Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

KenJackson

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

KenJackson last won the day on August 12 2018

KenJackson had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

22 Excellent

About KenJackson

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Maryland, USA

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    60
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    Christian
  • What is your Worldview?
    Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Maryland, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

111 profile views
  1. KenJackson

    Stoeckle-Thaler Dna Study

    So are creationists going to revert to "kinds" being species (rather than family or order)and packing all them on to the Ark now ? Revert? The "kinds" used in the Bible don't necessarily match any classification of science. The former is pretty vague, such as Genesis 1:24, "... the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind. ..." Presumably that's according to the ability to reproduce. But the latter are whatever scientists says they are. I know the author of the article seemed to equate the "genetic boundaries" with species, but I suspect they wouldn't match the species. In fact, those boundaries might be a good way to identify what a "kind" is.
  2. KenJackson

    Stoeckle-Thaler Dna Study

    Oh this is good! This is great! I love this. Thaler fought hard against the truth because it tends to rule out evolution over time. Some catastrophy that wiped out almost all life on earth? Grief, that sounds like a global flood. He initially says "100,000 to 200,000 years ago" then shifted to "200,000 years ago," which indicates the dates have been stretched to the maximum in a move of desparation to salvage evolution. In fact, that catastrophic flood was only about 5000 years ago. How indeed! If you rule out the answer before you start, you're bound to be baffled by the evidence. It keeps getting better. He found proof of the "kinds" mentioned in the Bible and is surprised by it. Thank you for that great article, Dave.
  3. KenJackson

    Final Note On How Many Proteins Exist

    I'm agnostic about the age of the earth. The flood thoroughly scrambled what evidence there was, so I'm skeptical of any evidence presented, either young or old. ... There is one detail, however. Evolutionists require an old earth because they think 4.5 billion years is old enough to evolve life as we see it. Of course, I think this is faulty because I've calculated that trillions of years wouldn't be long enough to evolve even one protein. But regardless, if you believe in evolution, you must believe in an old earth and reject any evidence that suggests a young earth. But if we believe that life was designed and created by some unknown process, then the age of the earth doesn't matter and we can accept whatever the evidence says, if we can find any unbiased evidence.
  4. KenJackson

    Final Note On How Many Proteins Exist

    I'm agnostic about the age of the earth. The flood thoroughly scrambled what evidence there was, so I'm skeptical of any evidence presented, either young or old. To convince me of evolution, we would have to discover that everything we've learned in the past 50 years of molecular biology is wrong--e.g. the genetic code, the molecular machinery, gene expression, the constitution of proteins, the information content of DNA.
  5. Is this site broken? I can't add anything to the thread I started asking for help on finding how many proteins exist. Anyway, here's one more thing I wanted to say. There are two more issues that impact this topic. First, in my original thread about proteins, I suggested an existing gene would be duplicated and assumed it would be approximately the right size for the new protein that was needed to advance the evolution of the organism. But if a particular function is needed for evolution to proceed to the next step, we can't know in advance how big a protein will need to be to implement it. So rather than limiting the possible sequences to 10^130 for a 100-amino-acid protein, we must consider all possible sequences of 100 plus all of 101 plus ... all of 1000. Most proteins are between 100 and 1000, so I just ignore bigger and smaller ones. That's why I calculated a denominator of 10^1301 (ten to the 1301 power) above. However, there's a problem with this argument's effectiveness. The whole point is to convince people of the absolute impossibility of evolution. But the difference between 10^130 and 10^1301 isn't at all evident by looking at the numbers. To illustrate, it's been claimed that there are 10^50 atoms in the whole earth. And it's widely claimed that there are 10^80 atoms in the whole universe. See that? We went from the tiny earth to whole wide universe and we didn't even double the exponent. So how can I convince anyone that 10^130 possible sequences is an inconceivably large number? And once you get that big, what words are left to explain how much bigger 10^1301 is? The second issue is the bizarre world of RNA silencing. There exist short RNA sequences that destroy messenger RNAs before they can be translated, apparently by design as part of gene regulation. There are small interfering RNA, micro RNA and piwi-interacting RNA. The point is, if there's a duplicated gene that's being mutated mercilessly, there are many, many possible partial sequences that it could wander through by chance that would inhibit the production of a crucial protein. Alternately, some viruses are small enough to be produced that way. So not only is it essentially impossible to evolve a new protein because of the raw numbers, but there are lots of deadly sequences that would kill the organism outrightly.
  6. There are two more issues that impact this topic. First, in my original thread about proteins, I suggested an existing gene would be duplicated and assumed it would be approximately the right size for the new protein that was needed to advance the evolution of the organism. But if a particular function is needed for evolution to proceed to the next step, we can't know in advance how big a protein will need to be to implement it. So rather than limiting the possible sequences to 10^130 for a 100-amino-acid protein, we must consider all possible sequences of 100 plus all of 101 plus ... all of 1000. Most proteins are between 100 and 1000, so I just ignore bigger and smaller ones. That's why I calculated a denominator of 10^1301 (ten to the 1301 power) above. However, there's a problem with this argument's effectiveness. The whole point is to convince people of the absolute impossibility of evolution. But the difference between 10^130 and 10^1301 isn't at all evident by looking at the numbers. To illustrate, it's been claimed that there are 10^50 atoms in the whole earth. And it's widely claimed that there are 10^80 atoms in the whole universe. See that? We went from the tiny earth to whole wide universe and we didn't even double the exponent. So how can I convince anyone that 10^130 possible sequences is an inconceivably large number? And once you get that big, what words are left to explain how much bigger 10^1301 is? The second issue is the bizarre world of RNA silencing. There exist short RNA sequences that destroy messenger RNAs before they can be translated, apparently by design as part of gene regulation. There are small interfering RNA, micro RNA and piwi-interacting RNA. The point is, if there's a duplicated gene that's being mutated mercilessly, there are many, many possible partial sequences that it could wander through by chance that would inhibit the production of a crucial proteins. Alternately, some viruses are small enough to be produced that way. So not only is it essentially impossible to evolve a new protein because of the raw numbers, but there are lots of deadly sequences that would kill the organism outrightly.
  7. There are two more issues that impact this topic. First, in my original thread about proteins, I suggested an existing gene would be duplicated and assumed it would be approximately the right size for the new protein that was needed to advance the evolution of the organism. But if a particular function is needed for evolution to proceed to the next step, we can't know in advance how big a protein will need to be to implement it. So rather than limiting the possible sequences to 10^130 for a 100-amino-acid protein, we must consider all possible sequences of 100 plus all of 101 plus ... all of 1000. Most proteins are between 100 and 1000, so I just ignore bigger and smaller ones. That's why I calculated a denominator of 10^1301 (ten to the 1301 power) above. However, there's a problem with this argument's effectiveness. The whole point is to convince people of the absolute impossibility of evolution. But the difference between 10^130 and 10^1301 isn't at all evident by looking at the numbers. To illustrate, it's been claimed that there are 10^50 atoms in the whole earth. And it's widely claimed that there are 10^80 atoms in the whole universe. See that? We went from the tiny earth to whole wide universe and we didn't even double the exponent. So how can I convince anyone that 10^130 possible sequences is an inconceivably large number? And once you get that big, what words are left to explain how much bigger 10^1301 is? The second issue is the bizarre world of RNA silencing. There exist short RNA sequences that destroy messenger RNAs before they can be translated, apparently by design as part of gene regulation. There are small interfering RNA, micro RNA and piwi-interacting RNA. The point is, if there's a duplicated gene that's being mutated mercilessly, there are many, many possible partial sequences that it could wander through by chance that would inhibit the production of a crucial proteins. Alternately, some viruses are small enough to be produced that way. So not only is it essentially impossible to evolve a new protein because of the raw numbers, but there are lots of deadly sequences that would kill the organism outrightly.
  8. There are two more issues that impact this topic. First, in my original thread about proteins, I suggested an existing gene would be duplicated and assumed it would be approximately the right size for the new protein that was needed to advance the evolution of the organism. But if a particular function is needed for evolution to proceed to the next step, we can't know in advance how big a protein will need to be to implement it. So rather than limiting the possible sequences to 10^130 for a 100-amino-acid protein, we must consider all possible sequences of 100 plus all of 101 plus ... all of 1000. Most proteins are between 100 and 1000, so I just ignore bigger and smaller ones. That's why I calculated a denominator of 10^1301 (ten to the 1301 power) above. However, there's a problem with this argument's effectiveness. The whole point is to convince people of the absolute impossibility of evolution. But the difference between 10^130 and 10^1301 isn't at all evident by looking at the numbers. To illustrate, it's been claimed that there are 10^50 atoms in the whole earth. And it's widely claimed that there are 10^80 atoms in the whole universe. See that? We went from the tiny earth to whole wide universe and we didn't even double the exponent. So how can I convince anyone that 10^130 possible sequences is an inconceivably large number? And once you get that big, what words are left to explain how much bigger 10^1301 is? The second issue is the bizarre world of RNA silencing. There exist short RNA sequences that rip apart messenger RNAs before they can be translated, apparently by design as part of gene regulation. There are small interfering RNA, micro RNA and piwi-interacting RNA. The point is, if there's a duplicated gene that's being mutated mercilessly, there are many, many possible partial sequences that it could wander through by chance that would inhibit the production of a crucial proteins. Alternately, some viruses are small enough to be produced that way. So not only is it essentially impossible to evolve a new protein because of the raw numbers, but there are lots of deadly sequences that would kill the organism outrightly.
  9. There are two more issues that impact this topic. First, in my original thread about proteins, I suggested an existing gene would be duplicated and assumed it would be approximately the right size for the new protein that was needed to advance the evolution of the organism. But if a particular function is needed for evolution to proceed to the next step, we can't know in advance how big a protein will need to be to implement it. So rather than limiting the possible sequences to 10^130 for a 100-amino-acid protein, we must consider all possible sequences of 100 plus all of 101 plus ... all of 1000. Most proteins are between 100 and 1000, so I just ignore bigger and smaller ones. That's why I calculated a denominator of 10^1301 (ten to the 1301 power) above. However, there's a problem with this argument's effectiveness. The whole point is to convince people of the absolute impossibility of evolution. But the difference between 10^130 and 10^1301 isn't at all evident by looking at the numbers. To illustrate, it's been claimed that there are 10^50 atoms in the whole earth. And it's widely claimed that there are 10^80 atoms in the whole universe. See that? We went from the tiny earth to whole wide universe and we didn't even double the exponent. So how can I convince anyone that 10^130 possible sequences is an inconceivably large number? And once you get that big, what words are left to explain how much bigger 10^1301 is? The second issue is the bizarre world of RNA silencing. There exist short RNA sequences that rip apart messenger RNAs before they can be translated, apparently by design as part of gene regulation. There are small interfering RNA, micro RNA and piwi-interacting RNA. The point is, if there's a duplicated gene that's being mutated mercilessly, there are many, many possible partial sequences that it could wander through by chance that would inhibit the production of a crucial proteins. Alternately, some viruses are small enough to be produced that way. So not only is it essentially impossible to evolve a new protein because of the raw numbers, but there are lots of deadly sequences that would kill the organism outrightly.
  10. There are two more issues that impact this topic. First, in my original thread about proteins, I suggested an existing gene would be duplicated and assumed it would be approximately the right size for the new protein that was needed to advance the evolution of the organism. But if a particular function is needed for evolution to proceed to the next step, we can't know in advance how big a protein will need to be to implement it. So rather than limiting the possible sequences to 10^130 for a 100-amino-acid protein, we must consider all possible sequences of 100 plus all of 101 plus ... all of 1000. Most proteins are between 100 and 1000, so I just ignore bigger and smaller ones. That's why I calculated a denominator of 10^1301 (ten to the 1301 power) above. However, there's a problem with this argument's effectiveness. The whole point is to convince people of the absolute impossibility of evolution. But the difference between 10^130 and 10^1301 isn't at all evident by looking at the numbers. To illustrate, it's been claimed that there are 10^50 atoms in the whole earth. And it's widely claimed that there are 10^80 atoms in the whole universe. See that? We went from the tiny earth to whole wide universe and we didn't even double the exponent. So how can I convince anyone that 10^130 possible sequences is an inconceivably large number? And once you get that big, what words are left to explain how much bigger 10^1301 is? The second issue is the bizarre world of RNA silencing. There exist short RNA sequences that rip apart messenger RNAs before they can be translated, apparently by design as part of gene regulation. There are small interfering RNA, micro RNA and piwi-interacting RNA. The point is, if there's a duplicated gene that's being mutated mercilessly, there are many, many possible partial sequences that it could wander through by chance that would inhibit the production of a crucial proteins. Alternately, some viruses are small enough to be produced that way. So not only is it essentially impossible to evolve a new protein because of the raw numbers, but there are lots of deadly sequences that would kill the organism outrightly.
  11. There are two more issues that impact this topic. First, in my original thread about proteins, I suggested an existing gene would be duplicated and assumed it would be approximately the right size for the new protein that was needed to advance the evolution of the organism. But if a particular function is needed for evolution to proceed to the next step, we can't know in advance how big a protein will need to be to implement it. So rather than limiting the possible sequences to 10^130 for a 100-amino-acid protein, we must consider all possible sequences of 100 plus all of 101 plus ... all of 1000. Most proteins are between 100 and 1000, so I just ignore bigger and smaller ones. That's why I calculated a denominator of 10^1301 (ten to the 1301 power) above. However, there's a problem with this argument's effectiveness. The whole point is to convince people of the absolute impossibility of evolution. But the difference between 10^130 and 10^1301 isn't at all evident by looking at the numbers. To illustrate, it's been claimed that there are 10^50 atoms in the whole earth. And it's widely claimed that there are 10^80 atoms in the whole universe. See that? We went from the tiny earth to whole wide universe and we didn't even double the exponent. So how can I convince anyone that 10^130 possible sequences is an inconceivably large number? And once you get that big, what words are left to explain how much bigger 10^1301 is? The second issue is the bizarre world of RNA silencing. There exist short RNA sequences that rip apart messenger RNAs before they can be translated, apparently by design as part of gene regulation. There are small interfering RNA, micro RNA and piwi-interacting RNA. The point is, if there's a duplicated gene that's being mutated mercilessly, there are many, many possible partial sequences that it could wander through by chance that would inhibit the production of a crucial proteins. Alternately, some viruses are small enough to be produced that way. So not only is it essentially impossible to evolve a new protein because of the raw numbers, but there are lots of deadly sequences that would kill the organism outrightly.
  12. There's a twist to this. They showed that some amino acids can be produced apart from life. But current thinking is that there was an "RNA world" in which there were organisms made of pure self-replicating RNA, because that's simpler than DNA transcribed to RNA then translated to proteins. But RNA isn't made of amino acids. It's made of nucleotides. Nucleotides are bigger and more complex than amino acids. So if the first life was in an RNA world, they would need to show that four nucleotides could come about independent of life, and in great quantities. Looking around a little, it appears some have claimed they did it. But I'm skeptical. Without it, the RNA world couldn't happen regardless of the Miller-Urey results.
  13. Yes, I think that's exactly what I was looking for. They call it the "protein universe." If life evolved from soup, then the proteins that constitute us were somehow "picked" or "selected" from the essentially infinite possibilities. Insurmountable problem? Yes, that's the point that I'm trying to show. Amen! What I am claiming is that chemical reactions and processes are not random. They take place according to a combination of physical/natural laws. Our lack of understanding or comprehension of those laws does not mean they do not exist. Mathematically, using the statistics of random of numbers to determine the odds of a non-random outcome will give you a probability that is too low every time. Consider this. If I put 97 white and 3 blue ping pong balls in a bowl and I tell you to pull one out blindfolded, check it, throw it away if it's white and repeat until you find a blue one. The probability isn't a simple calculation because you need to know if you'll have enough time and whether the blue balls are lighter or heavier or the same size. Those are all factors that affect the probability. But if I put those three blue balls in a vat of a billion ping pong balls and give you the same instructions, all those factors are irrelevant. You're just not going to find one by brute force. Also, is there any correlation between "chemical reactions and processes" and the usefulness of amino acids formed by random chance? I can't imagine how there would be, and I don't think I've run across such a claim. Ah! Very good point. But since the universe of possible sequences for even a tiny protein is so unthinkably large, it is literally impossible to ever know the answer. However, based on the very limited information which is observable, Dr. Douglas Axe thinks not very many of them are useful. Authors that believe in evolution seem to studiously avoid the topic. Yes, William Paley's pocket watch argument. Evolutionists love to scoff at it, but it's an excellent argument. Even a crude sand castle is obviously built by someone, not the sea. There's no question. But protein synthesis came about by accident. Hah!
  14. Interesting. I haven't read that book yet. Thanks for the article. But I'm trying to avoid probability. No matter what factors you pick, your choices will be suspect. And I don't think I need it anyway. I think I calculated that my denominator is 10^1301 (ten to the 1301 power). To put that in perspective, suppose you made a computer that could test a trillion proteins per second. Make a trillion of these computers. Now run them all non-stop for a trillion years. How many proteins have you tested? Less than 10^44. A pittance. An infinitesimal fraction of what needs to be checked. But the geologists don't give us a trillion years. That's the angle I think works. The only way around it is to claim that natural selection guides the development of proteins. But I don't think that works.
  15. Not random? Are you implying that natural selection plays a role in developing/selecting new proteins? If so, are you claiming that intermediate sequences get more useful as they get closer to being functional? I don't think that's true. But if not that, then what? Also, I'm not sure that I need to depend on the random argument. The number of possible sequences is so far beyond comprehension that it might as well be infinite. So even if we find there are trillions of functional proteins, I wonder how any process can find one without knowing the answer at the start.
×

Important Information

Our Terms