Creation vs. Evolution

[TheCracker]

Herschel Walker Skeptical Of Evolution: 'Why Are There Still Apes? Think About It'

The former NFL player, who is now running for Senate in Georgia, gets some basic facts wrong.

news.yahoo.com

Running for Senate in Georgia? - with that attitude he's going to win by a landslide!

 

[Blitz24]

Running for Senate in Georgia? - with that attitude he's going to win by a landslide!

He played for the University of Georgia to top it all off!

 

[TheCracker]

He played for the University of Georgia to top it all off!

Perhaps he's attempting to force a 'Georgia Man' mame to cash in on the 'Florida Man' one? - batsheet crazy, but with a religious twist.

 

[Brego]

Some people are not good at mathematics.

Commonly accepted age of the planet is 4.5 billion years. Bacteria did not appear until 2 billion years ago at the very earliest. The dunkleostus appears 358 million years ago, at the latest. The maximum time from bacteria to dunkleostus is 1.642 billion years.

A bacteria is a single celled organism. The DNA of a bacteria contains the instructions for organizing one cell.
Dunkleostus grew to over 8 meters and 4 tons. The DNA of Dunkleostus contained the instructions for organizing 1,600 trillion cells. Even if the cells of dinosaurs were 100x the size of cells today, that would still be 16 trillion cells for some of these fishes.

In order to go from a single cell bacteria to 4 ton fish in 1.7 billion years, the DNA must increase the instructions to organize one cell to 16 trillion cells at a rate of 10,000 cells per year, or 25 cells per day, or more than one cell per hour. And this is 1/100 of what is more likely (that cell size does not change significantly from organism to organism). At most, realistically, lets say x10. So realistically, the organism needs to evolve 10 cells per hour, continuously, every hour, every day, for 1.7 billion years strait.

Evolving a bacteria to a nematode would be a basic grade school science project that takes only 4 days.

Try doing the math to change a mouse into a human in only 65 million years. That increase in complexity is closer to 600,000 cells per year, or more than 1,600 per hour. NEVERMIND that every single increase in complexity must be a net positive mutation. Failed random and negative changes will vastly the positive beneficial changes.

Evolution is so absurdly untenable.

 

[Exorcet]

Evolution is so absurdly untenable.

Where does this conclusion come from when the rest of your post doesn't even mention evolution at all?

 

[TexRex]

 

[UKMikey]

Try doing the math to change a mouse into a human in only 65 million years. That increase in complexity is closer to 600,000 cells per year, or more than 1,600 per hour. NEVERMIND that every single increase in complexity must be a net positive mutation. Failed random and negative changes will vastly the positive beneficial changes.

Evolution is so absurdly untenable.

I've heard of creationists thinking monkeys changed into men before, but I haven't heard of them thinking mice "evolved" into humans.

In reality, scientists believe monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor and so did mice and humans.

As for "failed random changes", they didn't survive because unlike the theory of evolution they actually were untenable.

 

[Danoff]

Some people are not good at mathematics.

I can see that this post is going to be awesome.

Commonly accepted age of the planet is 4.5 billion years. Bacteria did not appear until 2 billion years ago at the very earliest. The dunkleostus appears 358 million years ago, at the latest. The maximum time from bacteria to dunkleostus is 1.642 billion years.

A bacteria is a single celled organism. The DNA of a bacteria contains the instructions for organizing one cell.
Dunkleostus grew to over 8 meters and 4 tons. The DNA of Dunkleostus contained the instructions for organizing 1,600 trillion cells. Even if the cells of dinosaurs were 100x the size of cells today, that would still be 16 trillion cells for some of these fishes.

In order to go from a single cell bacteria to 4 ton fish in 1.7 billion years, the DNA must increase the instructions to organize one cell to 16 trillion cells at a rate of 10,000 cells per year, or 25 cells per day, or more than one cell per hour. And this is 1/100 of what is more likely (that cell size does not change significantly from organism to organism). At most, realistically, lets say x10. So realistically, the organism needs to evolve 10 cells per hour, continuously, every hour, every day, for 1.7 billion years strait.

Evolving a bacteria to a nematode would be a basic grade school science project that takes only 4 days.

Try doing the math to change a mouse into a human in only 65 million years. That increase in complexity is closer to 600,000 cells per year, or more than 1,600 per hour. NEVERMIND that every single increase in complexity must be a net positive mutation. Failed random and negative changes will vastly the positive beneficial changes.

Evolution is so absurdly untenable.

That's so totally not how any of this works... even remotely. Evolution does not happen on a per cell basis. Cells do not evolve independently. If there's one cell you're worried about mutating, it's the one you're procreating with. All other mutations are irrelevant from an evolutionary standpoint. If your bladder cells mutate into cancer during a copy, that's not an evolutionary development (I guess unless it prevents you from procreating).

 

[Brego]

No matter how you define the process: 2 billion years ago there was nothing more complex than a single celled bacteria. 1.6 billion years later, there were animals with hundreds of trillions of cells. In order to do that, the complexity must increase at an aburdly accelerated pace.

Go ahead and redefine terms and processes. The mathematics say it is impossible, not to mention the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[Famine]

the 2nd law of thermodynamics

 

[Joey D]

No matter how you define the process: 2 billion years ago there was nothing more complex than a single celled bacteria. 1.6 billion years later, there were animals with hundreds of trillions of cells. In order to do that, the complexity must increase at an aburdly accelerated pace.

Go ahead and redefine terms and processes. The mathematics say it is impossible, not to mention the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I don't think you understand how long ago 2 billion years was. Actually, I know you don't understand it because it's almost impossible for humans to conceptualize that.

Do you have a scientific source, complete with peer-reviewed data, to back up your claims by chance?

 

[Danoff]

No matter how you define the process: 2 billion years ago there was nothing more complex than a single celled bacteria. 1.6 billion years later, there were animals with hundreds of trillions of cells. In order to do that, the complexity must increase at an aburdly accelerated pace.

Go ahead and redefine terms and processes. The mathematics say it is impossible, not to mention the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

To highlight how absurd this argument is, if you wanted to make it, you'd be making that argument with DNA rather than cells. So you're not even in the right ballpark for the case you're failing to make.

 

[Exorcet]

No matter how you define the process: 2 billion years ago there was nothing more complex than a single celled bacteria. 1.6 billion years later, there were animals with hundreds of trillions of cells. In order to do that, the complexity must increase at an aburdly accelerated pace.

At most about a century ago, you were a single cell right? If you're an adult you would now be composed of about 30 trillion cells. So you by yourself are an example of a 30 trillion fold increase in "complexity" (I'm using your terms) in under a century. Curiously this also happened exponentially, at least for a time, since cells don't divide linearly like they apparently do in your imaginary process. The math is what now?

Also, I ask again where did evolution come from? Because you don't mention any part of it.

 

[Brego]

To highlight how absurd this argument is, if you wanted to make it, you'd be making that argument with DNA rather than cells. So you're not even in the right ballpark for the case you're failing to make.

omfg. that is the same thing as saying my argument is invalid because of a spelling error. Read my earlier comment.

The instructions to order the cells is contained in the DNA.
If you go all the way back to when I, me, Brego, the person writing this post AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST I was a single cell.
That single cell contained the instructions to organize 30 trillion cells.

I did not evolve from a single cell, nor did my DNA evolve from that single cell. That single cell ALREADY contained the instructions for organizing 30 trillion cells. I typed that part slowly, so that you can read it better.

The first bacteria did not have the instructions for organizing 30 trillion cells. It contained the instructions for ONE cell. Specifically, an exact copy of itself. One cell.

If the organism is a 10 cell structure, then the DNA would contain complete instructions for organizing those 10 cells into a 10 cell organism.

It is this growth in the complexity of instructions vs. amount of time that I am pointing out. 1.6 billion years is simply not enough time to go from a single cell creature to a tens or hundreds of trillions cell creature. The DNA of the first creature (bacteria) is complex enough for a one celled creature. The DNA of the latter contains instructions with the complexity required for creating tens of trillions of differentiated cells and organizing them properly into a creature of tens or hundreds of trillions of cells.

If you think I am wrong, then please explain how life on earth began with a one celled bacteria and in 1.6 billion years time span, there were creatures consisting of hundreds of trillions of cells. Do the math, do the timeline. How long did it take for 1,000 cell nematodes to appear? According to the math, that should take no more than 4 days, and continue at that rate for billions of years continuously. But we are supposed to close our eyes and ears and shout "LALALALAH BILLIONS OF YEARS LALALAH IS LONG TIME" right?

 

[Danoff]

omfg. that is the same thing as saying my argument is invalid because of a spelling error.

Um... no not even a little.

The instructions to order the cells is contained in the DNA.

I know that... but I'm surprised you know that given what you've been saying.

If you go all the way back to when I, me, Brego, the person writing this post AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST I was a single cell.
That single cell contained the instructions to organize 30 trillion cells.

And now we have established that the number of cells does not matter, only the information contained within DNA.

I did not evolve from a single cell

You did.

, nor did my DNA evolve from that single cell.

That's true.

I typed that part slowly, so that you can read it better.

Also not how it works...

If the organism is a 10 cell structure, then the DNA would contain complete instructions for organizing those 10 cells into a 10 cell organism.

If those cells are all the same, then it's the same instructions for the one cell, and x10. Each cell does not need to be individually mapped within DNA. In other words, the number of cells does not matter.

It is this growth in the complexity of instructions vs. amount of time that I am pointing out.

Well it's what you SHOULD have been talking about instead of cells. But you weren't until I pointed it out.

1.6 billion years is simply not enough time to go from a single cell creature to a tens or hundreds of trillions cell creature.

Based on... what? thin air? conjecture? you just think the numbers are big?

The DNA of the latter contains instructions with the complexity required for creating tens of trillions of differentiated cells and organizing them properly into a creature of tens or hundreds of trillions of cells.

Suddenly your math analysis is gone.

If you think I am wrong, then please explain how life on earth began with a one celled bacteria and in 1.6 billion years time span, there were creatures consisting of hundreds of trillions of cells.

Evolution.

Do the math, do the timeline. How long did it take for 1,000 cell nematodes to appear? According to the math, that should take no more than 4 days, and continue at that rate for billions of years continuously. But we are supposed to close our eyes and ears and shout "LALALALAH BILLIONS OF YEARS LALALAH IS LONG TIME" right?

I'll give you a hint, it's nonlinear.

 

[Brego]

So basically what you are saying is "LALALALAH BILLIONS OF YEARS LALALAH IS LONG TIME"

That is all I need to know.

And BY THE WAY in fact I did point out that the complexity in the dna instructions is what I was talking about in my earlier post but TLNR I suppose, and also I did not capitalize "dna" so that means the argument is invalid, right?

Do the words "intentionally obtuse" mean anything to you?

Everyone else: where is the "block user" function?

 

[Joey D]

So basically what you are saying is "LALALALAH BILLIONS OF YEARS LALALAH IS LONG TIME"

Billions of years is a long time, like an absurdly long time. Most humans have trouble conceptualizing Ancient Egypt which is only about 5,000 years ago so trying to envision two billion years is just not comprehensible.

Also, where are you getting the starting point for your "mathematic idea" for evolution? If it's just you spitballing, I can assure you several others have spitballed it before. If you're getting it from somewhere, can you please cite your sources? If anything, it'll at least give us an understanding of what you're trying to say because right now it seems like complete nonsense.

 

[Touring Mars]

The first bacteria did not have the instructions for organizing 30 trillion cells.

Wait, so by your own admission, self-replicating living organisms existed on Earth billions of years ago, but... we didn't evolve from them??

So, if you reject that hypothesis, the onus is on you to explain how current/extant life on Earth did get here. Please enlighten us.

The first bacteria did not have the instructions for organizing 30 trillion cells.

On a related note, I'd be fascinated to know how you know this. If the first bacteria (or even bacterium) could give rise to entire populations of cells, it is not possible (spoiler: it is) that some of them might have had at least some of the eventual biochemical apparatus that would, in time (a lot of it) enable cell populations to self-assemble?

One only need look at some of the most simple organic molecules to see nature's ability to create vast, complex, self-assembled structures even without the incredible complexity of the first biological molecules, let alone cells to see that self-assembly is actually not that unusual, and hence it does not require a huge leap of the imagination to see how single cells would evolve into multicellular organisms.

Why did it take so long though? Probably the wrong question... it's a bit like asking how long it will you take to win the lottery - a heck of a long time, but someone out there won it first time (lucky bastard). The only credible answer is - it took as long as it took.

 

[Brego]

DO THE MATH DUDE.

omfg. I did not evolve from a single cell, since you are using any possible microscopic specious excuse, CONTEXT OF THE SENTENCE DUDE means I did not evolve from THAT PARTICULAR cell.

If it is non-linear, that makes your case much much worse.

 

[Joey D]

I did not evolve from a single cell, since you are using any possible microscopic specious excuse, CONTEXT OF THE SENTENCE DUDE means I did not evolve from THAT PARTICULAR cell.

Then where did you come from? And how do you know that where ever you came from is correct?

 

[Famine]

Also, where are you getting the starting point for your "mathematic idea" for evolution? If it's just you spitballing, I can assure you several others have spitballed it before. If you're getting it from somewhere, can you please cite your sources?

He cited the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That means it's come from an Intelligent Design advocacy group or church.

Everyone else: where is the "block user" function?

Right here.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Brego]

Billions of years is a long time, like an absurdly long time. Most humans have trouble conceptualizing Ancient Egypt which is only about 5,000 years ago so trying to envision two billion years is just not comprehensible.

Also, where are you getting the starting point for your "mathematic idea" for evolution? If it's just you spitballing, I can assure you several others have spitballed it before. If you're getting it from somewhere, can you please cite your sources? If anything, it'll at least give us an understanding of what you're trying to say because right now it seems like complete nonsense.

I am pointing out that billions of years is NOT ENOUGH TIME.

If you want to be that obtuse about it, go ahead with the age of the earth okay? Is that good enough for you, or do you think evolutionary processes have been going on here on earth since before the planet accreted into a flaming ball of lava?

4.5 billion years. STILL not enough time.
You need for a single cell bacteria to evolve into a 30 trillion cell human in 4.5 billion years.


You do not hav enough time for that to happen.

 

[Dennisch]

I am pointing out that billions of years is NOT ENOUGH TIME.

There are currently about a thousand IQ points discussing with you. You better pay attention and learn something.

 

[Brego]

He cited the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That means it's come from an Intelligent Design advocacy group or church.

Right here.

With all due respect Famine

A) No I am not affiliated with any ID advocacy group or church. In fact I don't even know of one.

B) Are you suggesting that if I rely on physics that my argument is no longer valid?

C) Rather than summary dismissal, it would be more appropriate to point out where the physics are not relevant.

 

[Joey D]

He cited the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That means it's come from an Intelligent Design advocacy group or church.

That doesn't really make sense though. Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics about entropy in a system never being able to decrease?

I am pointing out that billions of years is NOT ENOUGH TIME.

If you want to be that obtuse about it, go ahead with the age of the earth okay? Is that good enough for you, or do you think evolutionary processes have been going on here on earth since before the planet accreted into a flaming ball of lava?

4.5 billion years. STILL not enough time.
You need for a single cell bacteria to evolve into a 30 trillion cell human in 4.5 billion years.


You do not hav enough time for that to happen.

Then what is your explanation then? Because there's plenty of evidence available that shows how evolution works, including at the cellular level.

As for starting point, I mean where are you getting this idea from? Like what "scientist" is perpetuating it? If it's you just spitballing then I'm sorry to say that you're missing large chunks of information and distilling down things to make it fit your idea instead of looking at the evidence available.

 

[TexRex]

There are currently about a thousand IQ points discussing with you. You better pay attention and learn something.

"With" implies reciprocal engagement. "At" is more apt.

Edit:

That doesn't really make sense though. Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics about entropy in a system never being able to decrease?

Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation, and Misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics | National Center for Science Education

One of the cornerstones in the crumbling foundation of creationist "science" is the notion that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

ncse.ngo

 

[Touring Mars]

DO THE MATH DUDE.

Not to be "obtuse" but seriously, you really have no idea who you are speaking to, so enough with the utter disrespect.

If you want to have a serious discussion about this, then change your attitude quickly.

 

[Brego]

There are currently about a thousand IQ points discussing with you. You better pay attention and learn something.

That doesn't really make sense though. Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics about entropy in a system never being able to decrease?

Then what is your explanation then? Because there's plenty of evidence available that shows how evolution works, including at the cellular level.

As for starting point, I mean where are you getting this idea from? Like what "scientist" is perpetuating it? If it's you just spitballing then I'm sorry to say that you're missing large chunks of information and distilling down things to make it fit your idea instead of looking at the evidence available.

False.

I am pointing out a simple mathematical problem, and the only reason you are attacking my point is because you don't like the point I am making. You are so committed that you willingly avoid the idea of trying to understand what I am saying. I.e., intentionally obtuse. I think you know what I am saying but you think that as long as you can make any specious argument, then you are still right.

Thanks Famine, I will avail myself of that option post haste.

 

[McLaren]

Who can run the math on man evolving from dust and woman evolving from a rib?

I assume that's the other explanation if evolution "doesn't add up".