MnSpring wrote on 10/25/15 at 17:00:41:

.......................................................................

You might want to correct the bit about the sun/earth, but what does the last sentence mean, about where we are now, etc?

who said lightspeed has been exceeded?

Serowbot wrote on 10/25/15 at 16:56:20:


Other people don't suck at math and that math is calling into question long held beliefs that people have been (metaphorically speaking) burned at the stake for questioning.

it turned out to be a loose wire. It cost the lead scientist his job as he re-signed.  The results of the test were never supposed to be public until they had a chance to do all the verification work but it got leaked that they had discovered a faster than light particle.


http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/the-data-that-threatened-to-break-physics

yes, you're wrong. I'm reading this guy's book now (and a couple others)  which go into much greater detail.

When DNA was being discovered and worked on, it was thought the sequencing didn't have to be exact for the protein to be successful.  Early on the scientist working on DNA, realized the mathematical implications of what they were finding meant for Darwinism. So they made the assumption that, since gradual evolution had to be true, then sequencing didn't have to be exact. To use the analogy in the video, instead of only one combination being correct in a bike lock, several hundred combinations of numbers could open the lock.  However, as DNA became more understood, they found exact sequencing was vital for success. He does talk about a few cases where there are in fact more than one combination that works, but those are rare and the workable combinations are still very few.

And his examples are on the simplest forms, not the complex ones which would require exponentially greater odds. Math doesn't lie and that's why this is gaining traction. Remember, billions x billions x billions seems large but is a fraction of the odds required for the DNA sequence to form at random. 250 billion x 250 billion x 250 billion = 1.525 x 10^34 which is a tiny fraction of 10^77.

Set aside the idea that this challenge to historical Darwinism is a challenge against atheism or whatever. Take one step at a time.

Is it a mathematical impossibility (as much as impossible can be) that the wide variety of life forms on this planet could have evolved through random mutation given the time available?

It is like saying if you took apart a million different motorcycles completely, put them in a big box and shook it up, opened the box and pulled out a Savage.

Now, if it were a 650 VStrom then maybe......

If you believe God did this,... why?...
Why did he/she make it so fragile and complicated?.. and why did he leave open the option for cancer, retardation, etc?...
This would be a sadistically, cruel god...
I am more comfortable believing this kind of a god is a myth...

If you really want to know the answer to that, I can tell you, but it won't sit well with you. It doesn't sit well with me either.

When we know how to make a chicken from scratch,.. we will know the odds...

and therein lies the point: we can't make a chicken from scratch. We can't make the simplest, most primitive life form. We have never  witnessed it happening. We discover new life forms that are already in existence, we find evidence of life forms that have existed and are now gone, but we've never witness a new life form emerge. We can alter life forms in the lab, but we cannot create a new species. They've added synthetic DNA to existing bacteria essentially creating a new cell that's alive, but as the lead researcher said, they did not create life.