Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Which is just what you don't know. You got started on all this because you observed (quite correctly) that the probability of evolution producing exactly the biosphere we have now is vanishingly small. But it really doesn't matter.
well yes it is the other sources of variation that are non-random that make selections job easier or minimized.Actually it is. What is at issue is the exact nature of the mechanism which produces variation.[/QUOTE] If that's the case then how do you explain this.Plus variation, don't forget--otherwise you're knocking down a straw man.
But that's not how it works. We are talking about anyone being here in the first place. We can calculate the odds from the number of specific conditions that need to be in place to even produce our universe, the earth within it and the ecosystem that will sustain and produce intelligent life. Any small variation from this and it will be different. That is why some propose a multiverse.From a post-hoc perspective the probability of evolution producing our exact biosphere is 1. It already happened.
But that's not how it works. We are talking about anyone being here in the first place. We can calculate the odds from the number of specific conditions that need to be in place to even produce our universe, the earth within it and the ecosystem that will sustain and produce intelligent life. Any small variation from this and it will be different. That is why some propose a multiverse.
But it is because the probability of evolution creating the biosphere is vanishingly small that points to there being specific conditions, information, language, codes etc which infers to it being specified and complex.Which is just what you don't know. You got started on all this because you observed (quite correctly) that the probability of evolution producing exactly the biosphere we have now is vanishingly small. But it really doesn't matter.
And yet the population remains, reproduces and evolves. It as if you think natural selection should somehow achieve, or certainly approach perfection. That is rarely (never?) the case.Believe it or not both can happen. I never said natural selection was not capable of allowing living things to survive and reproduce. I was saying that it is not as all powerful as some say. It is also unable to weed out diseases because of various reasons explained which can also spread throughout the population.
Only if you assume that evolution had to produce this particular biosphere.But it is because the probability of evolution creating the biosphere is vanishingly small that points to there being specific conditions, information, language, codes etc which infers to it being specified and complex.
But that's not how it works.
Really? Given that you have absolutely no idea what the probability space was, how can you make such a confident assertion?But it is because the probability of evolution creating the biosphere is vanishingly small
And there you go again with this whole specified complexity assertion.that points to there being specific conditions, information, language, codes etc which infers to it being specified and complex.
It seems that Speedwell agrees that it is unlikely. Yesterday at 11:14 PM#37. The probability space for producing what we see today including intelligent beings has already been determined with the fine tuning of the universe to produce the earth and intelligent beings. The probability of the many physical constants falling within the narrow settings that they occupy as opposed to the vast possible other settings is around 1 in 10 to the power of 234. That's a 10 with 234 zeros.Really? Given that you have absolutely no idea what the probability space was, how can you make such a confident assertion?
Ok but besides what Dembski says do you think there is complexity and specified info in say the fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life. As I said specified complexity is not rocket science. If you look at the fine tuning of the universe we know that there is a lot of complex info involved. We also know that the physical parameters have to be a specific setting and not any setting to produce intelligent life. Do you think there a protein is complex and needs to have specific info to function.And there you go again with this whole specified complexity assertion.
Specified complexity is not a valid concept as defined by Dembski et al. Why do you ignore this fact every time I point it out?
This is a common misconception that people have when I bring up or question the standard theory. They assume that I am denying evolution (natural selection) entirely. There is no middle ground either it should be fully supported or I am accused on completely denying things. That is not the case and you can go over all my posts and see that. I am saying that despite natural selection living things still become diseased. I am not saying this because I think that selection should produce perfection. Rather to give some perspective and balance. The same with how variation is produced from non-random processes and how selection plays a minimal role in that. From what I understand this is a contentious issue and it provokes reactions as the papers I have posted state. People are defensive in protecting the traditional theory of evolution and don't like any challenges.And yet the population remains, reproduces and evolves. It as if you think natural selection should somehow achieve, or certainly approach perfection. That is rarely (never?) the case.
You note that evolution is unable to weed out diseases.
Has Intelligent Design weeded out diseases?
Has the Creator weeded out diseases?
Why then would you expect natural selection to do so?
All I am trying to explain is that evolution is more complex than many say. Too much natural emphasis is placed on selection and random mutations. I have supplied ample support for this for example how do you explain the above papers and how they say natural selection is not quantitatively dominant or even sufficient for evolving the genetic networks in complex organisms. I may explain things badly as I am not the best at grammar but the papers speak for themselves and yet no one addresses this. These papers are not from religious sites and are from mainstream journals and scientists. Lets get some response to what the papers are saying rather than focusing on the man rather than the ball.Why would you imply that evolutionists think this would be an inevitable? This is the sort of thing, I think, that led Vir Optimus to suggest you do not debate in good faith. I suspect that is incorrect. Rather, your arguments are ill formed, your challenges misdirected and your knowledge uncertain. That creates the impression that you are seeking to mislead. It is frustrating for those seeking to debate with you in an effective way.
Believe it or not both can happen. I never said natural selection was not capable of allowing living things to survive and reproduce. I was saying that it is not as all powerful as some say. It is also unable to weed out diseases because of various reasons explained which can also spread throughout the population.
Sorry for the confusion I was not talking about whether a post hoc probability stands for a past event. I was saying that this is not how things like for example the fine tuning argument work. Despite us being here that does not address the odds of that happening. There are many specific conditions that need to be right as opposed to many other possibilities that are wrong and producing no life, strange life, hostile conditions etcNo, that is exactly how it works. Post hoc probability of an event after it has already occurred is always 1.
Then why do they put odds on the fine tuning argument for example. Even one of the parameters being the cosmological constant the odds are something like 1 possibility in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,Remember, probability is just about measuring the likelihood of a particular event occurring. If the event in question has already occurred then the likelihood of its occurrence is 100% because it already has occurred.
Then why would those papers I posted earlier say when it comes to the genetic networks that build complex organisms natural selection is quantitatively minimal or even insufficient.Of course natural selection is not the only thing happening. There's also sexual selection for one. You won't find anyone who understands evolution saying that natural selection is the only thing there is. But it is a very important part, I would say easily the most important part.
So you are acknowledging that there is specified and complex info if we can show that certain situations such as the conditions for intelligent life on earth had to be a specific way. Does not the fine tuning argument show this.Only if you assume that evolution had to produce this particular biosphere.
So in your opinion how can this be done. How can we detect design.But that is not how design is usually detected. As pointed out, design is detected by prior experience and indications of agency, not probability.
Despite this assertion, the probability space is not known. The post hoc view you quote is irrelevant. If you don't understand that, find a credible source which says otherwise.It seems that Speedwell agrees that it is unlikely. Yesterday at 11:14 PM#37. The probability space for producing what we see today including intelligent beings has already been determined with the fine tuning of the universe to produce the earth and intelligent beings. The probability of the many physical constants falling within the narrow settings that they occupy as opposed to the vast possible other settings is around 1 in 10 to the power of 234. That's a 10 with 234 zeros.
That's a lot of noise avoiding the issue: There is no such thing as specified complexity.Ok but besides what Dembski says do you think there is complexity and specified info in say the fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life. As I said specified complexity is not rocket science. If you look at the fine tuning of the universe we know that there is a lot of complex info involved. We also know that the physical parameters have to be a specific setting and not any setting to produce intelligent life. Do you think there a protein is complex and needs to have specific info to function.
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation
George Montañez1 , Robert J. Marks II2 , Jorge Fernandez3 and John C. Sanford4§
A computer scientist, an engineer, a clown with a Christian diploma mill 'doctorate', and the guy who thinks that evolutionary genetics postulates that new genes must form one beneficial mutation after another, in order....
Most interesting - Fernandez lists his affiliation as "FMS Foundation, 7160 Stone Hill Rd. Livonia, NY 14487".
FMS Foundation is "Feed My Sheep Foundation" - which is listed as a 'biological research' tax free foundation (seems fishy), c/o John Sanford. No tax filings since 2017. One of its listed sources of income was 'workman's comp claims.' Sounds like a scam for creationists to make some money and sound official.
Anyway, 10 citations in 6 years - 6 of which were other articles by Sanford or Marks. 1 by Moonie creationist Jon wells, and 1 by some dude with the 'Creation Research Society'. Oh, and 5 of those were articles in a creationist book on 'information.'
Bottom line, I won't waste my time reading it.
No need for that - the shadiness of the scammers involved was sufficient to make their claims suspect. Plus - open access journal....You forgot to include that the University where the research was done is based in Waco the home of a David Koresh and the Branch Davidians lol.
No. In any case, you can't show it. You really have no idea what range of physical conditions will allow life to develop and diversify. No one does. That is one of the reasons science is so interested in discovering if there is life elsewhere than the Earth. In any case, the supposed "fine tuning" of the environment is not the topic. We are talking about the mechanism by which life diversifies and develops in an environment where it is possible.So you are acknowledging that there is specified and complex info if we can show that certain situations such as the conditions for intelligent life on earth had to be a specific way. Does not the fine tuning argument show this.
It's not my "opinion;" that's how design is detected by everyone who looks for it.So in your opinion how can this be done. How can we detect design.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?