Originally Posted by Tarquin
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.


Oh really?

And how is that?



The odds of the appearance by natural selection of a functional protein is so small as to be impossible. The protein folding problem is insurmountable and you cannot have life without proteins. In fact, the odds are so long that neo-darwinists are forced to posit a "multi-verse" to try to tame them, But of course the idea of a "multi-verse" has literally zero empirical support and in fact can't even be tested. How convenient! But its another in a long line of examples of evolutionists tacitly admitting to the impossible odds by conjuring ever-more silly scenarios to try to tame them----very much along the lines of Francis Crick positing "pan-permia" in a tacit recognition life could not possibly have evolved on earth under the evolutionary constraints extant here as we know them.


Except, a rudimentary understanding of the biochemistry and odds calculations renders your argument null and void.

The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).

The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.

The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell