Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[Speedwell]

The utter impossibility of it happening any other way. When the odds are so staggeringly against something it enters the realm of the impossible.

Odds which you haven't the faintest notion of how to even begin calculating.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If evolution can't support itself with details why should creationists?

Evolution theory is a solid model with an overwhelming amount of evidence and a bazillion testable predictions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here's how I see such details.

One sees a beautiful picture (of whatever). The creationist believes it was completed at one time by an artist. The evolutionist cuts the picture into millions of pieces and claims the picture was produced one piece at a time over millions of years.

But if evolution as it is presented is true the picture has to be literally ground to dust and assembled a molecule at a time, not in great big chunks as is presented in most descriptions of the process.

That's why I assert that explanations of the theory are simplistic.

Your analogy is completely absurd and only exposes how ignorant you are on the subject.

Sorry... this is not meant to be offensive or anything... It's just blatantly obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here's how I see such details.

One sees a beautiful picture (of whatever). The creationist believes it was completed at one time by an artist. The evolutionist cuts the picture into millions of pieces and claims the picture was produced one piece at a time over millions of years.

But if evolution as it is presented is true the picture has to be literally ground to dust and assembled a molecule at a time, not in great big chunks as is presented in most descriptions of the process.

That's why I assert that explanations of the theory are simplistic.

Yoohooo, Earth to OldWiseGuy . . . .

How does the TWIN NESTED HIERARCHY lead to these conclusions? You claimed that you are using the same evidence as evolutionists are using. One of those pieces of evidence is the twin nested hierarchy. Please show how you use this piece of evidence to reach your conclusions. Otherwise, admit that you aren't using the same evidence.

 

[Freodin]

Here's how I see such details.

One sees a beautiful picture (of whatever). The creationist believes it was completed at one time by an artist. The evolutionist cuts the picture into millions of pieces and claims the picture was produced one piece at a time over millions of years.

But if evolution as it is presented is true the picture has to be literally ground to dust and assembled a molecule at a time, not in great big chunks as is presented in most descriptions of the process.

That's why I assert that explanations of the theory are simplistic.

Your explanation is, well, if not incorrect, then at least incomplete.
Creationists don't see "a beautiful picture that was completed at one time by an artist"... they see something that they claim once was a beautiful picture which has been smashed up by other creations of this same artist, by his command and leave. They claim that some parts of the current image (the ones they like) are "original" and other parts (the ones they don't like) "perversions" introduced by these outside forces... or even by the picture itself!

Even creationists cannot deny the the picture is changing, that it isn't was it was before. They just deny that this picture could have become what it is now without first having been this brilliant masterpiece that they haven't even seen once before.

 

[Kylie]

And how did the first species come about, if not by abiogenesis?

Once again, it seems that we must point out that evolution is about how species change and develop.

It says nothing about where life came from.

What you are arguing here is like saying that a discussion about car design must include mining because that's where the metals come from.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What you are arguing here is like saying that a discussion about car design must include mining because that's where the metals come from.

Actually that is correct. Without mining there is no metal, and thus no car to design. Everything is connected. You have proved my point that evolution is much more complicated than even scientists will admit. In other words you must gather all the resources needed for evolution to succeed. No part or process is too small (did I imply irreducible again)?

 

[Kylie]

...

And did you have something to say about that?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yoohooo, Earth to OldWiseGuy . . . .

How does the TWIN NESTED HIERARCHY lead to these conclusions? You claimed that you are using the same evidence as evolutionists are using. One of those pieces of evidence is the twin nested hierarchy. Please show how you use this piece of evidence to reach your conclusions. Otherwise, admit that you aren't using the same evidence.

"This fits easily with the idea of common descent, but is not what would be expected from special creation (although it isn't completely at odds with creation either, as the creator(s) could create life in any configuration imaginable)."
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Nested_Hierarchy

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your analogy is completely absurd and only exposes how ignorant you are on the subject.

Sorry... this is not meant to be offensive or anything... It's just blatantly obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about.

The problem is that you don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And did you have something to say about that?

Sorry. It didn't post.

Every part is important and necessary if a car is to be produced. Without mining metal there is no use in designing a car. Same goes for organisms. The different tissues needed don't just appear out of thin air as evolution teaches. There must be a very complex process involved. So complex that it would be deemed impossible if examined honestly. In other words, "You can't get there from here."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Odds which you haven't the faintest notion of how to even begin calculating.

Yes I do. Calculate the number of successful modifications needed to go from a single-cell organism to a really big critter like a whale or a brontosaurus via natural selection. Also needed are the odds of the ancillary support systems needed to aid in this, which would include the number of modification they would need as well. That should keep you busy for awhile. I'm guessing the odds are incalculable, therefore practically impossible. The equation would likely stretch to the moon and back (depending on the font size of course).

We can fall back on the humorous expressions as well.

"The odds of evolution being true are about the same as an explosion in a junk yard producing a Boeing 747 airliner.

or

"The odds of evolution being true are about the same as a monkey with a typewriter producing the Encyclopedia Britannica."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is that you don't know what I'm talking about.

I actually do, because you really aren't the first to present me with such a misrepresentation of evolution.

You see, we don't have just one "picture". We have trillions of pictures. Pictures that reproduce with variation and that are in competition with eachother in a quest for survival and reproduction.

Pictures that fall into a nested hierarchy as a result of this quest.

That's the mistake of your analogy.

Instead of looking at the entire tree of life, you just grab a single bunny (= one picture) and ignore all the others.

So, to continue with your picture analogy, the real picture isn't just a single bunny. The real picture is ALL life. The bunny is just a single pixel on that picture.
So creationists are focussing on a single pixel, and ignoring the big picture.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes I do. Calculate the number of successful modifications needed to go from a single-cell organism to a really big critter like a whale or a brontosaurus via natural selection. Also needed are the odds of the ancillary support systems needed to aid in this, which would include the number of modification they would need as well. That should keep you busy for awhile. I'm guessing the odds are incalculable, therefore practically impossible. The equation would likely stretch to the moon and back (depending on the font size of course).

We can fall back on the humorous expressions as well.

"The odds of evolution being true are about the same as an explosion in a junk yard producing a Boeing 747 airliner.

or

"The odds of evolution being true are about the same as a monkey with a typewriter producing the Encyclopedia Britannica."

The problem with this line of reasoning, is that it completely ignores the role of natural selection, as it assumes that evolution is a completely random process.
It also ignores the gradual nature of the process, as in reality small changes accumulate over generations wich over time results in big changes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I actually do, because you really aren't the first to present me with such a misrepresentation of evolution.

You see, we don't have just one "picture". We have trillions of pictures. Pictures that reproduce with variation and that are in competition with eachother in a quest for survival and reproduction.

Pictures that fall into a nested hierarchy as a result of this quest.

That's the mistake of your analogy.

Instead of looking at the entire tree of life, you just grab a single bunny (= one picture) and ignore all the others.

So, to continue with your picture analogy, the real picture isn't just a single bunny. The real picture is ALL life. The bunny is just a single pixel on that picture.
So creationists are focussing on a single pixel, and ignoring the big picture.

It's your trillions of pictures, acting in mysterious concert to produce my big picture that I reject.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The problem with this line of reasoning, is that it completely ignores the role of natural selection, as it assumes that evolution is a completely random process.
It also ignores the gradual nature of the process, as in reality small changes accumulate over generations wich over time results in big changes.

Once again, I don't think you can get here from there, i.e., a single-cell organism surviving millions of years of cataclysm and becoming a huge complex organism like a brontosaurus, whale, or elephant, through some mysterious self-contained force. Never mind that same single-cell organism becoming millions of different creatures as well. It's just too fantastic.

 

[Freodin]

It's your trillions of pictures, acting in mysterious concert to produce my big picture that I reject.

"In mysterious concert"? Weren't you the one who said that "it is all connected"?

Well, you can deny the results of "mysterious concert" and attribute it all to "an artist".

Though I'd like to know how you would defend making a single post here.

 

[Freodin]

Once again, I don't think you can get here from there, i.e., a single-cell organism surviving millions of years of cataclysm and becoming a huge complex organism like a brontosaurus, whale, or elephant, through some mysterious self-contained force. Never mind that same single-cell organism becoming millions of different creatures as well. It's just too fantastic.

What?

Perhaps you should brush up your knowledge of biology first before posting.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"In mysterious concert"? Weren't you the one who said that "it is all connected"?

It is, but not through evolution.

Well, you can deny the results of "mysterious concert" and attribute it all to "an artist".

The Great Artist: God.

Though I'd like to know how you would defend making a single post here.

?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What?

Perhaps you should brush up your knowledge of biology first before posting.

Biology is a valid study of life. I don't consider evolution when I study biology. When I study a bird I don't consider the fictitious critter that it once was. A cardinal is and always was.......a cardinal.