As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[xianghua]

No. Any birth is not ok. 100,000 years ago (or even 6,000 yo), the chances, then, that YOU, AND EXACTLY YOU, would show up is ASTRONOMICAL.

but any person has bacially the same chance to get born. this is not the case with a functional s equence. only a tiny fraction of the sequence space is functional. so the chance to get a functional protein is very low.

 

[xianghua]

It's not even possible to calculate the probability of eye evolution

if so why no scientists believe that a complex eye can evolve at once? do you realy think that it has no connection to probability?

 

[xianghua]

1 is a false equivalence

so a sonar system or a spinning motor are not evidence for design? good to know.

 

[Speedwell]

so a sonar system or a spinning motor are not evidence for design? good to know.

No, a "spinning motor" or a sonar system is only evidence of design if you can show evidence that it was manufactured; otherwise you wouldn't be able to tell.

 

[pitabread]

if so why no scientists believe that a complex eye can evolve at once? do you realy think that it has no connection to probability?

There has never been a meaningful probability calculation for eye evolution because again, there isn't enough information to make such a calculation.

The evolution eye has to do with understanding how evolution works and mapping out molecular pathways for such evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Hey hey 46and2

Im curious who do put forward that as a fact or as a basis for argument?

we actually do have evidence for design in nature (see my signature link for instance).

 

[xianghua]

There has never been a meaningful probability calculation for eye evolution because again, there isn't enough information to make such a calculation.

The evolution eye has to do with understanding how evolution works and mapping out molecular pathways for such evolution.

so think about this: say that we want to create a motion system. how many parts we will need to make a minimal motion system?

 

[Speedwell]

so think about this: say that we want to create a motion system. how many parts we will need to make a minimal motion system?

As many as it takes; they can all evolve together.

 

[xianghua]

As many as it takes; they can all evolve together.

but the chance of that is very low. if the chance to evolve a single part is say 1 in a billion mutations, then the chance to get about 3 parts at once is 10^27. if we are talking about mammals we will need more then the age of the universe for a single new system.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

but any person has bacially the same chance to get born.

Absolutely not.

For example....
My mom is a native Belgian. My dad is an immigrant from Albania. He and his family came to Belgium during the 50s. They almost ended up in Canada instead.

*I* could have only existed as a result of my particular dad and my particular mother. Had my mother ended up with anyone else, *I* would have never existed.

My best friend's parents aren't only both native Belgians... they literally grew up one street from eachother.

That they would have ended up in bed together was LOTS AND LOTS more likely then my particular parents ending up together.

So no, then chance of me being born was absolutely not "the same" as my best friend being born. At all.

this is not the case with a functional s equence. only a tiny fraction of the sequence space is functional. so the chance to get a functional protein is very low.

Only a chance of zero means that something is impossible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

if so why no scientists believe that a complex eye can evolve at once?

Because that's not how it works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so a sonar system or a spinning motor are not evidence for design? good to know.

You're being dishonest again.

I said it was a fallacy of false equivalence.
That means that you are drawing false analogies between manufactured products and natural biological organisms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so think about this: say that we want to create a motion system. how many parts we will need to make a minimal motion system?

That would be completely dependend on the kind of motion you talk about.

So anywhere between 1 and a gazibillion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

but the chance of that is very low. if the chance to evolve a single part is say 1 in a billion mutations,

Let's go with the 1 in a billion chance that you pulled out of your behind.
Let's say we have a population of 1 million, a generation cycle of 1 day and a mutation rate of 10.

So on day 0, we have generation 1: an immobile population of 1 million.
Day 1, generation 2: 10 million mutations.
Day 10: 100 million mutations.
By day 100: 1 billion mutations.
Probabilistically speaking, the first part is now evolved.

The point: no matter how unlikely something seems - the very nature of probability is that stuff eventually inevitably will happen given enough test tubes.

then the chance to get about 3 parts at once is 10^27. if we are talking about mammals we will need more then the age of the universe for a single new system.

Only if completely forget about natural selection, inheritance, the fact that populations include more then 1 individual,.................................... and off course, if you ignore that you are making up your "facts" on the spot, like usual.


In other words: only in your fantasy land between your ears.

 

[Speedwell]

but the chance of that is very low. if the chance to evolve a single part is say 1 in a billion mutations, then the chance to get about 3 parts at once is 10^27. if we are talking about mammals we will need more then the age of the universe for a single new system.

No, because the parts of the system evolve together. Your ideas about how complex functionality evolves seem completely uninformed, which is strange considering how often we have explained it to you.

 

[xianghua]

No, because the parts of the system evolve together.

what do you mean by "evolve together"? a functional new part need many mutations to evolve. it cant just evolve by a single mutation in a single generation. it need time.

 

[Speedwell]

what do you mean by "evolve together"? a functional new part need many mutations to evolve. it cant just evolve by a single mutation in a single generation. it need time.

Of course. That is why the functional parts of a system have to evolve together. They can't evolve separately as individually useless components until they are "ready" to join together to form a functional system.

 

[xianghua]

That would be completely dependend on the kind of motion you talk about

say that i want to made a motion system to close a car door. how many parts i will need to such a system?

Probabilistically speaking, the first part is now evolved.

right. what about 3 parts that working together?

 

[xianghua]

Of course. That is why the functional parts of a system have to evolve together. They can't evolve separately as individually useless components until they are "ready" to join together to form a functional system.

but this is the problem- a single part will not work unless you have the other parts. so a single part will be useless in this case.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

say that i want to made a motion system to close a car door. how many parts i will need to such a system?

In its most simplest form, a swinging door is just a plate with a simple hinge attached.
So, 1.

right. what about 3 parts that working together?

That's very easy to evolve if you keep in mind that every 1 part of the three can have a different function at first.

So it's the exact same process.