apple and taking two bites of an apple are not the same thing.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#12 Apr 2, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The typical mindless non thinking evolution zombie marching orders.
Attack the source, claim it is not credible. Create a big smoke screen due to the fact that there is no evidence for evolution.
I already know your source. I just wanted to see if you were man enough to identify it.

Young Earth Creationist sites are never credible because young earth creationism is hogwash.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#13 Apr 2, 2010
Since when is SELECTION random?

By DEFINITION, selection is NOT random.

The moronic illogic of "creationists" is astounding.

And JRS has the gall to accuse others of "mindless non thinking".
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#14 Apr 2, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The typical mindless non thinking evolution zombie marching orders.
Attack the source, claim it is not credible. Create a big smoke screen due to the fact that there is no evidence for evolution.
There is a VAST amount of evidence for evolution.

YOU just choose to IGNORE it all and LIE about it's existence.

BILLIONS of bits of information, data and empirical evidence, studied and researched by MILLIONS of scientists and technicians, from EVERY scientific discipline, form EVERY religious denomination, in THES OF THOUSANDS of museums, universities, research laboratories, excavation sites, observatories, hospitals, etc. all around the world.

We whole heartedly invite that the web searching world go out and find the science behind the Theory of Evolution.

We FURTHER hope that the web searching world ALSO go out and visit local museums of natural history.

AND that they take a class in biology at the local college or university.

AND that they take a class in geology as well.

AND that they take a class in chemistry as well.

AND that they take a class in physics as well.

AND that they take a class in astronomy/cosmology as well.

AND that they volunteer at paleontological digs and excavation sites if the possibilities arise.

AND that they visit national parks of relevant interest such as the Grand Canyon, Dinosaur National Monument, La Brea Tar Pits, etc..

AND that they talk to their doctors.

AND that they watch nature shows on TV.

AND that they read popular science magazines such as Scientific American, Discover, National Geographic, etc..

AND that they read peer reviewed journals of science if they are able.

AND that they visit their local libraries.

AND that they learn and study and educate themselves.

By all means, we HOPE that everyone reading these threads LEARN as much as possible about science. A well informed, scientifically literate public is good, not only for the United States, but for all of humanity as well.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#15 Apr 2, 2010
MIDutch wrote:
Since when is SELECTION random?
By DEFINITION, selection is NOT random.
The moronic illogic of "creationists" is astounding.
And JRS has the gall to accuse others of "mindless non thinking".
Who exactly is doing the non random selection then? If it just happens then it is random.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#16 Apr 2, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Who exactly is doing the non random selection then? If it just happens then it is random.
So, if someone isn't directly controlling something, it's random?

Are chemical reactions random?
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#17 Apr 2, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Who exactly is doing the non random selection then? If it just happens then it is random.
Wow. Just,... wow.
The Dude

UK

#18 Apr 2, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's kind of like eating an apple. Mission accomplished, no need for the core.
Except you're not even eating the apple. You're taking a bite (more like a nibble) then throwing it away and nibbling on another apple.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#19 Apr 2, 2010
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if someone isn't directly controlling something, it's random?
Are chemical reactions random?
Yes they are unless YOU control it by pouring chemical A into chemical B

Like putting A) food into B) stomach acid.
The Dude

UK

#20 Apr 2, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The typical mindless non thinking evolution zombie marching orders.
Attack the source, claim it is not credible. Create a big smoke screen due to the fact that there is no evidence for evolution.
Pointing out your source isn't qualified is not simply an attack on your source, it's a valid criticism. What's more, he didn't attack your source. What's more, Lowellguy and DS did a thorough job of debunking your source. Which you were never able to linky too by the way.

And what's more, you are never EVER able to address anyone's rebuttals, preferring instead to engage in ad hom as a smokescreen to cover for your own ignorance - and the fact you are always wrong.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 17
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min DanFromSmithville 164,851
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of 1 hr Kong_ 114
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr dirtclod 141,480
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr MikeF 19,151
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 9 hr NoahLovesU 178,622
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Mon MikeF 490
When is Quote Mining Justified? May 31 Zog Has-fallen 28
More from around the web