Scientific Challenge For Evolutionists

[Starman]

SINCE YOU DARWINISTS "understand abiogenesis," why don't YOU explain the impossibility of hemoglobin synthesis.
Human hemoglobin consists of 528 amino acids arranged in a very precise sequence, which sequence is folded in such a complex manner that humans cannot make a single hemoglobin molecule in a laboratory. There are 20 different amino acids.
So the number of possible sequences is 20 to the 528th power or 10 to the 686th power.


Explain, with your profound scientific intellect, exactly how the impossible task of assembling the one correct sequence of human hemoglobin, out of 10^686 possible others, was accomplished, KNOWING FULL WELL that every step in the assembly demands, according to your "selection" tautology, that each intermediary have a useful function which selectively preserves that step to the exclusion of most if not all others.


Your "proof," as you are always demanding of others, will require, oh, about 10 to the 600 steps, and intermediaries, and 'selection" processes.
That is just for ONE polypeptide, understand.


It's abundantly obvious you cannot ever begin to take the first step in demonstrating YOUR pretense of "understanding abiogenesis."
But try anyway.

(Nobody ever has, and nobody ever will.)

[Chris]

Assume you can't explain it. Assume, too, not being able to explain it mean it didn't happen. OK.

Explain intelligent design.

[decedent]

"Something is biologically complex, therefore God exists."


Irreducible complexity arguments, like the human eye, are nonsense intelligent design fallacies. Posivitism abused.

[resister]

"Something is biologically complex, therefore God exists."


Irreducible complexity arguments, like the human eye, are nonsense intelligent design fallacies. Posivitism abused.

It takes WWAAAYYYYY more faith to believe that from nothing, sprang everything, especially considering our minds cant even conceive of nothing.

[Doublejack]

It takes WWAAAYYYYY more faith to believe that from nothing, sprang everything, especially considering our minds cant even conceive of nothing.

Just because science can't explain everything yet doesn't automatically mean "magic invisible people" did it.



edit: Moreover - If proof of God exists that means God is real. All I need is proof.

[resister]

"Something is biologically complex, therefore God exists."


Irreducible complexity arguments, like the human eye, are nonsense intelligent design fallacies. Posivitism abused.

[resister]

Just because science can't explain everything yet doesn't automatically mean "magic invisible people" did it.



edit: Moreover - If proof of God exists that means God is real. All I need is proof.

What if I told you, see above!

[Doublejack]

I would agree.

edit: To the same degree that believing in a God doesn't make one intelligent.

[Subdermal]

"Something is biologically complex, therefore God exists."

Irreducible complexity arguments, like the human eye, are nonsense intelligent design fallacies. Posivitism abused.

You are out of your depth, intentional conflating arguments to avoid confronting a good one.

If the odds of something being an accident are 10^686, the odds are it wasn't an accident.

[resister]

I would agree.

edit: To the same degree that believing in a God doesn't make one intelligent.

So believing in a "magic" theory where everything came from nothing is somehow a superior position to the far more logical position of a Creator? How many things on earth can you see that have no creator, at the very least when you look at life forms you can be certain the parents made them, no?