Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Response to Comments: Proteins Did Not Evolve Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Calculations but so What, Evolution is a Fact

Evolutionists say they just don’t know how to discern miracles. They might begin by looking at a protein. Proteins, according to science, are not likely to have evolved. And when I say “not likely,” I mean the chances are astronomically against such evolution. I may as well simply say: Proteins, according to science, did not evolve. To review, very briefly, here are some of the reasons:

1. Not enough time. New genes are found in species which allow only for a few million years for protein evolution.

2. Too important. These new genes are not functionally less important, as they should be if they recently evolved.

3. Wrong patterns. Protein sequences provide plenty of violations of evolution’s expected pattern, and the violations are not merely evolutionary “noise.”

4. Inflexible. Experiments show that proteins do not tolerate mutations very well. They rapidly lose their function with only a few mutations, so the evidence indicates that to evolve to a protein you need to start very close to it.

5. Not searchable. The protein design space is astronomically large and experiments show it provides no guidance as to where the fully functioning proteins are in the space. Like looking for a needle in a haystack, the hay provides no guidance.

I have discussed this issues here, here, here, here and here. Now if you already believe evolution is true and you don’t mind ignoring the obvious scientific evidence and you don’t restrict yourself to plausible explanations then, yes, you can explain all of the many issues with protein evolution using a variety of non scientific, just-so stories.

But for those who respect science, the evidence we currently have is clear. In fact, unlike most of the evolution narrative which appeals to a great many contingencies over a great many years in the past, protein evolution is more amenable to scientific experimentation. The just-so stories give way to the raw data of experiments which, not surprisingly, clearly show protein evolution to be unlikely.

Of course evolutionists attempt to spin the results of these experiments to favor their theory. They ignore monumental assumptions and use calculations that unrealistically favor evolution. But even then—even giving evolution every advantage—protein evolution is nonetheless unlikely.

For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve their protein (actually it was to evolve only part of a protein and only part of its function) is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it). Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible is only 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude.

The theory, even by the evolutionist’s own reckoning, is unworkable. Evolution fails by a degree that is incomparable in science. Scientific theories often go wrong, but not by 27 orders of magnitude. And that is conservative.

How conservative? In order to educate readers about the science, as opposed to the evolution mythology, I wanted to explain not only the 27 orders of magnitude shortfall, but also why even that estimate is grossly under valued.

So I explained the several evolutionary assumptions involved. For instance, the evolutionists computed that a maximum of 10^43 evolutionary experiments are possible by assuming a time span of 4 billion years. But that is unrealistic.

Even evolutionists agree that evolutionary innovations, including proteins, arise rapidly, on the order of some tens of millions of years, or in some cases even in just a few million years. So their time span was two to three orders of magnitude too long.

In response to this, one professor made this comment:

The "evolutionist" authors to whom Dr Hunter refers (Dryden, Thomson and White, 2008), assumed a time-frame for the biological activities of bacteria on earth of four billion (4*10^9) years (a commonly accepted value).

An order of magnitude is a factor of 10, so Dr Hunter proposes that a more realistic value for the duration of existence of bacteria on earth is 100- to 1,000-fold less than 4*10^9 years, or between 4*10^7 and 4*10^6 years. That's between 40 million and 4 million years! (Faithful readers may recall Dr Hunter's previous essay on a Cambrian fossil that was dated to ~515 million years ago!)

What was he thinking?

Again, it is unrealistic to use the entire time span of bacteria on earth. Proteins must have evolved much faster than that. Indeed, the bacteria themselves are full of proteins. So giving the bacteria a four billion year time frame leaves much less time to evolve their proteins.

In another example, the evolutionists computed the maximum of 10^43 evolutionary experiments are possible by assuming a protein size of 50 amino acids. I pointed out that this is extremely small as very few proteins are this short. Indeed, the vast majority of protein domains are far longer than 50 residues. Single domain proteins, and domains in multiple-domain proteins are typically in the hundreds of residues.

In response to this, the professor made this comment:

On the contrary:

"The size of individual domains also varies widely (Fig. 6C), from 36 residues in E-selectin (lesl) (Graves et al., 1994), a two-domain protein, to 692 residues in lipoxygenase-1 (2sbl, chain B) (Boyington et al, 1993), also a two-domain protein. However, very large domains are the exception. The distribution peaks at around 100 residues per domain and 80.3% of the domains are comprised of less than 200 residues. Very similar distributions have been observed in smaller non-redundant data sets. Siddiqui and Barton (1995), using DOMAK to assign domains for a data set of 230 protein chains, found that 90% of domains comprised less that 200residues. Holm and Sander (1994) using PUU on a dataset of 330 protein chains, also observed a domain size distribution that peaked at 100 residues."

Domain assignment for protein structures using a consensus approach: Characterization and analysis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2143930/pdf/9521098.pdf

Of 787 proteins studied, 370 (47%) had domains smaller than 100 residues (Fig 6C).

Here the professor simply reinforces my point. As the graph below shows, the protein domain sizes range from about 50 to about 700 and the majority (approximately two-thirds) are longer than 100 residues. The evolutionists used the extremely short value of 50 to try to improve their chances, but that is unrealistic.


The 27 orders of magnitude estimate, as miraculous as it is, is a ridiculously low-ball figure. The problem is so complicated we don’t have a good understanding of what the right number is, but a conservative estimate is 10^100 (100 orders of magnitude). For a typical protein of 250 amino acids, its gene has about 10^450 different possible sequences and the protein has about 10^325 different possible sequences. Thus this 10^100 estimate is an incredibly tiny fraction of the theoretical total.

What the right figure is no one knows, but the evidence we do have is clear. Protein evolution is profoundly unlikely. So why don’t evolutionists simply acknowledge this conclusion? Why don’t evolutionists go by the science? The answer, of course, is that this never was about the science in the first place. Religion drives science, and it matters.

36 comments:

  1. Doug Axe (Biologic Institute) uses the phrase, "Prohibitively Difficult" in this video at about the 1:55 mark.

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222/evolution_vs_functional_proteins_where_did_the_information_come_from_doug_axe_stephen_meyer/

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Proteins, according to science, are not likely to have evolved. And when I say “not likely,” I mean the chances are astronomically against such evolution. I may as well simply say: Proteins, according to science, did not evolve."

    Just briefly, who do you mean when you say 'science'? Who are these scientists who say proteins are unlikely to have evolved?

    Because I don't think you really mean 'scientists', do you? You mean you and your other lunatic ID-ers. You have just INTERPRETED scientific findings in this way. This isn't what 'science' says at all, this is what YOU say.

    But of course I could be wrong. Please find me another qualified, respected, established scientist (ie not just some lunatic ID-er in a lab coat) who agrees with your INTERPRETATION of the data and make me eat my words.

    That shouldn't be hard, should it? It is, after all what SCIENCE says...

    Unless of course the whole problem is that the only people you consider scientists are, in fact, the lunatic ID-ers, and everyone else (ie, the REAL scientists) are all part of the evolutionist conspiracy in your mind. Just saying...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius Hunter:

    "So why don’t evolutionists simply acknowledge this conclusion?
    ===

    It's considered un-kool for a Bulldog/Pitbull to cower with it's tail between it's legs and admit defeat on any Public forum when you've got the Panel of Peers lurking behind the scenes. Any self respecting evolutionary pimp would never admit defeat if they know what's healthy and waiting for them back at the safe-haven forum where animalistic personalities are usually found after a day's brawl sniffing each others scent glands to assure the pack that all is well in Evo world. Bring back bad news and it's dog eat dog.
    ---

    Cornelius Hunter:

    "Why don’t evolutionists go by the science?"
    ===

    Off hand I'd say pride, arrogance, bias, predjudice, etc.
    But then again I'll be honest here. I have often wondered the same things as to why many claiming to be Christian don't go by their own holy book the bible. I assume it's for many of the same reasons/excuses.
    ---

    Cornelius Hunter:

    "The answer, of course, is that this never was about the science in the first place."
    ===

    I've been saying this all along. Ultimately both sides use science for political power gain as evidenced by many of the ideological squabblings so commonly found on the most popular combat forums, that have nothing to do with science. Clearly the religion on both sides does drive science. At least some of the theist gang admit it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To restate my above point, Hunter lists 5 reasons he thinks proteins are very unlikely to have evolved. He then links to previous blogs of his where he discusses them in more deatil. Each blog post references scientific papers.

    But none of the scientists who drew up the papers agree with Cornelius' conclusions. What he is doing is taking valid scientific research, interpreting them to form his own odd conclusions - conclusions which the scientists who actually DID the research and drew up the papers do not support - and then claiming his own conclusions as 'science'.

    Total fail. This isn't 'science', this is the opinion of Cornelius Hunter - and, presumably, those who happen to agree with his religiously-biased standpoint.

    In the OP, for 'science says...' read 'I think...'.

    And for 'evolutionists say...' read 'scientists say...'.

    Really, Cornelius' definition of science seems to be 'whatever I happen to agree with'.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I notice the amount of time between Cornelius recycling the same goofy anti-science claims is shrinking. Now we get the same vomitus repeated every few weeks instead of every three months.

    That well really is bone dry, isn't it Cornelius?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ritchie:

    Hunter lists 5 reasons he thinks proteins are very unlikely to have evolved. He then links to previous blogs of his where he discusses them in more deatil. Each blog post references scientific papers.

    But none of the scientists who drew up the papers agree with Cornelius' conclusions.


    Indeed, one need only go to the links that Dr Hunter provided to his previous essays to discover that each of those claims has been rebutted by commenters.

    It's telling that he relies [especially in his point 4: Experiments show that proteins do not tolerate mutations very well] on his misunderstanding of a paper that he has cited repeatedly:

    Sequence space and the ongoing expansion of the protein universe by Inna S. Povolotskaya & Fyodor A. Kondrashov, Nature 465, 922–926 (17 June 2010)

    As one observer put it:

    "Biochemists (and Christian apologists) have long thought the functional islands population was sparse because proteins are intolerant to changes in amino acid composition (substitutions cause loss in function). In other words, not only was sequence space assumed to be lightly populated, the islands also appeared to feature steep cliffs.

    However, the new work from the Spanish scientists indicates that while the islands do possess steep cliffs, the ocean is richly populated with functional regions. The researchers show that while at any point in time 98 percent of amino acid positions cannot be substituted, eventually greater than 90 percent of the amino acid residues in a protein can be altered. This paradox finds explanation in the fact that once one amino acid in the protein is changed it allows invariant positions to change and freely-altered positions to become invariant."

    http://www.reasons.org/intelligent-design-right-conclusion-wrong-reasons

    ReplyDelete
  7. To Pedant:

    "eventually greater than 90 percent of the amino acid residues in a protein can be altered"

    Oh, yes, you can alter 100% if you want!

    Too bad you'll have at least a dead protein as a result..

    The Inna S. Povolotskaya & Fyodor A. Kondrashov work is really funny..

    I really would like to know what are the "ancient proteins" that they refers to, "those that were present in the last universal common ancestoris"...

    The "last universal common ancestoris"?

    And which is? How did they get the protein from it?

    oh, ok, hypothetic speculations granted by their unbiased "computational approach"..

    Oh, yes...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ritchie, to begin to understand why there are improbability boundaries that you are pleading with me to give you previously, go to the links provided by rpvicars at the top of these comments...

    Doug Axe (Biologic Institute) uses the phrase, "Prohibitively Difficult" in this video at about the 1:55 mark.

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222/evolution_vs_functional_proteins_where_did_the_information_come_from_doug_axe_stephen_meyer/

    Protein evolution calculations are what they are. Evolutionists must put a happy spin on them because evolution is assumed to be a settled 'fact'. So, they don't look critically at the numbers and say this makes evolution unlikely (because that is not allowed), they will look at it with the view that somehow they evolved anyway, so a willy nilly story to reconcile the numbers is looked at as an honorable attempt at an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The usual "look I can calculate a really big number, therefore evolution is false, therefore Jesus" post.

    If you shuffle a deck of 52 cards, then the "probability" of obtaining a specific outcome is about 1/10^68. That's so unlikely, it can't have happened. Right? It would have exhausted the "probabilistic resources" (to borrow a stupid phrase from Dembski) of the universe, right?

    No, of course not! That would be a ridiculous conclusion. But it's just as stupid to calculate the odds of a specific protein, a specific sequence of amino acids, evolving from scratch, and then to conclude that evolution is impossible. Yet that is exactly what Cornelius keeps doing.

    Is Cornelius really that stupid? I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Troy said, "If you shuffle a deck of 52 cards, then the "probability" of obtaining a specific outcome is about 1/10^68. That's so unlikely, it can't have happened. Right?"

    ---

    You also can't say that it is definitely impossible to walk through a wall given what we know about quantum physics. But for practical purposes because of it's improbability, we can say it is impossible.

    So evolution becomes dependent on believing in such wacky improbabilities and you wonder why it has skeptics?

    Perhaps if you wait long enough diamonds will appear in your pocket.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Neal Tedford:

    "So evolution becomes dependent on believing in such wacky improbabilities and you wonder why it has skeptics?"
    ===

    Well it's just another Faith there Neal, that's all.
    ---

    Neal Tedford:

    "Perhaps if you wait long enough diamonds will appear in your pocket."
    ===

    Actually I believe science does know how to make them. They're called industrial diamonds and have revolutionised construction. So i don't believe it is necessary to see if magic appears in your pockets. *wink*

    ReplyDelete
  12. "A simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its new duties. It is at this point it will be destroyed - along with the organism carrying it. Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72. "(Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Neal -

    "Ritchie, to begin to understand why there are improbability boundaries that you are pleading with me to give you previously, go to the links provided by rpvicars at the top of these comments..."

    Whilst I appreciate you attempt to respond, the link leads me to a short video featuring several ID advocates.

    Far be it from me to dismiss sources out of hand but you appear to be invoking the authority fallacy. Alone, 'It's true - Doug Axe says so' is no more compelling than 'It's true - Cornelius Hunter says so'.

    I'm sure Behe would conclude somethnig similar to Axe given his ideas of Irreducible Complexity, and yet this concept has not panned out in the science lab.

    Do you have any primary sources actually backing up Axe's claim?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ritchie said, "Far be it from me to dismiss sources out of hand but you appear to be invoking the authority fallacy".

    ---

    This is not an argument from authority at all. The argument of improbability is laid out by Axe. Let's stick with his argument that he laid out in the journal of molecular biology.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Carlo Alberto Cossano:

    The Inna S. Povolotskaya & Fyodor A. Kondrashov work is really funny..

    Tell that to Dr Hunter. He's the one who has been citing it to support his claim that proteins are too brittle to evolve.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Neal -

    "This is not an argument from authority at all. The argument of improbability is laid out by Axe. Let's stick with his argument that he laid out in the journal of molecular biology."

    Okay. Do you have a link to it?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tedford the idiot said...

    This is not an argument from authority at all. The argument of improbability is laid out by Axe. Let's stick with his argument that he laid out in the journal of molecular biology.


    Yeah, let's. Axe demonstrated that it's too improbable for one particular existing enzyme to evolve directly into another, different existing enzyme. That's like demonstrating an aardvark can't directly evolve into a moose. It's trivially true but absolutely meaningless to science or evolutionary theory.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thorton...so what happens in between? The one functional proteins and the next that is--not the aardvark and the moose. Some loss of function? Complete loss of function? What does the transition look like? By the way, Axe used homologous enzymes in the article for Bio-Complexity, so the aardvark/moose analogy is a bit of a stretch, funny none the less, but still a stretch.

    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/41

    ReplyDelete
  19. rpvicars said...

    By the way, Axe used homologous enzymes in the article for Bio-Complexity, so the aardvark/moose analogy is a bit of a stretch, funny none the less, but still a stretch.


    Homologous doesn't mean 'one evolved directly from the other'. Aardvark and moose are homologous in many aspects, they last shared a common mammalian ancestor approx. 100MYA, but no one thinks one evolved directly from the other.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thorton said ... Homologous doesn't mean 'one evolved directly from the other'.

    Copy that, agree. But if one enyzme is going to evolve into a new one with a distinct function, isn't selecting homologous (similar) ones testing a simpler mutation than two non-homologous ones (therefore making the probabilities less daunting)? Aren't proteins assumed to have evolved from function to function? If not, then what does the process look like? Some loss of function, complete loss of function (this is the main question I had from above). Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  21. rpvicars said...

    Thorton said ... Homologous doesn't mean 'one evolved directly from the other'.

    Copy that, agree.


    But that's exactly what Axe hypothesized and tested, and what the IDC community has been touting as strong evidence for ID.

    Do you understand why the mainstream scientific community is less than impressed?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thorton...He didn't say they were homologous because they directly evolved. Rather he chose what, by Darwinian standards, would be an easy mutation from function to function to test the probability. But all this is beside the point. My main question is, what does protein evolution look like if not function to function?

    ReplyDelete
  23. To Pedant:

    I don't criticize CH's citation but the claim in the abstract of the study and your words as you said that CH misunderstood the work..

    BTW, in the link you've provided, an "observer", as you call him, tell us that a "new work" from "Spanish scientists" prove that "eventually greater than 90 percent of the amino acid residues in a protein can be altered. This paradox finds explanation in the fact that once one amino acid in the protein is changed it allows invariant positions to change and freely-altered positions to become invariant".

    Too bad that I'm not able to find the link to this "work"..

    Anyway, Axe's work on the "weight" of a simple conversion from two homologs enzimes that rpvicars give you is exactly what fit in this issue..

    Kbl to BioF, high structural similarities but AT LEAST 7 mutation in one shot..You can dream about it with RM + NS..

    Ah ah ah, nice hole this one for Darwin, isn't it?

    Or maybe do you Evo-guys have another model of protein magical evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  24. rpvicars said...

    Thorton...He didn't say they were homologous because they directly evolved. Rather he chose what, by Darwinian standards, would be an easy mutation from function to function to test the probability. But all this is beside the point.


    No, it is the point. Axe tested a scenario that no competent evolutionary biologist thinks happened, then crowed about how it disproves ToE when it turned out to be not possible.

    It would be like having two hikers start together in the bottom of the Grand Canyon, one hikes the trail to the North rim and one hikes the trail to the South rim. Axe comes along and claims hiking to those spots is impossible because the guy on the North rim can't jump directly across the canyon to the South rim.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thorton...what does protein evolution look like if not function to function? I.e. What does a "protein on a hike" look like having left the function of South Rim bound for the North Rim function? Sorry to be importunate...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Carlo Alberto Cossano,

    Sei chiaramente un troll creazionista. Arrivederci.

    ReplyDelete
  27. rpvicars said...

    Thorton...what does protein evolution look like if not function to function? I.e. What does a "protein on a hike" look like having left the function of South Rim bound for the North Rim function? Sorry to be importunate...


    Non sequitur, since in the analogy evolutionary theory doesn't posit that the protein function 'on the South rim' evolved into the one on the North.

    You're back to asking what a half-aardvark half-moose would look like. Shouldn't you give that strawman a rest?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thorton...I'm not trying to present a straw-man, if I did, it was in ignorance because my question is sincere. I'm approaching evolution as a skeptic, because that is where my understanding begins...skeptical of the method. You may disrespect that position, but I believe you would disrespect more someone who changes their position on a whim. So, in sincerity, I ask...how does a functional protein evolve by the Darwinian mechanism?

    ReplyDelete
  29. rpvicars said...

    So, in sincerity, I ask...how does a functional protein evolve by the Darwinian mechanism?


    The same way everything else does - small incremental changes filtered by selection.

    There is considerable material available in the scientific literature, such as

    Exploring protein fitness landscapes by directed evolution
    Romero, Arnold
    Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2009 December; 10(12): 866–876.

    Abstract: Directed evolution circumvents our profound ignorance of how a protein's sequence encodes its function by using iterative rounds of random mutation and artificial selection to discover new and useful proteins. Proteins can be tuned to adapt to new functions or environments via simple adaptive walks involving small numbers of mutations. Directed evolution studies have demonstrated how rapidly at least some proteins can evolve under strong selection pressures, and, because the entire ‘fossil record’ of evolutionary intermediates is available for detailed study, they have provided new insight into the relationship between sequence and function. Directed evolution has also shown how mutations that are functionally neutral can set the stage for further adaptation.

    link


    Of course there is still much about the process that is not known, but "not yet known" does not equate to "impossible therefore my GAWDDIDIT"

    ReplyDelete
  30. rpvicars said...

    Thorton...thanks, Brother.


    You're welcome, my pleasure.

    ReplyDelete
  31. A Pedant:

    "Sei chiaramente un troll creazionista. Arrivederci"

    Arrivederci perché te ne vai?

    Ti ho fatto paura, eh?

    Lo so, lo so, voi "chance-did-it" siete terrorizzati da chi credete essere creazionisti ma ti prometto che non ti farò del male.

    Come vedi, al contrario di te, io ho il coraggio di mettere la "faccia" con il nome ed il congnome, tu, confermandoti coniglio, ti nascondi dietro il tuo ridicolo nick..

    Quando avrai voglia di discutere seriamente sulle questioni che chiunque (al di fuori di te, ovviamente) in questo thread cerca di portare avanti senza offese dirette prive di argomentazioni, mi troverari pronto..

    Buona notte, bimbo..

    ReplyDelete
  32. To Thorton:

    "Exploring protein fitness landscapes by directed evolution"

    Thanks for the link but it's the same stuff discussed directly by CH itself down here:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/01/hierarchy-of-evolutionary-apologetics.html

    "Yes, you can take random sequences as starting points and evolve them a bit, but you're nowhere close to native functionality. To use the fruitful results of recombination of native sequences as evidence that recombination can save the day in evolving from a random starting point is an unsupported argument. These are two different cases."

    ReplyDelete
  33. Carlo Alberto Cossano said...

    To Thorton:

    "Exploring protein fitness landscapes by directed evolution"

    Thanks for the link but it's the same stuff discussed directly by CH itself down here:


    Hardly. CH doesn't 'discuss' science here. CH takes legitimate scientific research published in the primary literature, comes up with some goofy strawman version of what was actually done, then goes NUH UH!! at the top of his lungs.

    Tell me, when CH loudly proclaimed a few weeks ago that he had actually falsified the theory of evolution, did you believe him? Why or why not?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thorton:

    "Tell me, when CH loudly proclaimed a few weeks ago that he had actually falsified the theory of evolution, did you believe him? Why or why not?"

    First, I'm feeling you're changing the issue.

    Second, it doesn't seem to me that CH "loudly proclaimed" nothing, especially of something done by himself.

    I do not believe *just* him, I believe in the points he raised just because I think the same way..

    ET is done.

    That's my firm belief.

    And the more scienze advance, the more this belief is stronger.

    BTW, I'm feeling that I'm "in good company" the more the molecular mechanisms and the genetic is deepened..

    ReplyDelete
  35. Carlo Alberto Cossano said...

    Thorton:

    "Tell me, when CH loudly proclaimed a few weeks ago that he had actually falsified the theory of evolution, did you believe him? Why or why not?"

    First, I'm feeling you're changing the issue.


    You avoided the question.

    Second, it doesn't seem to me that CH "loudly proclaimed" nothing, especially of something done by himself.

    Posting a few paragraphs on a backwater blog and proclaiming you had thus falsified 150+ years of positive evidence from hundreds of scientific disciplines and millions of researchers is the height of arrogance, don't you agree? CH himself said that he falsified evolution, not anyone else.

    I do not believe *just* him, I believe in the points he raised just because I think the same way..

    I'm sure you do, as do many Creationists:

    1. Start with "My Deity poofed everything into existence"

    2. Cherry-pick selected bits to spin or misrepresent and claim they prove your position.

    3. Ignore the huge amounts of contradictory evidence.

    Not scientific at all, but Creationism has nothing to do with science.

    ET is done.

    That's my firm belief.

    And the more scienze advance, the more this belief is stronger.


    Nothing wrong with having personal religious beliefs. Just keep them out of science classrooms.

    BTW, I'm feeling that I'm "in good company" the more the molecular mechanisms and the genetic is deepened..

    Don't you think it unusual that if ToE is so wrong and terrible, why thousands of companies and research labs all over the planet still use it to make new discoveries and earn profits?

    Come up with a different paradigm that's more successful in producing results and we'll listen.

    ReplyDelete