Actually, my friend, DNA vastly complicates Macro-Evolution because DNA is essentially a repository of Information.
Try scrambling a few letters in a book and see if you come up with more information. No, you will not, information is lost everytime there is s mutation. Information which is the outward manifestation of order never increases due to a random process. Darwinian Evolution is wrong for a lot of reasons, one of the strongest of which is it can not explain the origin of information in our DNA. Panspermia (life from outer space) faces the same Abiogenesis problem we face here. It does not matter where in the Universe you think the first life originated, it is still constrained by the limitations of probability and time. The probabilities are huge and there is not enough time. 16 billion years may seem long to us, but in the realm of random processes, it is but a tick of time. Jojo PS. Do you think Julian Huxley was unaware of DNA when he made his calculations? Au contraire, he was accutely aware of it and its limitations which contributed to the huge probability number he came up with. ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:44 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Jojo I will send only one email about this subject. The fact that a stucture like DNA is involved increases the chances to produce new lifeforms dramatically. If there were only atoms and molecules involved and no mechanism to arrange them the chance of creating a horse would indeed be very small as you describe. It would correspond to the chance of creating an aircraft by letting a twister pass over a junkyard. You can ofcourse ask me where DNA originated from and that the chance to produce it is to small to happen by chance. According to R.Mills we live in a indefinitely oscillating universe. That makes it more plausible that life developed naturally without any intelligent design by a God bcs there is no time restriction. It could be that primitive life (bacteria) is present in many parts of the universe and survives on for instance frozen comets and is seeded over and over on fertile planets and also destroyed many times. Peter From: Jojo Iznart Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist? Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000. That's a number with 300,000 zeroes. Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in the Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you say? This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the math acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't happen. Only ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing yourself. http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ Jojo PS: I can already predict your reaction. You: "Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic science." Me: "Whatever!!!" LOL... ----- Original Message ----- From: Sunil Shah To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have ever seen. Surely you can do BETTER than this? It's a bleedin' disgrace.. And stop misusing the "proof" word all the time : D I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in arguments like these: The failure to realize what a "big number" is. First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time. Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity. Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just "proved" something". May I suggest: The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL. So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do. (It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why one change every 140 hours is fast.) Why are you assuming changes are sustained? Why are you assuming changes are observable? The math would say: A very small change x A rather "long time" (from your perspective) = An unobservably small change. /Sunil ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39 +0800 Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576000000000000 seconds) Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform. Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell lifeform.) This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days (504576000000000000/1000000000000) for it to evolve into Man. This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why that is the case. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Jed Rothwell To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Deze email is gecontroleerd door CAIWAY Internet Virusvrij. Voor meer informatie, zie http://www.caiway.nl/
