Why do so many people reject creation in favor of evolution, despite the complexity of dna?

yep, no better lottery than an entire planets environment. And many different people win the lottery each year. How many times would A DIFFERENT someone win a lottery in a BILLION yers?

If I livd to be a Billion years old, it might be considered a "sure thing" .

In that case you don't understand the significance of the number 2,3 x 10^456. A billion years is such a short time in comparison.

Not when we look back on our own life, and can't remember 80% of what happened. LOL

Your math is based upon some assumption that only a single ribozyme is in the mix. As weve discovered many times in the lab, it just aint so.

Read Bartel et al.. We hve a "target rich list of natural ribozymes", and youve lready stipulated to their existence, you just failed to recognize that science had already taken it beyond the mix by "letting the test tube CREATE" a new kind of ribozyme. (Kinda like the infinite monkey patrol typing on an infinite number of typewriters .)

You leave yourself incredibly exposed in that your ONLY argument is a bogus attempt to negate (by misunderstanding of science ) the concept of abiogenesis. YET, you have no real evidence that your "Slow Creation" is anywhere near being a fact. You have no evidence and your entire position is unfalsifiable.
At least we can falsify abiogenesis nd can test it.



When you can get close to those conditions then you can talk .

From a pov within spacetime I don't find any problem with Darwinism in fact I see it everywhere not just biology...but I have a small problem with it in regards to a concept that for me its irrational and unacceptable...point being I want to ask you whether you make a distinction between true randomness or pseudo randomness and which one is the one you place your bet.

Please explain what you mean by "true v pseudo" randomness?

Most of the genomic complement seems to be random generation of new forms by several means. (Some nat selection of a molecule occurs but its hard to express how this happens). Since the rates of mutations occur as a function of the umber of organisms and rates of reproduction, Almost any combination of alleles can be envisioned. (Sexual selection, genetic drift et). DArwin actually said thi in hi second edition of the "Origin" --all while having not a clue about genes or DNA or anything biomolecular.

Nevertheless, once the genome EXPRESSES itself as a (several) pronged means of affecting subsequent genotypes, it seems to have limited the number of subsequent expressions.
SO, natural selection, which explains how the organism interacts its "pallette" of genomic expressions with the environment, actually FOCUSES subsequent allowable evolving genotypes for that particular organism.

In otherwords , once an organism evolves from a "mother species", it is self limited in the number of expressions the subsequent daughters may display.

eg, once a wing first wvolved (probably as a random mutation)within the HOX sequence in an arthropods thorax genes, there are a limited number of expressions that can show up over time and these seem to be mostly controlled by adaptational mechanics.

What I meant Farma is that true randomness or pseudo randomness is a subject among mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics up for debate still. I was talking about the mutation not about the focus of natural selection upon mutations at large. In what way is the mutation a pure random mutation. What does it mean to say that the mutation is completely random ?

I have no idea where we have any common ground with which to start a dialogue bout this.
"Random" is a construct usually describing a mass of related data in which I can not see a pattern emerge , an equation to describe it, or a repeating decimal.

SOme biologists say that ALL mutations are random and others are subject to selection (of some sort) that controls the subsequent mutations because the "pllette of varince" is sontinually limited.

Im more of a two parter in which , unless it can be specifically evidenced, genomic mutation is apparently random. Whereas selection that describes the phenotype , unless it can be specifically evidenced, is NOT.


Most science is unimpressed by "why", its mostly interested in "what" "how", and "when"

we say that because we arent smart enough to expose most of the needed evidence.
We can see certain few sequences that ARE selection of some sort. (Where we have a specific environment and a spcific genic adaptation).
Hoqever, science really isnt all that concerned about it because the work goes on without a need to know.
Remember, when I speak of mutations, Im only interested in the genomic and epigenetic level.

Okee so we are on the same boat. So long science uses the coinage just as a place holder I am fine with it. As you said what matters is the process of natural selection which is to my view undeniable and present in everything from biology up to economy or language.

thre iw a small but bloggenly vocal group that says that naturql selection doesnt occur at all. I think those guys hve been smoking bus tickets.

They can't believe scientific evidence, because they fear their god.

Fear not...extremely deluded people tend to go extinct sooner or later.

I'm not sure about that when I observe how politics works in this country.

...oh I forgot the murikan case...natural selection there is extremely... how shall I put it, well, "complex"...that is to mean, you may have a point.

the guys I was referring to re actully cientists involved in microbio evolution . These guys are all into "neutral theory" but dont realize (or maybe they do but dont admit it), that Darwin himself incorporated the concept well into his theory in edition 1.

You guys dont have as religiously diverse population as we. We have made room for all kinds. nd whenever Europe kicked em out, they headed over here and developed a whole new catechism

What most people do is simply follow suit: For the last hundred years, leading scientists have been rejecting God:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.pdf
The correspondence titled "Leading scientists still reject God" was published by Nature, one of the world's most cited scientific journals.

That is such a perfect fit with several verses that come to mind.

Im just say'n.

Why would any intelligent human being literally believe in ancient metaphorical stories of creation as if they were literally real? Most cultures around the world have their own metaphorical creation stories, not only the Jewish people. This type of mental condition is really weird for rational thinking people. In the real world only children have an excuse to think like this, but for adults thinking this way is beyond the joke and bizzare. According to Psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud this condition in adults thinking/behaving like children is called "The defense mechanism of regression" when an adult is unable to accept an aspect of reality therefore they retreat back to thinking like children. I guess we all can have this tendency, but taking it to the extent of literally believing in metaphorical creation stories must be a very extreme level of this type of mental condition...

Good point and may I remind you in an ever increasing complex machine and web world people do indeed retreat to some naive fantasy. Happiness and simplicity come first if your emotional survival is at risk. This is why Religion will never go away no matter how much lessons some scientists are willing to give online (some of them a joke). Worse lets assume they were successful and people stopped believing in the old established religions it wouldn't be long till some form of pseudo simpleton scientism new religion emerged to fit the void created by these guys who haven't got a clue why Institutions like these survive in the social ecosystem...nuanced non obvious functions of Institutions like religion don't compute well with linear thinking in some scientific mediums...ignoramus, tunnelling specialized thinking, lack of general knowledge and culture in the education of these guys, specially lack of appreciation in depth for Philosophy is to blame. True, some of them are just stupid hitting jackpot on the backs of slave student work using the scientific method...