It's unfortunate. I think he has been reading one side of the problem
and got caught up in that kind of thinking. I appreciate that he is
bringing this to our attention, but when something is not correct (or
at best disputed) one should not draw big conclusions from it. Best we
can say is that IF he is right, then evolution is wrong. But doing
some reading about the subject quickly shows that there is a lot of
argument about the functional protein rate and most numbers are far
bigger than what he quoted here.
On Nov 4, 10:36 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 12:13 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I did not say that Dr Robinson came up with it. I said it was wrong.
> > If you think it is a proven scientific fact, how come I could, through
> > a short Google search, find articles contradicting your number?
> > I especially love this part of your post: "The problem is they wont
> > tell you these facts exist because they are
> > fearful of discrimination within the scientific community". All I can
> > say is that the scientists would be more than happy to report findings
> > like this. Notice a contradiction in your statements. First you claim
> > that 10^-74 was published by an acclaimed scientist and then claim
> > that scientists won't publish figures like this due to
> > discrimination.
> > I am a scientists myself and I can tell you that the more
> > controversial an article, the better. The controversial articles have
> > the highest impact when people try to prove them wrong. If they stand
> > up to scrutiny then they eventually become a part of the standard
> > scientific theory.
> Hi Sebastian
> I am sure you have noticed how unreasonable "Reasonable" is.
> I agree with you on what you say about Scientists. They love a
> good theory they can argue. Eventually consensus reigns once
> their hypotheses are supported and can be reproduced by all
> and sundry. I'm afraid I don't have the training to argue rates of
> functional protein etc. However, I would say that it seems to me
> from my limited reading around the ridges that many of the so-
> called scientists in creation science itself, will know the truth on
> one side (in the scientific journals, and even publish in them)
> and then go and write an article for the creation followers which
> will baldly tell them actual lies. I am sorry that this is happening.
> Obviously there are some scientists around who will tell lies
> for God, and whose ethics leave a lot to be desired.
> > On Nov 3, 11:49 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sebastian it is not Dr. Robinson who came up with the 10-74 rate of
> > > functional protein for a 150 amino acid protein. This is a proven
> > > scientific fact that any scientist with the proper equipment can
> > > verify in a lab. No acclaimed scientist will disputes these figures.
> > > The problem is they wont tell you these facts exist because they are
> > > fearful of discrimination within the scientific community. I told you
> > > my boss who is to some degree an acclaimed scientist think evolution
> > > is foolishness but he cannot afford the risk his career by going
> > > public. Give it up Sebastian. Look somewhere else for the Origin of
> > > Life. It is not in evolution.
> > > On Nov 3, 3:32 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > But the functional mutation rate is NOT 10^-74! I mean you are not
> > > > addressing the problem with your argument at all. You are claiming
> > > > that Robinson had a good mathematical model and I am saying if you
> > > > accept that he did then your argument still does not hold up because
> > > > you are using numbers that are incorrect.
> > > > On Nov 3, 11:15 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Sebastian give it up. The bacterial colony Dr. Robinson used is
> > > > > enormously large i.e. The entire earth surface extending to outer
> > > > > space. The mutation rate he used is greater than theoretically
> > > > > possible. i.e. every division of every bacteria in the colony at the
> > > > > maximum rate of 150 mutation per division. The time he used include
> > > > > every moment of earth history. i.e. from the beginning of the earth
> > > > > history. Yet this process cannot produce mathematically one functional
> > > > > 150 amino acid protein (a small protein molecule) by random mutation.
> > > > > You need to produce over 25,000 larger protein of over 1000 amino
> > > > > acids to give rise to a human. The Evolution theory is not viable.
> > > > > Give it up Sebastian. This is a CHECKMATE.
> > > > > On Nov 3, 7:39 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I also posted two other articles that find much higher functional
> > > > > > mutation rates than the one quoted by you. If you search the
> > > > > > scientific literature you will find that the functional mutation rates
> > > > > > are slowly becoming a popular topic of research in fundamental
> > > > > > evolutionary theory. However, your number is vastly underestimated.
> > > > > > On Nov 2, 7:07 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > The reference you provided pointed out that random mutation is the
> > > > > > > ultimate source of genetic variation. (see link and quotation you
> > > > > > > provided below)
> > > > > > > Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-
> > > > > > > random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source
> > > > > > > of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which
> > > > > > > some variants survive and others do not, is not random.
> > > > > > > So random mutation is the primary cause for various genetic
> > > > > > > combination. Mutations occurs during cell divisions and is past on to
> > > > > > > the next generation. For every 10 74 combination for a 150 genes you
> > > > > > > will have a potential functional protein form. If this protein gives
> > > > > > > the organism an advantage then natural selection will allow for this
> > > > > > > variant to survive.
> > > > > > > The article present a massive, dense, unrealistic bacterial colony in
> > > > > > > size that all the bacteria are mutating this 150 gene randomly at the
> > > > > > > maximum rate possible ( 150 genes per cell division) continuously from
> > > > > > > the time the earth was formed. The total permutation that could occur
> > > > > > > during this time was significantly less than 10 74 permutations.
> > > > > > > The obvious conclusion then is these variations did not occur from
> > > > > > > random mutation. Therefore random mutation is not the ultimate source
> > > > > > > for genetic variation. But, Evolution is based on random mutation.( as
> > > > > > > stated by your reference above) Therefore, Evolution is not the basis
> > > > > > > for genetic variation.. This is a simply mathematical conclusion.
> > > > > > > Therefore evolution is not a viable theory.
> > > > > > > Look, you will never find TRUTH if you are not HONEST with the facts.
> > > > > > > I use to be a believer in evolution. With this kind of evidence I
> > > > > > > would be a fool to continue believing in it. If you understand
> > > > > > > mathematics and still believe in evolution with this information. You
> > > > > > > are a damn .... I don't call people fools period.
> > > > > > > On Nov 2, 6:22 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Your functional mutation rate is 10^-74, and that is orders of
> > > > > > > > magnitude off. Again, I can only ask you to check the articles I
> > > > > > > > posted. If you do not want to read and learn, then it is you who
> > > > > > > > refuses to attempt to decipher the laws of nature.
> > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 11:50 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation is NOT 1 x 10-74. This is the amount
> > > > > > > > > of mutations that must take place to meet the permutation requirement
> > > > > > > > > so that a 150 gene can produce a functional protein.
> > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation per mm-3 per year is
> > > > > > > > > 4 x 10 13 x 150 x 5.37 x 10 5 = 3.2 x 10-21 mutations /per mm-3/per
> > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > (number of bacteria per mm-3 x number of bacterial mutation per cell
> > > > > > > > > division x number of division per year)
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 4:19 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > You claimed that evolution was an unsubstantiated theory, I showed you
> > > > > > > > > > that you were wrong and now you accept evolution. You claimed that
> > > > > > > > > > mutation rates were on the order of 1 x 10-74, then I showed you that
> > > > > > > > > > you were wrong again, they are more on the order of 1 x 10-3. Then you
> > > > > > > > > > claimed that mutations only works through base pair deletion, and that
> > > > > > > > > > all the genes needed for life would have to have existed at the
> > > > > > > > > > outset; I showed you that new genes are created and you now agree that
> > > > > > > > > > mutation can give rise to increased genetic material.
> > > > > > > > > > Now you claim that there is not enough time in history for evolution
> > > > > > > > > > to explain the diversity of creatures that exist... but you have no
> > > > > > > > > > evidence to back up that claim. You're guessing.
> On Nov 3, 6:49 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sebastian it is not Dr. Robinson who came up with the 10-74 rate of
> > functional protein for a 150 amino acid protein. This is a proven
> > scientific fact that any scientist with the proper equipment can
> > verify in a lab. No acclaimed scientist will disputes these figures.
> > The problem is they wont tell you these facts exist because they are
> > fearful of discrimination within the scientific community. I told you
> > my boss who is to some degree an acclaimed scientist think evolution
> > is foolishness but he cannot afford the risk his career by going
> > public. Give it up Sebastian. Look somewhere else for the Origin of
> > Life. It is not in evolution.
> Bullshit. Scientists' careers are made by disproving existing
> theories. Name any famous scientist. Chances are they're famous
> because they overturned, disproved, or upset some strongly held notion
> of reality. Albert Einstein is perhaps the most famous scientist of
> the twentieth century and he's famous for completely throwing
> everything we thought we know about time, space and gravity out the
> window.
> Scientists are, by far, not fearful of discrimination. Rather they
> invite it.
> Take the Bohr-Einstein Debates about quantum mechanics. Two groups of
> scientific giants going head to head, publicly, about the fundamental
> nature of reality. These debates did wonders for the advancement of
> science.
> People that think that scientists are bullied into touting some
> mainstream agenda simply have no idea what they're talking about.
> Zero. Science thrives on conflict and the overturning of theories. The
> more well established the theory, the better it is when it is upset.
> When Newton came along, scientists thought that our understanding of
> the universe was almost complete. Then came Einstein. Far from being
> fearful of discrimination, or risking his career by going public, he
> published the problems (and his solutions) and became one of the most
> famous scientists of all time.
> Scientists are well aware of what the actual problems with any given
> scientific theory. Many accolades are waiting for the person that can
> solve them.
> Please, educate yourself - you aren't going to fool anyone here.
> > On Nov 3, 3:32 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > But the functional mutation rate is NOT 10^-74! I mean you are not
> > > addressing the problem with your argument at all. You are claiming
> > > that Robinson had a good mathematical model and I am saying if you
> > > accept that he did then your argument still does not hold up because
> > > you are using numbers that are incorrect.
> > > On Nov 3, 11:15 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Sebastian give it up. The bacterial colony Dr. Robinson used is
> > > > enormously large i.e. The entire earth surface extending to outer
> > > > space. The mutation rate he used is greater than theoretically
> > > > possible. i.e. every division of every bacteria in the colony at the
> > > > maximum rate of 150 mutation per division. The time he used include
> > > > every moment of earth history. i.e. from the beginning of the earth
> > > > history. Yet this process cannot produce mathematically one functional
> > > > 150 amino acid protein (a small protein molecule) by random mutation.
> > > > You need to produce over 25,000 larger protein of over 1000 amino
> > > > acids to give rise to a human. The Evolution theory is not viable.
> > > > Give it up Sebastian. This is a CHECKMATE.
> > > > On Nov 3, 7:39 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I also posted two other articles that find much higher functional
> > > > > mutation rates than the one quoted by you. If you search the
> > > > > scientific literature you will find that the functional mutation rates
> > > > > are slowly becoming a popular topic of research in fundamental
> > > > > evolutionary theory. However, your number is vastly underestimated.
> > > > > On Nov 2, 7:07 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The reference you provided pointed out that random mutation is the
> > > > > > ultimate source of genetic variation. (see link and quotation you
> > > > > > provided below)
> > > > > > Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-
> > > > > > random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source
> > > > > > of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which
> > > > > > some variants survive and others do not, is not random.
> > > > > > So random mutation is the primary cause for various genetic
> > > > > > combination. Mutations occurs during cell divisions and is past on to
> > > > > > the next generation. For every 10 74 combination for a 150 genes you
> > > > > > will have a potential functional protein form. If this protein gives
> > > > > > the organism an advantage then natural selection will allow for this
> > > > > > variant to survive.
> > > > > > The article present a massive, dense, unrealistic bacterial colony in
> > > > > > size that all the bacteria are mutating this 150 gene randomly at the
> > > > > > maximum rate possible ( 150 genes per cell division) continuously from
> > > > > > the time the earth was formed. The total permutation that could occur
> > > > > > during this time was significantly less than 10 74 permutations.
> > > > > > The obvious conclusion then is these variations did not occur from
> > > > > > random mutation. Therefore random mutation is not the ultimate source
> > > > > > for genetic variation. But, Evolution is based on random mutation.( as
> > > > > > stated by your reference above) Therefore, Evolution is not the basis
> > > > > > for genetic variation.. This is a simply mathematical conclusion.
> > > > > > Therefore evolution is not a viable theory.
> > > > > > Look, you will never find TRUTH if you are not HONEST with the facts.
> > > > > > I use to be a believer in evolution. With this kind of evidence I
> > > > > > would be a fool to continue believing in it. If you understand
> > > > > > mathematics and still believe in evolution with this information. You
> > > > > > are a damn .... I don't call people fools period.
> > > > > > On Nov 2, 6:22 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Your functional mutation rate is 10^-74, and that is orders of
> > > > > > > magnitude off. Again, I can only ask you to check the articles I
> > > > > > > posted. If you do not want to read and learn, then it is you who
> > > > > > > refuses to attempt to decipher the laws of nature.
> > > > > > > On Oct 28, 11:50 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation is NOT 1 x 10-74. This is the amount
> > > > > > > > of mutations that must take place to meet the permutation requirement
> > > > > > > > so that a 150 gene can produce a functional protein.
> > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation per mm-3 per year is
> > > > > > > > 4 x 10 13 x 150 x 5.37 x 10 5 = 3.2 x 10-21 mutations /per mm-3/per
> > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > (number of bacteria per mm-3 x number of bacterial mutation per cell
> > > > > > > > division x number of division per year)
> > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 4:19 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > You claimed that evolution was an unsubstantiated theory, I showed you
> > > > > > > > > that you were wrong and now you accept evolution. You claimed that
> > > > > > > > > mutation rates were on the order of 1 x 10-74, then I showed you that
> > > > > > > > > you were wrong again, they are more on the order of 1 x 10-3. Then you
> > > > > > > > > claimed that mutations only works through base pair deletion, and that
> > > > > > > > > all the genes needed for life would have to have existed at the
> > > > > > > > > outset; I showed you that new genes are created and you now agree that
> > > > > > > > > mutation can give rise to increased genetic material.
> > > > > > > > > Now you claim that there is not enough time in history for evolution
> > > > > > > > > to explain the diversity of creatures that exist... but you have no
> > > > > > > > > evidence to back up that claim. You're guessing.
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 6:50 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Mutation can give rise to increased genetic material. True. The
> > > > > > > > > > problem is that there is not enough time in history for it to do so
> > > > > > > > > > and explain the diversity of creatures that now exist.
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 3:43 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 26, 9:42 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Daniel I believe bacteria can develop new traits in a lab and
> > > > > > > > > > > > outside a lab. Period.
> > > > > > > > > > > Then you believe in evolution. Period.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So to tell me that some scientist was able to demonstrate this is
> > > > > > > > > > > > consistent with what I believe. Now Micheal Behe examined the case
> > > > > > > > > > > > you presented and showed that this form of mutation is atypical.
> > > > > > > > > > > > How is it atypical? The bacteria already had the gene to
> > > > > > > > > > > > metabolize citrate. By deleting some of the other gene that
> It's unfortunate. I think he has been reading one side of the problem
> and got caught up in that kind of thinking. I appreciate that he is
> bringing this to our attention, but when something is not correct (or
> at best disputed) one should not draw big conclusions from it. Best we
> can say is that IF he is right, then evolution is wrong. But doing
> some reading about the subject quickly shows that there is a lot of
> argument about the functional protein rate and most numbers are far
> bigger than what he quoted here.
> On Nov 4, 10:36 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 12:13 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I did not say that Dr Robinson came up with it. I said it was wrong.
> > > If you think it is a proven scientific fact, how come I could, through
> > > a short Google search, find articles contradicting your number?
> > > I especially love this part of your post: "The problem is they wont
> > > tell you these facts exist because they are
> > > fearful of discrimination within the scientific community". All I can
> > > say is that the scientists would be more than happy to report findings
> > > like this. Notice a contradiction in your statements. First you claim
> > > that 10^-74 was published by an acclaimed scientist and then claim
> > > that scientists won't publish figures like this due to
> > > discrimination.
> > > I am a scientists myself and I can tell you that the more
> > > controversial an article, the better. The controversial articles have
> > > the highest impact when people try to prove them wrong. If they stand
> > > up to scrutiny then they eventually become a part of the standard
> > > scientific theory.
> > Hi Sebastian
> > I am sure you have noticed how unreasonable "Reasonable" is.
> > I agree with you on what you say about Scientists. They love a
> > good theory they can argue. Eventually consensus reigns once
> > their hypotheses are supported and can be reproduced by all
> > and sundry. I'm afraid I don't have the training to argue rates of
> > functional protein etc. However, I would say that it seems to me
> > from my limited reading around the ridges that many of the so-
> > called scientists in creation science itself, will know the truth on
> > one side (in the scientific journals, and even publish in them)
> > and then go and write an article for the creation followers which
> > will baldly tell them actual lies. I am sorry that this is happening.
> > Obviously there are some scientists around who will tell lies
> > for God, and whose ethics leave a lot to be desired.
> > > On Nov 3, 11:49 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Sebastian it is not Dr. Robinson who came up with the 10-74 rate of
> > > > functional protein for a 150 amino acid protein. This is a proven
> > > > scientific fact that any scientist with the proper equipment can
> > > > verify in a lab. No acclaimed scientist will disputes these figures.
> > > > The problem is they wont tell you these facts exist because they are
> > > > fearful of discrimination within the scientific community. I told you
> > > > my boss who is to some degree an acclaimed scientist think evolution
> > > > is foolishness but he cannot afford the risk his career by going
> > > > public. Give it up Sebastian. Look somewhere else for the Origin of
> > > > Life. It is not in evolution.
> > > > On Nov 3, 3:32 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > But the functional mutation rate is NOT 10^-74! I mean you are not
> > > > > addressing the problem with your argument at all. You are claiming
> > > > > that Robinson had a good mathematical model and I am saying if you
> > > > > accept that he did then your argument still does not hold up because
> > > > > you are using numbers that are incorrect.
> > > > > On Nov 3, 11:15 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Sebastian give it up. The bacterial colony Dr. Robinson used is
> > > > > > enormously large i.e. The entire earth surface extending to outer
> > > > > > space. The mutation rate he used is greater than theoretically
> > > > > > possible. i.e. every division of every bacteria in the colony at the
> > > > > > maximum rate of 150 mutation per division. The time he used include
> > > > > > every moment of earth history. i.e. from the beginning of the earth
> > > > > > history. Yet this process cannot produce mathematically one functional
> > > > > > 150 amino acid protein (a small protein molecule) by random mutation.
> > > > > > You need to produce over 25,000 larger protein of over 1000 amino
> > > > > > acids to give rise to a human. The Evolution theory is not viable.
> > > > > > Give it up Sebastian. This is a CHECKMATE.
> > > > > > On Nov 3, 7:39 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I also posted two other articles that find much higher functional
> > > > > > > mutation rates than the one quoted by you. If you search the
> > > > > > > scientific literature you will find that the functional mutation rates
> > > > > > > are slowly becoming a popular topic of research in fundamental
> > > > > > > evolutionary theory. However, your number is vastly underestimated.
> > > > > > > On Nov 2, 7:07 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > The reference you provided pointed out that random mutation is the
> > > > > > > > ultimate source of genetic variation. (see link and quotation you
> > > > > > > > provided below)
> > > > > > > > Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-
> > > > > > > > random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source
> > > > > > > > of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which
> > > > > > > > some variants survive and others do not, is not random.
> > > > > > > > So random mutation is the primary cause for various genetic
> > > > > > > > combination. Mutations occurs during cell divisions and is past on to
> > > > > > > > the next generation. For every 10 74 combination for a 150 genes you
> > > > > > > > will have a potential functional protein form. If this protein gives
> > > > > > > > the organism an advantage then natural selection will allow for this
> > > > > > > > variant to survive.
> > > > > > > > The article present a massive, dense, unrealistic bacterial colony in
> > > > > > > > size that all the bacteria are mutating this 150 gene randomly at the
> > > > > > > > maximum rate possible ( 150 genes per cell division) continuously from
> > > > > > > > the time the earth was formed. The total permutation that could occur
> > > > > > > > during this time was significantly less than 10 74 permutations.
> > > > > > > > The obvious conclusion then is these variations did not occur from
> > > > > > > > random mutation. Therefore random mutation is not the ultimate source
> > > > > > > > for genetic variation. But, Evolution is based on random mutation.( as
> > > > > > > > stated by your reference above) Therefore, Evolution is not the basis
> > > > > > > > for genetic variation.. This is a simply mathematical conclusion.
> > > > > > > > Therefore evolution is not a viable theory.
> > > > > > > > Look, you will never find TRUTH if you are not HONEST with the facts.
> > > > > > > > I use to be a believer in evolution. With this kind of evidence I
> > > > > > > > would be a fool to continue believing in it. If you understand
> > > > > > > > mathematics and still believe in evolution with this information. You
> > > > > > > > are a damn .... I don't call people fools period.
> > > > > > > > On Nov 2, 6:22 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Your functional mutation rate is 10^-74, and that is orders of
> > > > > > > > > magnitude off. Again, I can only ask you to check the articles I
> > > > > > > > > posted. If you do not want to read and learn, then it is you who
> > > > > > > > > refuses to attempt to decipher the laws of nature.
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 11:50 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation is NOT 1 x 10-74. This is the amount
> > > > > > > > > > of mutations that must take place to meet the permutation requirement
> > > > > > > > > > so that a 150 gene can produce a functional protein.
> > > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation per mm-3 per year is
> > > > > > > > > > 4 x 10 13 x 150 x 5.37 x 10 5 = 3.2 x 10-21 mutations /per mm-3/per
> > > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > (number of bacteria per mm-3 x number of bacterial mutation per cell
> > > > > > > > > > division x number of division per year)
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 4:19 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > You claimed that evolution was an unsubstantiated theory, I showed you
> > > > > > > > > > > that you were wrong and now you accept evolution. You claimed that
> > > > > > > > > > > mutation rates were on the order of 1 x 10-74, then I showed you that
> > > > > > > > > > > you were wrong again, they are more on the order of 1 x 10-3. Then you
> > > > > > > > > > > claimed that mutations only works through base pair deletion, and that
> > > > > > > > > > > all the genes needed for life would have to have existed at the
> > > > > > > > > > > outset; I showed you that new genes are created and you now agree that
> > > > > > > > > > > mutation can give rise to increased genetic material.
> > > > > > > > > > > Now you claim that there is not enough time in history for evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > to explain the diversity of creatures that exist... but you have no
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under
the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to
pluck up that which is planted;A time to kill, and a time to heal; a
time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to
dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a
time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;A time to get,
and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time
to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of
peace.
The time has come to put up or shut up.
On Nov 5, 7:48 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under
the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to
pluck up that which is planted;A time to kill, and a time to heal; a
time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to
dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a
time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;A time to get,
and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time
to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of
peace.
THE TIME HAS COME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP
On Nov 5, 8:05 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
It has been put up. Over and over and over again. You are simply wrong. Your understanding of the subject is weak, at best. You have received more thoughtfulness and patience than you deserve and childishly stamping your feet and shouting will gain you nothing but an eventually coronary.
Bow out gracefully, with some dignity and self-respect.
-- "The mind is everything. What you think you become."
[Buddha]
> It has been put up. Over and over and over again. You are simply wrong. Your understanding of the subject is weak, at best. You have received more thoughtfulness and patience than you deserve and childishly stamping your feet and shouting will gain you nothing but an eventually coronary.
> Bow out gracefully, with some dignity and self-respect.
> --
> "The mind is everything. What you think you become."
> [Buddha]
> "When you know a thing, to hold that you know it, and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it - this is knowledge."
> [Conficius]
> --
> "The mind is everything. What you think you become."
> [Buddha]
It should be noted that despite the official looking title page, this
is not an official report, nor was it ever approved by the committee.
It's one crackpot congressman hosting some bunkum on his personal
site.
On Nov 5, 8:21 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
> (Psalm 14:1)
> PEACE.
Observer
Hey where is the scientifically verifiable substantiating data for the
existence of or any act of any god for which I asked you before?
Why are you so stupid as to believe in any thing which can not be
scientifically substantiated as actual ,through applying the process
of scientific method? You are among the least informed people who
claim to understand scientific method or the data therefrom derived,
ever to post here. Why not try to redeem your lost honor by supplying
scientifically verifiable substantiating data for the existence or any
act of any god then we can move on to the psychotic belief if the
filthy superstitious crap that is known as Christianity and dispose of
such by casting it onto the shit pile of stupidity where it belongs.
Answer the challenge this time you fucking dimwitted , uneducated
misanthrope.
We await another testimony to your genuine brutish stupidity . Come on
make us laugh again.
> On Nov 5, 8:13 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [Reasonable]
> > > Nothing to put up I see. CHECKMATE
> > It has been done.
> > "When you know a thing, to hold that you know it, and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it - this is knowledge."
> > [Conficius]
> > --
> > "The mind is everything. What you think you become."
> > [Buddha]
The basic theory of evolution is that genes undergo random changes
called mutations that produce new and different genes. These new,
different genes may produce functional proteins that undergo natural
selection to give the organism a distinct survival advantage in its
particular environment. The combination of these changes eventually,
over time, lead to the development of new species.
Let us examine, mathematically, the time required for the development
of a single gene that codes for a functional protein, which is the
first step, in order for the evolution process to be considered a
viable theory. Let us assume that this gene contains 150 codons each
coding for an amino acid thus forming a small protein of 150 amino
acids for a bacterial species (bacterial genes usually code for
proteins over 330 amino acids). Since each codon on the gene could
code for 1 of the 20 different amino acids, the amount of possible
proteins that could be formed is 20 150 (1.4 x 10 195).
Current scientific findings have shown that 1 in every 10 74 proteins
formed from a 150 amino acid protein molecule is functional. This
would mean that for every 1 x 10 74 mutations, a potential functional
150 amino acid protein could be formed which could then undergo
natural selection.
Let us now calculate the total number of mutations that could occur in
a dense bacterial colony similar to your intestinal colon environment,
(4 x 10 13 bacteria per mm 3) which covers the entire surface of the
earth (5 x 10 20 mm 2) and extends 100 kilometers (1 x 10 8 mm)
upwards to the point where it is considered that the atmosphere meets
outer space (Karman's Line). Let us also say that this colony of
bacteria has been around since the beginning of the earth 4.5 billion
years ago (4.5 x 10 6 years) and actively multiplying and mutating
since. We will also assume that the maximum mutation rate of 150
codons for this gene is occurring with every bacterial division.
Bacteria usually divide every 9.8 minutes which is equivalent to 5.37
x 10 4 division per year.
The total number of mutations therefore would be:
4 x 10 13 x 5 x 10 20 x 1 x 10 8 x 4.5 x 10 6 x 150 x 5.37 x 10 4 =
7.2 x 10 55 mutations
Based on our calculation we would still require considerably more time
to cover the period necessary to form one functional small protein
despite the extremely generous and improbable hypothesis in favor of
mutation and evolution.
i.e. 1 x 10 74 - 7.2 x 10 55 = approximately 1 x 10 74 years
(insignificant change).
This process would need to be repeated at least 3200 times for the
average bacterial cell to account for its total gene pool. In the case
of humans with over 25,000 genes with an average amino acids count per
protein of over 1000, the number of years to evolve would be
unimaginable.
In my view with this type of data, evolution should not even be
referred to as a theory but a myth derived from intellectual pursuit.
Dr. Robert Robinson MBBS. DM.(Int. Med.) is a specialist in Internal
Medicine trained at the University of The West Indies. He has over ten
(10) years experience in the management of patients with obesity and
other chronic non-communicable diseases. He is the author of the book
"The Sabbatical Diet." http://www.sabbaticaldiet.com
On Nov 6, 12:33 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 8:21 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
> > (Psalm 14:1)
> > PEACE.
> Observer
> Hey where is the scientifically verifiable substantiating data for the
> existence of or any act of any god for which I asked you before?
> Why are you so stupid as to believe in any thing which can not be
> scientifically substantiated as actual ,through applying the process
> of scientific method? You are among the least informed people who
> claim to understand scientific method or the data therefrom derived,
> ever to post here. Why not try to redeem your lost honor by supplying
> scientifically verifiable substantiating data for the existence or any
> act of any god then we can move on to the psychotic belief if the
> filthy superstitious crap that is known as Christianity and dispose of
> such by casting it onto the shit pile of stupidity where it belongs.
> Answer the challenge this time you fucking dimwitted , uneducated
> misanthrope.
> We await another testimony to your genuine brutish stupidity . Come on
> make us laugh again.
> Ha ha ha Ha Ha
> Psychonomist
> > On Nov 5, 8:13 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [Reasonable]
> > > > Nothing to put up I see. CHECKMATE
> > > It has been done.
> > > "When you know a thing, to hold that you know it, and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it - this is knowledge."
> > > [Conficius]
> > > --
> > > "The mind is everything. What you think you become."
> > > [Buddha]
On Nov 6, 8:57 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dr. Robert Robinson MBBS. DM.(Int. Med.) is a specialist in Internal
> Medicine trained at the University of The West Indies. He has over ten
> (10) years experience in the management of patients with obesity and
> other chronic non-communicable diseases. He is the author of the book
> "The Sabbatical Diet."http://www.sabbaticaldiet.com
Such a talented chap, your Doc Robinson. Does he do children's parties
as well?
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
> (Psalm 14:1)
Matthew 5:22 (KJV)
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause
shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother,
Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou *fool
*, shall be in danger of hell fire.
> On Nov 5, 8:13 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [Reasonable]
> > > Nothing to put up I see. CHECKMATE
> > It has been done.
> > "When you know a thing, to hold that you know it, and when you do not
> know a thing, to allow that you do not know it - this is knowledge."
> > [Conficius]
> > --
> > "The mind is everything. What you think you become."
> > [Buddha]
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Since the Smithsonian does not encompass the entire scientific
community, your link is irrelevant.
The scientific community is a world wide organization. In addition to
the general philosophy I described where new theories make scientist's
careers, there is the issue of rivalies between scientists of
differring disciplines and nationalities.
Even if all the scientists in the Smithsonian were being squelched,
that doesn't stop other scientists in America from pursuing criticisms
of evolution.
Even if all the scientists in America were being squelched, that
doesn't stop other scientists in other parts of the world from
pursuing criticims of evolution.
Essentially what you are proposing is a vast world-wide conspiracy
that has persisted for 150 years where every single evolutionary
scientist are perpetuating a giant hoax for unknown goals.
And somehow they are united in this hoax, crossing political,
religious and other idealogical boundaries which would, under normal
circumstances, foster an environment of competition and, sometimes,
antagonism.
If you think some link with regards to the Smithsonian is going to
support such an outrageous claim then you need to change your nickname
immediately. Or are you being ironic on purpose?
On Nov 5, 10:37 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 6:40 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 6:49 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sebastian it is not Dr. Robinson who came up with the 10-74 rate of
> > > functional protein for a 150 amino acid protein. This is a proven
> > > scientific fact that any scientist with the proper equipment can
> > > verify in a lab. No acclaimed scientist will disputes these figures.
> > > The problem is they wont tell you these facts exist because they are
> > > fearful of discrimination within the scientific community. I told you
> > > my boss who is to some degree an acclaimed scientist think evolution
> > > is foolishness but he cannot afford the risk his career by going
> > > public. Give it up Sebastian. Look somewhere else for the Origin of
> > > Life. It is not in evolution.
> > Bullshit. Scientists' careers are made by disproving existing
> > theories. Name any famous scientist. Chances are they're famous
> > because they overturned, disproved, or upset some strongly held notion
> > of reality. Albert Einstein is perhaps the most famous scientist of
> > the twentieth century and he's famous for completely throwing
> > everything we thought we know about time, space and gravity out the
> > window.
> > Scientists are, by far, not fearful of discrimination. Rather they
> > invite it.
> > Take the Bohr-Einstein Debates about quantum mechanics. Two groups of
> > scientific giants going head to head, publicly, about the fundamental
> > nature of reality. These debates did wonders for the advancement of
> > science.
> > People that think that scientists are bullied into touting some
> > mainstream agenda simply have no idea what they're talking about.
> > Zero. Science thrives on conflict and the overturning of theories. The
> > more well established the theory, the better it is when it is upset.
> > When Newton came along, scientists thought that our understanding of
> > the universe was almost complete. Then came Einstein. Far from being
> > fearful of discrimination, or risking his career by going public, he
> > published the problems (and his solutions) and became one of the most
> > famous scientists of all time.
> > Scientists are well aware of what the actual problems with any given
> > scientific theory. Many accolades are waiting for the person that can
> > solve them.
> > Please, educate yourself - you aren't going to fool anyone here.
> > > On Nov 3, 3:32 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > But the functional mutation rate is NOT 10^-74! I mean you are not
> > > > addressing the problem with your argument at all. You are claiming
> > > > that Robinson had a good mathematical model and I am saying if you
> > > > accept that he did then your argument still does not hold up because
> > > > you are using numbers that are incorrect.
> > > > On Nov 3, 11:15 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Sebastian give it up. The bacterial colony Dr. Robinson used is
> > > > > enormously large i.e. The entire earth surface extending to outer
> > > > > space. The mutation rate he used is greater than theoretically
> > > > > possible. i.e. every division of every bacteria in the colony at the
> > > > > maximum rate of 150 mutation per division. The time he used include
> > > > > every moment of earth history. i.e. from the beginning of the earth
> > > > > history. Yet this process cannot produce mathematically one functional
> > > > > 150 amino acid protein (a small protein molecule) by random mutation.
> > > > > You need to produce over 25,000 larger protein of over 1000 amino
> > > > > acids to give rise to a human. The Evolution theory is not viable.
> > > > > Give it up Sebastian. This is a CHECKMATE.
> > > > > On Nov 3, 7:39 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I also posted two other articles that find much higher functional
> > > > > > mutation rates than the one quoted by you. If you search the
> > > > > > scientific literature you will find that the functional mutation rates
> > > > > > are slowly becoming a popular topic of research in fundamental
> > > > > > evolutionary theory. However, your number is vastly underestimated.
> > > > > > On Nov 2, 7:07 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > The reference you provided pointed out that random mutation is the
> > > > > > > ultimate source of genetic variation. (see link and quotation you
> > > > > > > provided below)
> > > > > > > Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-
> > > > > > > random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source
> > > > > > > of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which
> > > > > > > some variants survive and others do not, is not random.
> > > > > > > So random mutation is the primary cause for various genetic
> > > > > > > combination. Mutations occurs during cell divisions and is past on to
> > > > > > > the next generation. For every 10 74 combination for a 150 genes you
> > > > > > > will have a potential functional protein form. If this protein gives
> > > > > > > the organism an advantage then natural selection will allow for this
> > > > > > > variant to survive.
> > > > > > > The article present a massive, dense, unrealistic bacterial colony in
> > > > > > > size that all the bacteria are mutating this 150 gene randomly at the
> > > > > > > maximum rate possible ( 150 genes per cell division) continuously from
> > > > > > > the time the earth was formed. The total permutation that could occur
> > > > > > > during this time was significantly less than 10 74 permutations.
> > > > > > > The obvious conclusion then is these variations did not occur from
> > > > > > > random mutation. Therefore random mutation is not the ultimate source
> > > > > > > for genetic variation. But, Evolution is based on random mutation.( as
> > > > > > > stated by your reference above) Therefore, Evolution is not the basis
> > > > > > > for genetic variation.. This is a simply mathematical conclusion.
> > > > > > > Therefore evolution is not a viable theory.
> > > > > > > Look, you will never find TRUTH if you are not HONEST with the facts.
> > > > > > > I use to be a believer in evolution. With this kind of evidence I
> > > > > > > would be a fool to continue believing in it. If you understand
> > > > > > > mathematics and still believe in evolution with this information. You
> > > > > > > are a damn .... I don't call people fools period.
> > > > > > > On Nov 2, 6:22 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Your functional mutation rate is 10^-74, and that is orders of
> > > > > > > > magnitude off. Again, I can only ask you to check the articles I
> > > > > > > > posted. If you do not want to read and learn, then it is you who
> > > > > > > > refuses to attempt to decipher the laws of nature.
> > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 11:50 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation is NOT 1 x 10-74. This is the amount
> > > > > > > > > of mutations that must take place to meet the permutation requirement
> > > > > > > > > so that a 150 gene can produce a functional protein.
> > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation per mm-3 per year is
> > > > > > > > > 4 x 10 13 x 150 x 5.37 x 10 5 = 3.2 x 10-21 mutations /per mm-3/per
> > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > (number of bacteria per mm-3 x number of bacterial mutation per cell
> > > > > > > > > division x number of division per year)
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 4:19 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > You claimed that evolution was an unsubstantiated theory, I showed you
> > > > > > > > > > that you were wrong and now you accept evolution. You claimed that
> > > > > > > > > > mutation rates were on the order of 1 x 10-74, then I showed you that
> > > > > > > > > > you were wrong again, they are more on the order of 1 x 10-3. Then you
> > > > > > > > > > claimed that mutations only works through base pair deletion, and that
> > > > > > > > > > all the genes needed for life would have to have existed at the
> > > > > > > > > > outset; I showed you that new genes are created and you now agree that
> > > > > > > > > > mutation can give rise to increased
> On Nov 5, 8:46 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's unfortunate. I think he has been reading one side of the problem
> > and got caught up in that kind of thinking. I appreciate that he is
> > bringing this to our attention, but when something is not correct (or
> > at best disputed) one should not draw big conclusions from it. Best we
> > can say is that IF he is right, then evolution is wrong. But doing
> > some reading about the subject quickly shows that there is a lot of
> > argument about the functional protein rate and most numbers are far
> > bigger than what he quoted here.
> > On Nov 4, 10:36 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > > On Nov 5, 12:13 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I did not say that Dr Robinson came up with it. I said it was wrong.
> > > > If you think it is a proven scientific fact, how come I could, through
> > > > a short Google search, find articles contradicting your number?
> > > > I especially love this part of your post: "The problem is they wont
> > > > tell you these facts exist because they are
> > > > fearful of discrimination within the scientific community". All I can
> > > > say is that the scientists would be more than happy to report findings
> > > > like this. Notice a contradiction in your statements. First you claim
> > > > that 10^-74 was published by an acclaimed scientist and then claim
> > > > that scientists won't publish figures like this due to
> > > > discrimination.
> > > > I am a scientists myself and I can tell you that the more
> > > > controversial an article, the better. The controversial articles have
> > > > the highest impact when people try to prove them wrong. If they stand
> > > > up to scrutiny then they eventually become a part of the standard
> > > > scientific theory.
> > > Hi Sebastian
> > > I am sure you have noticed how unreasonable "Reasonable" is.
> > > I agree with you on what you say about Scientists. They love a
> > > good theory they can argue. Eventually consensus reigns once
> > > their hypotheses are supported and can be reproduced by all
> > > and sundry. I'm afraid I don't have the training to argue rates of
> > > functional protein etc. However, I would say that it seems to me
> > > from my limited reading around the ridges that many of the so-
> > > called scientists in creation science itself, will know the truth on
> > > one side (in the scientific journals, and even publish in them)
> > > and then go and write an article for the creation followers which
> > > will baldly tell them actual lies. I am sorry that this is happening.
> > > Obviously there are some scientists around who will tell lies
> > > for God, and whose ethics leave a lot to be desired.
> > > > On Nov 3, 11:49 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Sebastian it is not Dr. Robinson who came up with the 10-74 rate of
> > > > > functional protein for a 150 amino acid protein. This is a proven
> > > > > scientific fact that any scientist with the proper equipment can
> > > > > verify in a lab. No acclaimed scientist will disputes these figures.
> > > > > The problem is they wont tell you these facts exist because they are
> > > > > fearful of discrimination within the scientific community. I told you
> > > > > my boss who is to some degree an acclaimed scientist think evolution
> > > > > is foolishness but he cannot afford the risk his career by going
> > > > > public. Give it up Sebastian. Look somewhere else for the Origin of
> > > > > Life. It is not in evolution.
> > > > > On Nov 3, 3:32 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > But the functional mutation rate is NOT 10^-74! I mean you are not
> > > > > > addressing the problem with your argument at all. You are claiming
> > > > > > that Robinson had a good mathematical model and I am saying if you
> > > > > > accept that he did then your argument still does not hold up because
> > > > > > you are using numbers that are incorrect.
> > > > > > On Nov 3, 11:15 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Sebastian give it up. The bacterial colony Dr. Robinson used is
> > > > > > > enormously large i.e. The entire earth surface extending to outer
> > > > > > > space. The mutation rate he used is greater than theoretically
> > > > > > > possible. i.e. every division of every bacteria in the colony at the
> > > > > > > maximum rate of 150 mutation per division. The time he used include
> > > > > > > every moment of earth history. i.e. from the beginning of the earth
> > > > > > > history. Yet this process cannot produce mathematically one functional
> > > > > > > 150 amino acid protein (a small protein molecule) by random mutation.
> > > > > > > You need to produce over 25,000 larger protein of over 1000 amino
> > > > > > > acids to give rise to a human. The Evolution theory is not viable.
> > > > > > > Give it up Sebastian. This is a CHECKMATE.
> > > > > > > On Nov 3, 7:39 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I also posted two other articles that find much higher functional
> > > > > > > > mutation rates than the one quoted by you. If you search the
> > > > > > > > scientific literature you will find that the functional mutation rates
> > > > > > > > are slowly becoming a popular topic of research in fundamental
> > > > > > > > evolutionary theory. However, your number is vastly underestimated.
> > > > > > > > On Nov 2, 7:07 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The reference you provided pointed out that random mutation is the
> > > > > > > > > ultimate source of genetic variation. (see link and quotation you
> > > > > > > > > provided below)
> > > > > > > > > Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-
> > > > > > > > > random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source
> > > > > > > > > of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which
> > > > > > > > > some variants survive and others do not, is not random.
> > > > > > > > > So random mutation is the primary cause for various genetic
> > > > > > > > > combination. Mutations occurs during cell divisions and is past on to
> > > > > > > > > the next generation. For every 10 74 combination for a 150 genes you
> > > > > > > > > will have a potential functional protein form. If this protein gives
> > > > > > > > > the organism an advantage then natural selection will allow for this
> > > > > > > > > variant to survive.
> > > > > > > > > The article present a massive, dense, unrealistic bacterial colony in
> > > > > > > > > size that all the bacteria are mutating this 150 gene randomly at the
> > > > > > > > > maximum rate possible ( 150 genes per cell division) continuously from
> > > > > > > > > the time the earth was formed. The total permutation that could occur
> > > > > > > > > during this time was significantly less than 10 74 permutations.
> > > > > > > > > The obvious conclusion then is these variations did not occur from
> > > > > > > > > random mutation. Therefore random mutation is not the ultimate source
> > > > > > > > > for genetic variation. But, Evolution is based on random mutation.( as
> > > > > > > > > stated by your reference above) Therefore, Evolution is not the basis
> > > > > > > > > for genetic variation.. This is a simply mathematical conclusion.
> > > > > > > > > Therefore evolution is not a viable theory.
> > > > > > > > > Look, you will never find TRUTH if you are not HONEST with the facts.
> > > > > > > > > I use to be a believer in evolution. With this kind of evidence I
> > > > > > > > > would be a fool to continue believing in it. If you understand
> > > > > > > > > mathematics and still believe in evolution with this information. You
> > > > > > > > > are a damn .... I don't call people fools period.
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 2, 6:22 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Your functional mutation rate is 10^-74, and that is orders of
> > > > > > > > > > magnitude off. Again, I can only ask you to check the articles I
> > > > > > > > > > posted. If you do not want to read and learn, then it is you who
> > > > > > > > > > refuses to attempt to decipher the laws of nature.
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 11:50 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation is NOT 1 x 10-74. This is the amount
> > > > > > > > > > > of mutations that must take place to meet the permutation requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > so that a 150 gene can produce a functional protein.
> > > > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation per mm-3 per year is
> > > > > > > > > > > 4 x 10 13 x 150 x 5.37 x 10 5 = 3.2 x 10-21 mutations /per mm-3/per
> > > > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > > (number of bacteria per mm-3 x number of bacterial mutation per cell
> > > > > > > > > > > division x number of division per year)
> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 4:19 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > You claimed that evolution was an unsubstantiated theory, I showed you
> > > > > > > > > > > > that you were wrong and now you accept evolution. You claimed that
> > > > > > > > > > > > mutation rates were on the order of 1 x 10-74, then I showed you that
> > > > > > > > > > > > you were wrong again, they are more on the order of 1 x 10-3. Then you
> > > > > > > > > > > > claimed that mutations only works through base pair
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ecclesiastes 3
> To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under
> the heaven:
> A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to
> pluck up that which is planted;A time to kill, and a time to heal; a
> time to break down, and a time to build up;
> A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to
> dance;
> A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a
> time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;A time to get,
> and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
> A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time
> to speak;
> A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of
> peace.
> The time has come to put up or shut up.
> On Nov 5, 7:48 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [Reasonable]
> > > Quote one or Shut up
> > My, my.
> > "In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased
> striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves." [Buddha]
> > --
> > "The mind is everything. What you think you become."
> > [Buddha]
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Wow, you actually reposted the original article as your way of proving
that the original article was correct. Congratulations, Reas, that
was the lamest thing I've ever seen!
- Bob T.
On Nov 6, 1:57 am, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 11:21 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
> (Psalm 14:1)
> PEACE.
Thank you for demonstrating to us all that the bible is nothing but an
indoctrination manual.
The simple believeth every word.
Pr. 14:15
__________________________________________
Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
successful. All the rest is literature.
-- Paul Valéry
> Wow, you actually reposted the original article as your way of proving
> that the original article was correct. Congratulations, Reas, that
> was the lamest thing I've ever seen!
Reasonable has lost it. He isn't thinking at all, just reacting. I find it rather sad to witness his disintegration actually.
-- "The mind is everything. What you think you become."
[Buddha]
On Nov 6, 10:58 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Bob T.]
> > Wow, you actually reposted the original article as your way of proving
> > that the original article was correct. Congratulations, Reas, that
> > was the lamest thing I've ever seen!
> Reasonable has lost it. He isn't thinking at all, just reacting. I find it rather sad to witness his disintegration actually.
Lost it? When did he ever have it? All he has done is post this
article, claim that it proves evolution is impossible, and call us all
stupid when we dispute his case.
On Nov 4, 1:49 am, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> .................................
> ........................the cannot afford the risk his
> career by going public. Give it up Sebastian.
> Look somewhere else for the Origin of Life.
> It is not in evolution.
And who said that the Origin of Life is in Evolution?
Was it also Dr. Robinson?
|
