A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[Kylie]

Then why is it called theistic evolution

Because some people want to believe that God uses evolution as a tool so they can accept science and hold onto their religious beliefs that Goddidit, even though there's no reason to assume God uses evolution apart from the fact that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

 

[Kylie]

I am assuming you mean the rules of evolution. So as far as theistic evolution supports are concerned would not it be logical that they see those rules as having direction and purpose rather than no purpose and chance.

But if there is direction and purpose, then surely there is some final result intended. If God is capable of anything, why not start with the final result and save the billions of years required to get there with evolution?

 

[Kylie]

It has to use design as most scientists acknowledge that there is design in life.

Citation required.

As stated earlier ID is not creationism. Creationism uses supernatural creation by God. ID uses science and does not include the supernatural or mention God. It cannot as this would contradict the scientific stand it takes.

Then what do they claim the intelligence is? What possible answer is there other than God?

 

[VirOptimus]

It has to use design as most scientists acknowledge that there is design in life. They use words that describe design like code, language, systems, programs etc. They just don't attribute this to God. Dawkins said evolution gives the appearance of design in life. But how do we know this is not really design. What walks like a duck is usually a duck. It seems silly to see something that looks designed in life such as a living cell and say it does not have all the hallmarks of design. It is like saying a sports car is not designed.
As stated earlier ID is not creationism. Creationism uses supernatural creation by God. ID uses science and does not include the supernatural or mention God. It cannot as this would contradict the scientific stand it takes.

Wrong on both accounts. Learn the basics.

 

[VirOptimus]

For supporters of theistic evolution it is God. So though they support ToE they believe it could not have happened without God intervening someway. The issue for evolution is as time goes by we are finding more and more signs of direction in how life changes. It is not all about blind chance as ToE claims. We are finding that explaining things in adaptive terms (natural selection) is not enough to explain what we are finding with how life has evolved and changes.

No, you are (again) wrong and misrepresent science. Why lie for jesus?

 

[xianghua]

I don't know -

i think that we can get a good estimation. if we are talking about 10 genes for a minimal electric oragn then we can calculate the chance of geting 10 different genes in a specific way to from the electric organ out of 3 billion bases.

My how you enjoy shifting goalposts!

it seems that you changed the subject.

 

[xianghua]

Because the relative proportion of functional versus non-functional sequences is something completely different from the number of mutations required to produce a functional sequence.

why? if i say that one out of 10 different sequences will be functional. is it true that one out of 10 mutations in general will give us a functional sequence? its basically the same since the sequences is effected by the mutations.

There is no basis to assume that a single "part" (whatever that is supposed to mean) will be non-functional on its own.

actually there is. knock out experiments for instance show us that if we remove parts from a system (even a single part out of 30 in the case of the flagellum) we get no function at all. so a single part isnt functional by empirical experiments.

In the case of evolution we have far more than billions of mutations to talk about.

correct but irrelevant. first lets see if we agree with my main notion and after that we will continue to talk about the rest.

 

[stevevw]

Because some people want to believe that God uses evolution as a tool so they can accept science and hold onto their religious beliefs that Goddidit, even though there's no reason to assume God uses evolution apart from the fact that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

But even if the evidence for evolution is overwhelming this says nothing about whether God could have used evolution as part of his creation. Evolution is about survival of the fittest and not the arrival of the fittest.

 

[Ophiolite]

. Evolution is about survival of the fittest and not the arrival of the fittest.

That's cute, but what - in scientific terms - do you mean by it. (Remember that "survival of the fittest" was not coined by Darwin.)

 

[stevevw]

Citation required.

If you read what I said in context then you would not need to ask for a citation. I said that scientists acknowledge design in life but don't attribute this to God. This is supported by the words they use when describing things like the cell and DNA such as machines, codes, language, systems and programs. These are all descriptions of design and are used commonly when describing design. They just don't attribute God to that design. But they cannot pretend that there are not design qualities within something like a living cell with its machine like mechanisms for example as that would be denying the obvious. When is a machine not classified as being designed. Here is support for mainstream scientists acknowledging that life is designed.
Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design Without Designer
Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design Without Designer - In the Light of Evolution - NCBI Bookshelf
There Is 'Design' In Nature, Biologist Argues
There Is 'Design' In Nature, Biologist Argues

Then what do they claim the intelligence is? What possible answer is there other than God?

ID is classed as a science. Whether you believe it is a science or not is not the point. Because ID regards itself as a science it cannot pursue questions about a creator God as this is a non scientific issue and therefore something that does not belong and contradicts the science. You can determine that life is designed without having to support that there is a designer. It is the same for saying that a home has been designed without being concerned about who the designer is. This is all ID is concerned about.

 

[stevevw]

But if there is direction and purpose, then surely there is some final result intended. If God is capable of anything, why not start with the final result and save the billions of years required to get there with evolution?

Theistic evolution is a position taken by believers in God which incorporates natural sciences. But as we know there are many who do believe that God created life and bypassed the need for Darwin's theory. So there are those who start with the final result and bypass the billions of years to get where theistic supports think evolution has arrived today or to around 6,000 years ago.

My point was that even for supporters of theistic evolution there must be some signs of Gods creative influence in what we see. Otherwise we may as well drop God out of the equation. It makes sense that if God involved himself in the evolution of life then he must have incorporated some processes that are not relying on blind chance as with Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutations). So therefore we should find processes that show direction and intention that helps life change and evolve. In other words from the very beginning it was guaranteed that intelligent life that could have relationship with him was going to happen just as it has and not be subject to a risky process that could never guarantee this..

 

[VirOptimus]

If you read what I said in context then you would not need to ask for a citation. I said that scientists acknowledge design in life but don't attribute this to God. This is supported by the words they use when describing things like the cell and DNA such as machines, codes, language, systems and programs. These are all descriptions of design and are used commonly when describing design. They just don't attribute God to that design. But they cannot pretend that there are not design qualities within something like a living cell with its machine like mechanisms for example as that would be denying the obvious. When is a machine not classified as being designed. Here is support for mainstream scientists acknowledging that life is designed.
Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design Without Designer
Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design Without Designer - In the Light of Evolution - NCBI Bookshelf
There Is 'Design' In Nature, Biologist Argues
There Is 'Design' In Nature, Biologist Argues

ID is classed as a science. Whether you believe it is a science or not is not the point. Because ID regards itself as a science it cannot pursue questions about a creator God as this is a non scientific issue and therefore something that does not belong and contradicts the science. You can determine that life is designed without having to support that there is a designer. It is the same for saying that a home has been designed without being concerned about who the designer is. This is all ID is concerned about.

ID is not science. Its religion. Its even been proven in court.

There is no scientific support for design. You misunderstanding terms to shoehorn it in does not impress.

 

[VirOptimus]

Theistic evolution is a position taken by believers in God which incorporates natural sciences. But as we know there are many who do believe that God created life and bypassed the need for Darwin's theory. So there are those who start with the final result and bypass the billions of years to get where theistic supports think evolution has arrived today or to around 6,000 years ago.

My point was that even for supporters of theistic evolution there must be some signs of Gods creative influence in what we see. Otherwise we may as well drop God out of the equation. It makes sense that if God involved himself in the evolution of life then he must have incorporated some processes that are not relying on blind chance as with Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutations). So therefore we should find processes that show direction and intention that helps life change and evolve. In other words from the very beginning it was guaranteed that intelligent life that could have relationship with him was going to happen just as it has and not be subject to a risky process that could never guarantee this..

Begging the question is inherintly unscientific.

 

[stevevw]

One for one as my prediction was true.

We had this debate several years ago.

You still dont understand the article, I suggest upu write the authors with your interpration.

But I know you wont as its religion for you, not science.

OK my claim was that natural selection was being credited with some changes when there were other mechanisms that allowed living things to change. The evidence for this was in the paper which stated in plain English

SET explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

I do not need to write to the author to explain this to me as I understand it quite well. Developmental processes and in this case developmental bias can produce certain morphological outcomes as opposed to any outcome as proposed by evolution. In the case above the author is questioning how the similar outcomes for convergent evolution are based on extraordinary coincidence through Darwin's theory where natural selection acting on random mutations happened to select similar forms through adaptations over and over again. Because we are seeing a lot of convergent evolution even down to the genetic level the author is saying that rather than this being solely about extraordinary coincidences that developmental bias is producing these similar forms and natural selection comes in later to consolidate things.

In this sense these morphological changes are more directed rather than blind chance happening to line up over and over. But some attribute the entire morphological change to natural selection only. The above example shows that the original form was produced by the developmental process and not selection. Natural selection came in after the trait was produced to refine and consolidate things.

 

[VirOptimus]

OK my claim was that natural selection was being credited with some changes when there were other mechanisms that allowed living things to change. The evidence for this was in the paper which stated in plain English

SET explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

I do not need to write to the author to explain this to me as I understand it quite well. Developmental processes and in this case developmental bias can produce certain morphological outcomes as opposed to any outcome as proposed by evolution. In the case above the author is questioning how the similar outcomes for convergent evolution are based on extraordinary coincidence through Darwin's theory where natural selection acting on random mutations happened to select similar forms through adaptations over and over again. Because we are seeing a lot of convergent evolution even down to the genetic level the author is saying that rather than this being solely about extraordinary coincidences that developmental bias is producing these similar forms and natural selection comes in later to consolidate things.

In this sense these morphological changes are more directed rather than blind chance happening to line up over and over. But some attribute the entire morphological change to natural selection only. The above example shows that the original form was produced by the developmental process and not selection. Natural selection came in after the trait was produced to refine and consolidate things.

You really dont understand.

Natural selection is the overwhelming force in the ToE, now, there may be other things, other mechanisms that also effect evolution on the margins.

You have no scientific support for your idea that natural selection isnt how the ToE functions and no support for magic (god(s)) is the ToE.

You really should write the authors as you misrepresent their work.

But you wont as this is religion for you and you arent debating in good faith.

 

[stevevw]

ID is not science. Its religion. Its even been proven in court.

There is no scientific support for design. You misunderstanding terms to shoehorn it in does not impress.

It is not I that specify the criteria for ID but those who founded the idea. Primarily it is scientists who present peer reviewed science about ID in life. They don't mention God or religion or supernatural ideas as this would be anti-scientific. Why would they do this anyway as this would be an obvious undermining of the very thing they are trying to support. Anyway I will let the founders tell you what ID is about.

ID holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it disputes Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

Thus, ID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries and our experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. Unlike creationism, ID is an inference from biological data.
Intelligent design is not creationism

 

[VirOptimus]

It is not I that specify the criteria for ID but those who founded the idea. Primarily it is scientists who present peer reviewed science about ID in life. They don't mention God or religion or supernatural ideas as this would be anti-scientific. Why would they do this anyway as this would be an obvious undermining of the very thing they are trying to support. Anyway I will let the founders tell you what ID is about.

ID holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it disputes Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

Thus, ID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries and our experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. Unlike creationism, ID is an inference from biological data.
Intelligent design is not creationism

No, there are no ID articles in serious peer-review science as its religion.

ID really is creationism.

Evolution wins Pennsylvania trial : Nature News

 

[stevevw]

That's cute, but what - in scientific terms - do you mean by it. (Remember that "survival of the fittest" was not coined by Darwin.)

Survival of the fittest was coined by Darwin

The phrase “arrival of the fittest” is seen and heard from time to time, often contraposed with the phrase “survival of the fittest” (due to Herbert Spencer, but adopted by Darwin in the fifth and sixth editions of the Origin).

and the entire quote was coined by Hugo de Vries a pioneer in genetics.

A few decades after Darwin, Hugo de Vries expressed it best when he said that ‘natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest’

The phrase has been used many times by different people. There is a recent book out based on the subject. Arrival of the Fittest: Solving Evolution’s Greatest Puzzle (2014), by Andreas Wagner. They all are along the same line that natural selection can account for the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.
Whence “Arrival of the Fittest”?

 

[Ophiolite]

Survival of the fittest was coined by Darwin

The phrase “arrival of the fittest” is seen and heard from time to time, often contraposed with the phrase “survival of the fittest” (due to Herbert Spencer, but adopted by Darwin in the fifth and sixth editions of the Origin).

Steve, I have started to have serious doubts about continuing this discussion with you. Why? Well, here is a classic example:
1. I note that Darwin did not coin the phrase "survival of the fittest"
2. You respond by asserting that Darwin did coin the phrase.
3. You then produce a link that states quite clearly (and correctly) that the phrase originated with Spencer.

i.e., not only are you wrong, but you present as evidence in support of your claim a link that proves you wrong. Do you see why I have doubts about further discussion?

and the entire quote was coined by Hugo de Vries a pioneer in genetics.

A few decades after Darwin, Hugo de Vries expressed it best when he said that ‘natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest’

The phrase has been used many times by different people. There is a recent book out based on the subject. Arrival of the Fittest: Solving Evolution’s Greatest Puzzle (2014), by Andreas Wagner. They all are along the same line that natural selection can account for the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.
Whence “Arrival of the Fittest”?

All well and good, now please answer my actual question. I've added emphasis to hep you focus.

That's cute, but what - in scientific terms - do you mean by it?​

 

[Speedwell]

No direction and purpose are not exclusively religious ideas. They can be found in any area of life. If I am going on a trip there can be a reason such as going to see a friend (purpose) and I need to know how to get there (direction). A machine can be designed to make parts (purpose) and needs to be programmed (direction). Direction and purpose can be supported by the facts for the examples above...

But only indirectly and because we know those machines were created by humans.

and we can find support for this with living things as well.

That's the point: we don't.