Infinite monkey theorem vs first life

[Aussie Pete]

No thanks. I'm not interested in how ICR misrepresents that research.

Typical dodge-the-issue response from the evolutionist camp.

 

[pitabread]

Not really. Fossils are relatively uncommon as most carcases are disposed of by other animals. As it happens, many creationists (me included) argue for the world wide flood (aka Noah's flood) as the cause of much fossilisation. It still happens right now, if the conditions are suitable. Fossils alone do not destroy the evolution myth. It is much more fundamental than that.

Does this mean you don't agree with Kenny'sID argument re: fossilization?

Edited: Based on subsequent posts it looks like even Kenny'sID doesn't agree with his own argument.

 

[Speedwell]

Typical dodge-the-issue response from the evolutionist camp.

So post something from a trustworthy source.

 

[SLP]

How come no one can produce this amazing effect in a lab?

Hundreds of rounds of speciation? Wow, golly, I don't know...

No one has been able to turn a fruit fly into a bee or a wasp or whatever.

You think evolution is about turning a living taxon into another living taxon?

Last figure I had was 3,000 variants. Every one was still a fruit fly. Of course, you can genetically engineer something. Which takes a great deal of ingenuity and intelligence. Not totally random events.

You've never seen DNA sequence data, have you?

 

[SLP]

Evolutionists have an amazing capacity to make the observations fit the theory, sorry, "facts".

And creationists have an amazing capacity to ignore or reject any and everything that hey think might counter their mere beliefs based on ancient stories.

Every few months some new discovery comes along that blows some evolutionary "fact" out of the water.

Every few months?

Then list 4, and EXPLAIN why/how they blow some evolutionary "fact" out of the water.

Then show us 4 discoveries that totally support a 7-day Genesis no more than 10000 years ago by a particular deity.

There is NO mechanism that enables evolution.

Sure there.

3,000 fruit flies are just variations, they have not evolved.

Were those variations there before?

Darwin's finches are still finches, whatever beak length they have.

They are a great example of natural selection. Never claimed to be more than that.

The "Cambrian Explosion"? It was a 70 million year period when I was younger. Now that "fact" has been amended to 10 million years.

You don't seem to be very adept at keeping track of these things.

I don't care that people believe in evolution. I care that this myth is promoted as fact and that a reasonable and plausible alternative is prevented from being taught.

I don't care that people believe in creationism. I care that this myth is promoted as fact and that a reasonable and plausible alternative is prevented from being taught in church.

Of course, you cannot present anything plausible, can you?

I was privileged to be taught both evolution and creation as equally valid propositions. Evolution made little sense to me. It was not a religious decision. I was not a Christian. Evolution makes even less sense now.

Right.... If you say so, what with your keen grasp on the science....

 

[SLP]

You sill aren't being clear, I need the whole thing...what did you "know about evolution" in the case of the feathered species of dinosaurs, that predicted what, and what does all of it prove?

Step by step please.

Don't know much about bird evolution - but I am curious if you can explain - step by step, of course - how the Hebrew deity transformed silicates into the thousands of bio-organic molecules needed to created a man from dust.

 

[SLP]

Not buying it, not even close. I avoided the term as long as I possibly could but this is so far from adding up, it's "ridiculous". My last few posts may or may not help.

At say, an average of 40yrs per generation (choose whatever reasonable number you like there) how many generations would you guess came between ape and man as we know him today?

Where are the remains of all of your ancestors from Adam to you?

Heck, that is only about 300 generations!

 

[SLP]

I wanted to provide this link to speedwell (at his request) but I'm blocked for some reason. It's to do with fruit fly research that attempted to make them evolve.

No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations

The 600 refers to generations of fruit flies.

That is not at all evidence in the essay you linked to - did you just do a keyword search and link to the first thing that popped up?

 

[Aussie Pete]

So post something from a trustworthy source.

Nothing that contradicts your theory is going to influence you. I will leave you with this.
DNA determines what an organism will become. In order for an organism to evolve, it must receive new information. There is no mechanism to determine what that new information should be. If it is incremental by pure chance, then a male and female must evolve at the same time and in the same physical location. You also need many more than one pair. Inbreeding is catastrophic as those trying to recover near extinct creatures will testify. If anything is genetically corrupted, the organism dies. Since this is entirely random, the organism may never produce a suitable mutation. The evolved creature is still born. This must be repeated countless times in order to produce a viable breeding pair. I know something about encryption. Producing a warm blooded mammal from a reptile is akin to encrypting the Encyclopaedia Britannica and producing the complete works of Shakespeare.
How did blood come to be? How did blood know that it needed a vessel? Arteries and veins had to evolve at the same time as blood. And a remarkably robust pumping system that self adjusts flow rate to suit the organism's needs? Plus a sophisticated temperature control system. That's before we get into oxygen and CO2 exchange systems, built in defences against bacteria and viral infections and the amazing self repair ability of living organisms. We know how vulnerable people are if their immune system is compromised. How many billions of creatures died before evolution coughed up the immune system? And everything goes back to zero if an evolved creature dies. The whole process starts again. Nope. Way too far fetched for me.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That is not at all evidence in the essay you linked to - did you just do a keyword search and link to the first thing that popped up?

Not the first thing. I've known about the fruit fly dream for many years. Same with Miller experiments. It's fairly old hat now, but speedwell asked.

 

[Speedwell]

Nothing that contradicts your theory is going to influence you.

You haven't shown me anything yet.

I will leave you with this.
DNA determines what an organism will become. In order for an organism to evolve, it must receive new information. There is no mechanism to determine what that new information should be. If it is incremental by pure chance, then a male and female must evolve at the same time and in the same physical location. You also need many more than one pair. Inbreeding is catastrophic as those trying to recover near extinct creatures will testify. If anything is genetically corrupted, the organism dies. Since this is entirely random, the organism may never produce a suitable mutation. The evolved creature is still born. This must be repeated countless times in order to produce a viable breeding pair. I know something about encryption. Producing a warm blooded mammal from a reptile is akin to encrypting the Encyclopaedia Britannica and producing the complete works of Shakespeare.
How did blood come to be? How did blood know that it needed a vessel? Arteries and veins had to evolve at the same time as blood. And a remarkably robust pumping system that self adjusts flow rate to suit the organism's needs? Plus a sophisticated temperature control system. That's before we get into oxygen and CO2 exchange systems, built in defences against bacteria and viral infections and the amazing self repair ability of living organisms. We know how vulnerable people are if their immune system is compromised. How many billions of creatures died before evolution coughed up the immune system? And everything goes back to zero if an evolved creature dies. The whole process starts again. Nope. Way too far fetched for me.

I never know how to respond to posts like this without hurting the feelings of the poster, so I hope you won't take it personally: Nothing in that post has anything whatsoever to do with the real theory of evolution.

Suppose I said to you, "Christianity is dumb. Christianity says that Jesus was an Olympic figure skater and we're going to go to heaven on ice skates. That's dumb." How would you respond?

 

[pitabread]

Nothing that contradicts your theory is going to influence you. I will leave you with this.
DNA determines what an organism will become. In order for an organism to evolve, it must receive new information. There is no mechanism to determine what that new information should be. If it is incremental by pure chance, then a male and female must evolve at the same time and in the same physical location. You also need many more than one pair. Inbreeding is catastrophic as those trying to recover near extinct creatures will testify. If anything is genetically corrupted, the organism dies. Since this is entirely random, the organism may never produce a suitable mutation. The evolved creature is still born. This must be repeated countless times in order to produce a viable breeding pair. I know something about encryption. Producing a warm blooded mammal from a reptile is akin to encrypting the Encyclopaedia Britannica and producing the complete works of Shakespeare.
How did blood come to be? How did blood know that it needed a vessel? Arteries and veins had to evolve at the same time as blood. And a remarkably robust pumping system that self adjusts flow rate to suit the organism's needs? Plus a sophisticated temperature control system. That's before we get into oxygen and CO2 exchange systems, built in defences against bacteria and viral infections and the amazing self repair ability of living organisms. We know how vulnerable people are if their immune system is compromised. How many billions of creatures died before evolution coughed up the immune system? And everything goes back to zero if an evolved creature dies. The whole process starts again. Nope. Way too far fetched for me.

What you are writing is an argument from incredulity based on a wholly incorrect conceptual and factual understanding of evolution.

If you want to solve this you need to start with basic educational resources on biology and evolution.

Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution

 

[SLP]

Not the first thing.

Ah, so you did a keyword search - did you actually read the link?

I've known about the fruit fly dream for many years.

Doesn't seem that way.

Same with Miller experiments. It's fairly old hat now, but speedwell asked.

And what of the Miller experiments? surely, you do not actually think he set out to create life? that is a big old creationist lie. He set out to test Oparin's hypothesis about the reducing atmosphere.

 

[SLP]

How did blood come to be? How did blood know that it needed a vessel?

How did the water in that puddle know it would need a hole?

Surely, you cannot be THIS naive and child-like in your thinking?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I wanted to provide this link to speedwell (at his request) but I'm blocked for some reason. It's to do with fruit fly research that attempted to make them evolve.

No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations

The 600 refers to generations of fruit flies.

That's a selective misrepresentation of the work, presumably intended for those who aren't prepared to study the paper themselves, or who don't understand it, or who just want to mislead the gullible.

There are plenty of papers showing the evolution of fruit flies in the lab, available to people who have a basic understanding of what to look for and can use Google.

 

[SLP]

There are plenty of papers showing the evolution of fruit flies in the lab, available to people who have a basic understanding of what to look for and can use Google.

And in real life (i.e., not in labs) - the Hawaiian drosophila (and crickets, and probably others) are pretty well documented. And their phenotypic differences are noteworthy:

I know - 'but they are still flies!'

 

[loveofourlord]

Nothing that contradicts your theory is going to influence you. I will leave you with this.
DNA determines what an organism will become. In order for an organism to evolve, it must receive new information. There is no mechanism to determine what that new information should be. If it is incremental by pure chance, then a male and female must evolve at the same time and in the same physical location. You also need many more than one pair. Inbreeding is catastrophic as those trying to recover near extinct creatures will testify. If anything is genetically corrupted, the organism dies. Since this is entirely random, the organism may never produce a suitable mutation. The evolved creature is still born. This must be repeated countless times in order to produce a viable breeding pair. I know something about encryption. Producing a warm blooded mammal from a reptile is akin to encrypting the Encyclopaedia Britannica and producing the complete works of Shakespeare.
How did blood come to be? How did blood know that it needed a vessel? Arteries and veins had to evolve at the same time as blood. And a remarkably robust pumping system that self adjusts flow rate to suit the organism's needs? Plus a sophisticated temperature control system. That's before we get into oxygen and CO2 exchange systems, built in defences against bacteria and viral infections and the amazing self repair ability of living organisms. We know how vulnerable people are if their immune system is compromised. How many billions of creatures died before evolution coughed up the immune system? And everything goes back to zero if an evolved creature dies. The whole process starts again. Nope. Way too far fetched for me.

ouch....your using ray comfort...thats a new low I havn't seen in ages.

simple answer, none of the first of anything had modern forms of any of that. Sexes would have evolved early on and formed from the same species, probably from simple dimorphism in it's life cycle or such. It's not like the first male baboon and female Baboon suddenly appeared randomly on the planet, everything in evolution had a parent that was nearly exactly like itself.

As for warmblooded to cold blooded, we know it happened twice so can't be all that hard, reptiles that have the benefit of regulating their temperatures a bit better would have benefits, it's not like they went cold turkey from cold blooded to warm blooded, it's something that would have happened over time, all of these happened over time. We can see in existing animals alot of the changes for blood and such along with immune systems. Simple animals have simple versions of it, it's that old saying, what good is half a eye? it's better then no eye, what good is half a heart? Two sections is better then one and so on.

And no way for new information....been waiting days for this argument, thought it would have come sooner, you guys really disapoint some times. YOU have 50+ new 'information' in your DNA that wasn't there from your parents, we all do, errors in replication cause mutations where chomosonal pairs are missing, or added, parts of your DNA might be flipped and so on, this happens every time a kid is born. Most of what is in you will be neutral, rarly will be beneficial. What about harmful mutations, they generally don't last long enough to be born.

 

[loveofourlord]

What you are writing is an argument from incredulity based on a wholly incorrect conceptual and factual understanding of evolution.

If you want to solve this you need to start with basic educational resources on biology and evolution.

Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution

yeah, really wish creationists knew what evolution said so they could at least make arguments that might be entertaining, not....none of what you said makes any sense.

 

[Kenny'sID]

also it was 40 million years ago when monkeys first appeared
and 30 million years ago when apes split from monkeys
and 7 million years ago when we split from other apes, hence the 175 thousand, to 262.5 thousand generations. You can at least be bothered to read it before you complain about being ignored.

Except I did read that, was I complaining about that question being ignored?

You are creating problems out of nowhere...trying to make it appear I've done something wrong. Just like your false quote of me, the one I questioned you on but you chose not to answer. You still aren't answering all questions, but don't worry about it, just like the question I just mentioned, I'm going to assume you know you are wrong on any unanswered question.

and on the evidence thing, it's been explained multiple times. We knew birds evolved from dinosaurs and as we find more fossils we find more and more evidence that backs that up. The dinosaurs that birds evolved from having feathers, the progression of morphogical changes through the fossil record fitting what we already knew. what more do you think we would need to prove birds evolved from dinosaurs?

You would need much more than that. First, do you agree with the following, and remember you said birds were dino's with no other explanation.

From the google search "Are dinosaurs birds"

Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles.

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf...-wiz.......0i131j35i39j0i22i10i30.U7RunQhC0KY

Then there is that pesky little problem I keep going on about, so if you would please show us some pictures of the set of fossils found that lead us to believe one evolved from the other, it would be helpful in making your point. Let me see what fossils you do have, and I will determine if it's enough to sway me, fair enough?

And remember you will also need to refute the fact animals share characteristics, as in man has hair but that doesn't prove we came from a bear/ape or whatever, not unless you can show us the proof of gradual change that seems to be missing with the excuse we just haven't found it yet. Of course I can wait till they do find it, but until then...meh.

Hopefully we are getting somewhere now.

 

[46AND2]

Inbreeding is catastrophic as those trying to recover near extinct creatures will testify.

Funny you should mention that...