Evolutionary theory debunked

[friedrich_neet]

yes, it was all just chance

there is no creator

we dont live in a simulation

grrr

ur profiles custom title is exactly why it cant be just chance jflmao u retard

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

[color=oklch(0.373 0.034 259.733)][font=Inter, 'Inter Fallback: BlinkMacSystemFont', 'Inter Fallback: Segoe UI', 'Inter Fallback: Helvetica Neue', 'Inter Fallback: Arial', 'Inter Fallback: Noto Sans', 'Inter fallback', ui-sans-serif, system-ui, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji']An average protein is made up of a chain of circa 300 amino acids15 So the number of possible combinations of the 20 different amino acids in an average protein is:[/font][/color]

[color=oklch(0.373 0.034 259.733)][font=Inter, 'Inter Fallback: BlinkMacSystemFont', 'Inter Fallback: Segoe UI', 'Inter Fallback: Helvetica Neue', 'Inter Fallback: Arial', 'Inter Fallback: Noto Sans', 'Inter fallback', ui-sans-serif, system-ui, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'][color=oklch(0.21 0.034 264.665)]20300=2.037×10390 ≈ 10390[/color][/font][/color]

[color=oklch(0.373 0.034 259.733)][font=Inter, 'Inter Fallback: BlinkMacSystemFont', 'Inter Fallback: Segoe UI', 'Inter Fallback: Helvetica Neue', 'Inter Fallback: Arial', 'Inter Fallback: Noto Sans', 'Inter fallback', ui-sans-serif, system-ui, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji']A minority of these possible combinations of amino acids result in a functional protein,16 and suboptimal protein sequences may exist that are not currently observed but are capable of performing a relevant function long enough for natural selection to choose more optimal sequences.[/font][/color]
[color=oklch(0.373 0.034 259.733)][font=Inter, 'Inter Fallback: BlinkMacSystemFont', 'Inter Fallback: Segoe UI', 'Inter Fallback: Helvetica Neue', 'Inter Fallback: Arial', 'Inter Fallback: Noto Sans', 'Inter fallback', ui-sans-serif, system-ui, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji']If there were one million billion possible functional sequences (that’s one thousand trillion or 1015), the probability of randomly obtaining a functional sequence is then:[/font][/color]

[color=oklch(0.373 0.034 259.733)][font=Inter, 'Inter Fallback: BlinkMacSystemFont', 'Inter Fallback: Segoe UI', 'Inter Fallback: Helvetica Neue', 'Inter Fallback: Arial', 'Inter Fallback: Noto Sans', 'Inter fallback', ui-sans-serif, system-ui, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'][/font][/color]

[color=oklch(0.373 0.034 259.733)][font=Inter, 'Inter Fallback: BlinkMacSystemFont', 'Inter Fallback: Segoe UI', 'Inter Fallback: Helvetica Neue', 'Inter Fallback: Arial', 'Inter Fallback: Noto Sans', 'Inter fallback', ui-sans-serif, system-ui, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji']This is a one in a number followed by 375 zeros chance! This is beyond improbable, and yet we are only considering the probability of constructing [color=oklch(0.21 0.034 264.665)]one[/color] protein by chance.[/font][/color]

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

   

[BoiBoi]

not a word because of your avi. change it

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

not a word because of your avi. change it

Why man?

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

Due to its fragility, DNA requires a huge complement of DNA repair enzymes. Without these enzymes, life could not exist, yet the information needed to make these enzymes is recorded in our DNA. So, which came first, the DNA or the DNA repair enzymes coded in that DNA? This is an intractable chicken-and-egg problem for evolution.[color=oklch(0.373 0.034 259.733)]1[/color][color=oklch(0.373 0.034 259.733)] Of course, the truth is that DNA and DNA repair enzymes came into existence at the same time when God created the first living things.[/color]

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

[color=oklch(0.872 0.01 258.338)][font=Inter, 'Inter Fallback: BlinkMacSystemFont', 'Inter Fallback: Segoe UI', 'Inter Fallback: Helvetica Neue', 'Inter Fallback: Arial', 'Inter Fallback: Noto Sans', 'Inter fallback', ui-sans-serif, system-ui, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji']From the horizon problem to dark matter, the big bang theory has serious scientific problems that rarely get mentioned.[/font][/color]

Space appears to be bathed in a low-level background heat which is said to be the ‘after-glow’ or ‘smoking gun’ of the original big bang ‘explosion’. This is known as the ‘cosmic microwave background radiation’ (CMBR).1 It has been measured very accurately, and in great detail, and is said to have a temperature consistent with what would be expected from the big bang.
Creation scientists, however, point out that this background heat is actually a major problem for big bang theory. This is because its temperature is virtually the same across the universe and this would not be expected from a big bang. A conventional ‘explosion’ would leave behind an uneven pattern of heat, not the extremely even pattern actually observed.
Evolutionists, of course, are well aware of this difficulty, called the ‘horizon problem’, and some claim to have a solution. Supposedly, very soon after the initial ‘bang’, and for only a brief period, the universe expanded at a much higher rate—in fact faster than the speed light—and this enabled the background heat to be smoothed out. This very rapid expansion is known as ‘inflation’.
However, according to Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science at Princeton University, “inflation is very flexible … [and] can be adjusted to give any result … any outcome is possible.” Hence, he says, “it is not possible to find evidence to support or refute inflation”.2 Creation scientists would agree, and argue that it is really no more than a story called upon to explain away facts that point to the big bang theory being wrong.
Abundance of light elements
Big bang theory is said to have accurately predicted the amounts of light elements that we actually find in the universe. Hydrogen would be expected to be the most common, followed by helium, deuterium and lithium—which is what is observed. Particularly, it’s said, the amount of helium (25%) is consistent with calculations based on big bang theory. Historically, however, this claim has been very controversial. As pointed out by Professors Burbidge and Hoyle,
“We have now reached the stage where it is argued that the existence of helium … is taken, together with the microwave background radiation, as primary evidence in favor of the … big bang … . However, this argument is only powerful if there is no other way to explain the helium abundance and the microwave background radiation.”3
They then argued that this helium was produced by the burning (fusion) of hydrogen in stars (rather than the big bang) and that the light emitted by the stars and absorbed by dust clouds produced the cosmic microwave background radiation.
According to Professor Burbidge, neither the observed abundance of helium, nor the level of the cosmic microwave background, were really predictions of big bang theory. Scientists had already measured the abundance of helium and the theory was adjusted so that it would give the ‘right result’. Referring to the parameter (the number in the big bang theory) which would result in it ‘predicting’ the amount of helium in the universe, he wrote:
“It is chosen to make things come out right … . This is why the big bang theory cannot be argued to explain microwave background or to explain a cosmic helium value close to 0.25 [i.e. 25%]. … if you really believe in a big bang, you can choose parameters which will make observation and theory agree, but the argument is not based on basic theory” (emphasis original).4
Evolutionary cosmologists sometimes claim that big bang theory can predict the amount of the light elements using information (data) obtained from satellite measurements.5 This, however, cannot be so because their theory relies on the existence of ‘dark matter’, a form of matter that cannot be observed.4,6 (This ‘dark matter’, which many creationists and some secular cosmologists do not believe exists, is also needed to explain how galaxies and stars form by natural processes.)7
The expanding universe
It is thought that expansion of space would cause light waves to be stretched, resulting in light being reddened.8 This is known as ‘redshift’ and is observed when we view galaxies. Moreover, in general, the more distant a galaxy, the greater is the redshift.9 This is understood to indicate that the universe is expanding and that, the more distant a galaxy, the faster it is moving away. Hence, it is argued, winding the clock back, we would see the universe getting smaller and smaller until it reached its original state as a singularity.
While many creation scientists accept the evidence that the universe is expanding, this does not mean that it must have started off as a singularity—it could have started expanding from a fairly large state.
Creationist scientists argue that the atheists’ claim that our universe arose from a random ‘explosion’ is absurd.
Creationist scientists argue that the atheists’ claim that our universe arose from a random ‘explosion’ is absurd. For example, the rate of expansion would have needed to be just right, as even a tiny deviation from the required rate would have been catastrophic. If just a little faster, particles would have simply flown away from each other, never coming together to form stars and planets. If just a little slower, gravity would have pulled everything back together resulting in a violent ‘great crunch’, with no planets and no life. According to Nobel prize-winner, Professor Steven Weinberg, the number determining the required expansion rate (known as the ‘cosmological constant’) would have had to be just to right to within 120 decimal places.10
But what does this mean? Well, let’s use as an illustration the mixing of concrete. Here the amount of water added has to be controlled quite carefully, otherwise the concrete will not have the required strength. Typically, for every 100 kg of cement, around 40 kg of water should be added. For a particular building project, there might be generous leeway, where an error of 1 kg in the amount of water added could be tolerated and the concrete still have the required strength. Working with a margin of error of 0.1 kg might still be practical; however, if the allowable error was only 0.000001 kg this would clearly be impractical. 0.000001 has the decimal point six positions to the left of the 1:

But a number with 120 decimal places has the decimal point 120 positions left of the 1:

How realistic is it to believe that an ‘explosion’ just happened to produce an expansion rate this critical?

[Ropium]

Biology and our understanding of evolution has beens stiffles by the presence of communists in academia who refuse to question dogma

Everywhere I see the limits imposed by midwits 

Truth is thee are alot of problems with the modern theory of evolution, but they refuse to acknowledge these problems hence they cannot be solved. The free thinkers offering new ideas which present possible solutions are called racists, antisemitic, trans phone, nazis, etc and their contributions dismissed and purposefully memoryholed

[Ropium]

To get the bleeding edge on science you don't read science journals you have to look up right wing Twitter feeds

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

Truth is thee are alot of problems with the modern theory of evolution, but they refuse to acknowledge these problems hence they cannot be solved. The free thinkers offering new ideas which present possible solutions are called racists, antisemitic, trans phone, nazis, etc and their contributions dismissed and purposefully memoryholed

There are huge problems both on micro and macro level.

[hitlersblackedwaifu]

hi ruud

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

hi ruud

Shabbat shalom

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

Dr McGavin outlines several fascinating features of our hand, which gives us a powerful grip but also allows us to manipulate small objects with great precision. This ability sets us apart from other creatures. The muscles in the hand are ‘strangely’ arranged, since most of the hand’s movements are controlled by muscles not located in the hand but in the forearm. The fingers are connected to the forearm by long tendons that pass through a flexible band.
This arrangement gives the fingers movement and strength that would be impossible if all the muscles were in the hand. In short, the hand looks like a bony puppet controlled by the forearm.
The term ‘bony puppet’ gives a wonderful image of how the hand was designed.
In addition, the skin in the fingers is special because it has cells of fat that give cushion-like protection for the huge number of nerve endings underneath. There are four types of skin receptors that respond to pressure (light and deep), touch, pain and temperature. Fingernails help to judge how firmly to hold anything.
McGavin’s article mixes facts with historical narrative that cannot be verified since no one observed it. The facts are the characteristics of the hand: such as its powerful grip, because of its unusual arrangement of muscles that control it from ‘the outside’, like a puppet. Whereas the narrative that the hand was built by time, chance and selection alone cannot be tested or verified.
Is it even conceivable that such natural processes could have created and engineered hands and feet? The answer is no. Natural selection is a fact, but does not create, it only selects from what already exists, and cannot add the new information required.

[Ropium]

What does he mean new information? All information already exists. Selection process is arranging information differently to suit environmental requiremnt