new

Evolution VS High School Biology. Evolution Loses. Check My Math

The law of biogenesis. Have you heard of it? Louis Pasteur proved that living organisms come from other living organisms and do not spontaneously come to life from non-living material. 150 years later there are some that believe that all life arose from a cell or cells that spontaneously generated from non -living material. Perhaps the law of biogenesis is more of a guideline rather than a law. Or perhaps everything that has ever been observed in nature by scientists over the last 150 years affirms the validity of this law. So the spontaneous generation of a theoretical original cell is a violation of this law and is contradictory to scientific observation.
The End.

No, not really. Let’s look at several of the insurmountable problems associated with the theory of spontaneous generation (evolution)

Problem 1. Amino acids.

Amino acids would be needed to form the protein molecules contained in the first theoretical non-living cell. These amino acids would have been formed by natural processes. Dr. Stanley Miller performed a series of experiments to show how amino acids could be produced by generating electric arcs in a gaseous mixture of hydrogen, methane and ammonia along with water. The main problem with producing Amino acids by natural processes, apart from formation within a living organism is that a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids will be formed. These two forms of amino acids are chemically the same but the component atoms of each are put together differently. In fact, mirror images of each other. In living organisms, virtually all amino acids are left handed. The Miller experiment produced a 50/50 mixture of both. Half left-handed and half right-handed. Typically one right-handed amino acid in in protein molecule will render the protein useless or inactive. In other words, if you have an enzyme molecule that performs a particular function in a cell or organism that contains only one right-handed amino acid, that enzyme will not work.

Problem 2. Specific sequence of amino acids in proteins:

Proteins are made of 20 different amino acids. The amino acids are chemically bonded together like links in a chain. The specific arrangement or sequence of amino acids determines the characteristics and function of each protein molecule. To calculate the probability of the correct amino acid sequence in a given molecule in the first theoretical non-living cell, you only need to know two things:
The probability of a particular amino acid in the sequence being the correct amino acid out of a possible 20 amino acid is one chance in 20.

Multiply all the probabilities together.
In other words, if one of the theoretical protein molecules in the theoretical cell had 50 amino acid links, multiply 20 x 20 x 20 etc. 50 times. So the probability of the first two links being in the correct sequence is 20 x 20 = 400 or one chance in 400. The probability of the first 3 links being in the correct sequence is 20 x 20 x 20 = 8000 or one chance in 8000. As a mathematical shortcut to visualize how big of a number you get when multiplying 20 x 20 fifty times, do this:

Multiply 2 x 2 fifty times (2 x 2 x 2 ——) and tack on 50 zeros to the end of that number.
To calculate the chance of getting all 50 sequences correct AND all left handed, consider that each link could be a right-handed version of any of the 20 amino acids or a left-handed version of any of the 20 amino acids but only one of the 40 possible amino acids is correct for each link. The probability of the first amino acid being correct and left-handed is one chance in 40. The probability of the first two amino acids being correct is 40 x 40 = 1600 or one chance in 1600. The probability of the first three links being in the correct sequence is 40 x 40 x 40 = 64000 or one chance in 64000. The probability of the first 4 links being in the correct sequence in one chance in 2,560,000 or about one chance in 2 and a half million. To get a handle on the probability of getting all 50 links in the correct sequence multiply 4 x 4 fifty times and tack on 50 zeros to the end of that number. That is a really big number. Please enter your answer in the comments section below.

A protein with only 50 links is relatively small in nature. Some enzymes are made up of thousands of amino acids. The first theoretical non-living cell must have had many protein molecules perhaps 100 or more. To give an unfair advantage to those who reject the law of biogenesis lets suppose the first cell or proto cell had only 50 protein molecules that contained 50 amino acids each. To get an idea of the size of the number that represents the probability of all the amino acids being in the correct sequence and all left handed in in all the protein molecules:

multiply 4 x 4 2500 times and tack on 2500 zeros on to the end of that number. I am no math whiz but I believe that would be a really big number. It is bigger than the estimated total number of fundamental particles in the observable universe”

So, if every particle in the universe represented a trial and error formation by natural processes of just two of the theoretical proteins, you could possibly get two molecules that were correct at the same time somewhere in there. The odds would still be against it. By the way, proteins have not been observed to form by natural processes apart from living organisms and isn’t that what scientific theory is all about? The observable and reproducible? How many universes of chances do we need to get the first cell right?
By the way. All of the above math is overkill. Just the left-hand, right-hand problem destroys any hope of spontaneous generation. The chance of all the links in all 50 protein molecules being correct can be calculated by multiplying 2 x 2 2500 times. Every time you multiply by two you cut the probability in half. Please write your answer in the comments section below. One more thing while we are on the subject of multiplying by two. How many times you would need to fold a piece of paper in half to make it thick enough to reach to the moon? The number of folds is as ridiculously small as the piece of paper needed is large.

Problem 3. Specific sequence of the genetic material.

DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is the molecule inside a cell that among other things contains the code for making protein molecules. As a cell grows it takes in nutrients and produces protein molecules. When the cell is large enough it splits into two cells. The ability for the cell to produce the correct amino acid sequences in the various protein molecules is dependent on the specific sequence of molecules in DNA called nucleotides. If the sequence of nucleotides is incorrect the cell will produce proteins with the wrong amino acid sequence. The DNA molecule contains the code for every type of protein in the cell as well as the code for the specific structure of the cell. The probability that the DNA in the first non-living theoretical cell contained the correct code for all the types of protein molecules in that cell is the combined improbabilities of at least one of each type of protein molecule in that cell having the correct amino acid sequences at the point in time the cell spontaneously transitioned from being dead to being alive. You may want to re-read that last sentence a few times so the implications become apparent.

Problem 4. All the component parts in the same place at the same time.

Cells contain structures called organelles. They are like small organs within the cell that have specific functions. Some of the organelles and other structures one might expect to find in this theoretical cell are endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, mitochondria, nucleus, DNA, RNA, and cell membrane. At the very least, the theoretical minimum set of component parts to sustain cellular life needed to be present at the same time and place. The component parts needed to be structurally correct and needed to, by chance and unknown natural processes not associated with living organisms, be in a state of correct assemblage. That is a strange concept. The complete simplest theoretical cell needed to be produced by a set of natural processes, then transition from a dead state to a living state, and then grow and reproduce by an entirely different set of natural processes other than the ones that originally generated it. Highly improbable? No. Totally impossible.

Cornucopia of other problems:

Due to the fact that there is massive amounts of calcium on land and in the oceans, there would be no free phosphorus to form DNA. All the theoretically free phosphorus would end up in the form of calcium phosphate in no time.
The theoretical primordial earth atmosphere contained no oxygen. As useful molecules were theoretically being produced by bolts of lightning they would be destroyed by ultraviolet light since there would be no ozone layer. Some molecules would end up in the ocean and if submerged deep enough to be unaffected by UV radiation would be in the ocean along with other lucky molecules in a state of near infinite dilution. At some later time some of these molecules might end up on land in a muddy little evaporating puddle or pond with less dilution. Then they would be destroyed by ultraviolet light. If the atmosphere contained oxygen, these same molecules would be oxidized and useless.

The same lightning that could produce organic molecules could and would far more easily destroy previously generated molecules. That is just how the physics works. Some fortunate few would make it to the depths of the ocean.

Some might theorize that the first living cell might be of the type that would exist near a submerged volcanic vent far from the perils of the earths surface. This cell would reproduce and future generations of cells would produce oxygen by some method other than photosynthesis. As impossible as this is, you still have to get to that first cell. So all the afore mentioned problems still apply.

Misc. notes:

The math in regard to the left and right-handed amino acids is a little flawed. One of the amino acids, glycine, is left handed only. With that in mind the odds are slightly better so spontaneous generation is totally possible. Not. In all fairness, the Miller experiment produces several amino acids with left-hand and right-hand versions that do not occur in living organisms. In other words the Miller experiment produced all the right amino acids as well as some wrong ones. These could just as well be factored in.

Some researchers have concluded that under certain conditions amino acids could be generated with about 90 percent being left-handed. This does not help much. So instead of half of 2500 amino acids statistically being right handed in the theoretical cell, only 250 will statistically be wrong. Then we multiply the results with the probability of all 2500 amino acids being in the correct sequence.

A chemist once came up with this great party game to help illustrate math probabilities like those in this article. He suggested that you get 17 people to line up in a row. Then line up in a different order. Keep lining up in a different order until all the possible combinations have been used. How many unique arrangement of 17 people in a row are there? More than 355 trillion combination. This can be calculated by multiplying 17 x 16 x 15 x 14 x 13 x 12 x 11 x 10 x 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2. Since guinea pigs are so well suited for scientific experimentation, guinea pigs can be used instead of people in this experiment. The results are the same.

One last thought. Someone once wrote something like this:

If you had an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters all the books that have ever been written and would ever be written would be written.

The problem is there is no such thing as an infinite number of monkeys and typewriters. Ok. Let’s deal with the finite. Start with a meaningful paragraph 2500 characters in length. Forget case and punctuation let’s just get the spelling correct. There is 1 chance in 26 of getting the first letter correct. What is the probability of getting the first two letters correct?.......

The Truth About TWO Day Sandy Hook Event (Dec 13 & Dec 14) - Advanced HSEEP Training

I posted this in another thread ( Thread: Sandy Hook : Well that solves the helicopter footage timeline. ) but a few people suggested I post it as its own post instead so I figured what the hell...

Anyways this is my theory, so feel free to agree or disagree.

---

I just wanted to share something with you guys as I have also been following the Sandy Hook event fairly closely in the background and I wanted to share a somewhat unique perspective I have on what I feel is a very misunderstood element surrounding the Sandy Hook shooting and how it was rolled out to the public. My hope is by the end of this you at least somewhat get where I am coming from, and I feel understanding this element really helps see the event and the "evidence" surrounding it much more clearly.

Before I start, without getting to long winded, I specialized in following and researching HSEEP protocols and how they apply to various events. My research into HSEEP started after SH and carried into Boston and LAX (at which point I was following HSEEP and its connected aspects so closely that I predicted a fake AR shooting at LAX almost to the day (was off by 2 days) over 2 weeks before the event is said to of taken place). Anyways I guess my point is I really follow how HSEEP protocols work, how they are built and how they are applied to the drill environment in a dynamic fashion.

When it comes to HSEEP drills you first have to understand how a MSEL works. Think of an MSEL as the script... even better yet think of the MSEL as a choose your own adventure book. A drill framework is designed into a story and put into an MSEL, and each element of the story is given various different pathways/branches the controllers can choose to activate or go down at any point in time during the drill (via injects).

Example: The (a - suspect, b suspects) arrives at the (a - school, b - hospital, c - mall) in a (a - car, b - van, c - on foot), carrying (a - 2 handguns, b - an ar15 & 2 handguns, c - 4 handguns) while leaving (a - 1 ar15 & 1 shotgun, b - 2 handguns, c - 1 ar15) in the (a - trunk, b - backseat) before entering the building by (a - being buzzed in, b - shooting way in, c - walking in open door)...

I think you get my point. Anyways the reason they do this is based on the main doctrine of HSEEP event control, which is the ability to alter/tweak elements on the fly and see how people respond to the dynamic change in real time. This is VERY important to understand.

To understand Sandy Hook fully you MUST look at it the same way but to do that you must realize a highly MISUNDERSTOOD element surrounding that event... That is the fact that the drill in question actually took place on Dec 13, 2012 NOT Dec 14, 2012... Let me explain... Understand the goal of this event was not to just do a drill and pass it off as real, it goes beyond that. If they just wanted to run a fake event and play it off as real, then why not at least fake a realistic response to it to help sell it right? Why no medical response to at least act like they are doing something? Why not have cops running around at the scene on the helicopter video in-front of the school? Why not avoid contradictions? Why not have more kids scheduled to be at the firehouse to sell the "mass evacuation" that much more? I mean That would be the logical thing to do right? If the goal was to fake an event and sell it as being as real as possible. So why don't we see that? Well there is a perfectly good answer.

The reason is the drill itself was only phase 1 of the event, where phase 2 which was the primary goal behind the event was to test the full boundaries of the HSEEP dynamic event control apparatus AFTER an event has already happened. Basically normal HSEEP training involves how much they can tweak/alter an event in real time DURING the active drill, where with Sandy Hook the HSEEP training also involved a 2nd phase which centered around using the same HSEEP framework of dynamic event tweaking but applying it AFTER THE FACT (create 1 story via a drill on dec 13, roll out that event as real on dec 14, then in real time try to tweak elements after the fact to gauge success of story changing abilities, test media response to contradictions and changing info, and lastly assess overall public reaction once everything is said and done).

Example (microcosm):
Can they run a drill with 2 shooters on Dec 13, announce it as real on Dec 14, and then change the story to only 1 shooter as the story develops and have the new story stick/overwrite the old one?

I call it Advanced HSEEP training, and that is exactly what Sandy Hook was...

Here let me explain it a different way, think back to the FEMA Document that some call fake (but I personally believe is 100% real and says it all).

"Exercise play will begin at 8:00 am on December 13th 2012. Play will proceed according to the events outlined in the MSEL, in accordance with established plans and procedures. The exercise will conclude upon the completion of operations and attainment of the exercise objectives, as determined by the Exercise Director/Controller. The exercise is expected to end at 11:59 pm on 12/13/12 and be evaluated on 12/14/12 as a real-time event."

Now think of what that is saying, literally.
1. "Exercise play will begin at 8:00 am on December 13th 2012." = the active drill takes place starting the morning of Dec 13 (not the 14th)
2. "The exercise is expected to end at 11:59 pm on 12/13/12" = the active elements of the drill will end late night Dec 13 (not 14th)
3. "evaluated on 12/14/12 as a real-time event" = roll out the previous days event as if the event is a real event AND as if the event is taking place a day later then it actually did.

Sidenote: #3 is a bit more complex then that, as on Dec 14 they left most of the elements outside of the school up so that the scene outside on both days looked very similar, and they overlapped a bunch of different elements from Dec 14 ontop of the rollout of the Dec 13 drill data to blur the lines between the 2 events (Dec 13 drill + staging area vs Dec 14 just staging area). This is why it is important to understand what elements of evidence are from Dec 13, and what elements of evidence are from Dec 14.

The way I see it the best way to look at the data surrounding that day is to look at every element of that day broken into a specific day in which it took place (which again is over a 2 day period). A few examples of this are...

Elements attached to dec 13 (drill) are...
1.Actual drill at SH (FEMA, involving children from St Rose of Lima using the nearby and closed Sandy Hook Elementary)
2.Police Scanner recordings (all, 24 hour delayed release)
3.SH drill participant interviews (morning, 24 hour delayed release)
4.Drill evacuation images (select few, 24 hour delayed release)
5.Social/news/charity prep (most with 24 hour delay, except for "official" drill partners like United Way which intentionally posted their content early and aligned with the live drill itself)
6.investigation at the house NEXT to the lanza house (34 Yogananda St)

sidenote: The 30 students involved in the FEMA drill on Dec 13, 2012 were St Rose of Lima Students, which played out the drill at the nearby closed Sandy Hook Elementary (26 of which surirve in the drill).

Elements attached to dec 14 (delayed release + reaction gauging & tweaking) are...
1.Social/news/charity posting (after the 24 hour delay to trigger as if something is going on for real on the 14th)
2.9/11 Calls (all made on Dec 14 to help SELL the previous days drill script as if it is JUST now happening for real on the 14th, all called in via the CT State police)
3.St Rose of Lima child interviews (they went into the school and evacuated it after the non-event on dec 14, scared the shit out of the kids (again for some...), and then interviewed them and mixed their accounts in with the SH interviews (from the day prior) as if they are referring to the same thing on the same day (which they are not)).
4.helicopter videos (taken of the staging area setup on Dec 14 to again help sell the idea that a breaking event is taking place on Dec 14th (which there wasn't))
5.dashcam videos (taken on Dec 14 (timestamp off by a few mins).
6.investigation at the lanza house (36 Yogananda St)

Think of it, ever wonder why the dashcam videos, helicopter videos and police scanner recordings all dont line up? It's because they are from different days and/or times all-together. The police scanners were part of the active drill (Phase 1, Dec 13), while the helicopter videos are from the next day of the staging area & firehouse (Phase 2 (staging), Dec 14) while the dashcams were also part of the next days staging area (Phase 2, Dec 14 (timestamp off by few mins)), .

This same thing can be applied to basically all elements of that day, and can really help put a better perspective on what is happening in each case. You just have to really factor in that each elements either attached to either the drill (Dec 13) OR the rollout (Dec 14).

As far as I can tell most the drill elements (Dec 13) were presented primarily by the following means, drill police scanner recordings, initial written interviews/reports (most of which got tweaked/removed over time such as the Principle Dawn interview), and MSM reporters initial reports (which again over time mostly changed)... while the rollout elements or dynamic after-action tweaks (Dec 14) were presented primarily by more visual means such as the damcams, the helicopter videos, most the in person interviews and live MSM stories TELLING us what what happening and what to think (which again got tweaked slowly through the day as part of Phase 2 rollout).