Evolution is mathematically impossible

[Queller]

My 'game' is to present my opinion, not change yours. Arguing from incredulity is a valid argument in the case of evolution, regardless of IQ.

Argument from Incredulity is never a valid argument style. That's why it's called a logical fallacy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Argument from Incredulity is never a valid argument style. That's why it's called a logical fallacy.

My incredulity is a conclusion, not a starting point. I gave evolution a fair shake but it came up wanting.

 

[Queller]

Hey hey storm who is not my dear. ;p

Also i do not mean you any disrespect to you. I bring you love and an offer from our Lord Jesus Christ.

Anyways iam not offended here. I do not readily trust strangers on the internet either and i agree with you, Iam a nobody to you. A nobody who has accepted Jesus.

My question is why do you trust one set of strangers compared to this stranger - me?

Also what have they got that makes you have faith in them and not in Jesus Christ?

What makes you think you can't have both?

Are you suggesting i lack education? In regards to science, what should i know?

What do you believe i need correcting about?

So you put your trust in these scientists because they always seeking to be shown they are wrong?

Because that's the way science gets better, by seeking constant correction and validity.

What hapoens if i seek the same?

Are you willing to accept you could be wrong? What would it take for you to acknowledge it?

Could you give me more, i feel this reason is just a statement and lacking?

@Shemjaza may have beaten you to it but im more interested in your response.

Now we are getting somewhere inperfect inheritance and reproduction.

Please excuse me. I was searching for information to the concept of imperfect inheritance and could not find a thing. Lets explore this concept.

What is imperfect inheritance and how does it not relate to machines? Is imperfect inheritance a supposition or a proved concept?

Imperfect inheritance is simply mutations in DNA that offspring have that their parents do not. You have approximately 60 mutations in your DNA that you don't share with your parents.

We're All Mutants: The Average Human Has 60 New Genetic Mutations

It's most definitely a proven concept.

 

[Queller]

Yep. Every hour of the day i benefit from 1000's of years of human advancement and discovery.

Soon i will have a bath. Today i used an instrument to detect moisture, also i used a hammer and some electricity to power my tools.

Before and after i drove my work car and had a burito for lunch. Tonight i will watch tv, have meat and veges for dinner - i love boiled veges - play some guitar (i rock!!!) Then go to bed (sleepy time ).

Please excuse my bluntness, what point are you trying to make?

That you trust scientists hundreds of times every day, up to and including with your life, but all of a sudden you don't trust them when it comes to evolution.

Don't you see any dissonance there?

 

[Queller]

How can a process be random? Is the ageing process random?

Yes, it is. These men are both 75. Do you think the ageing process has been identical in both of them?

 

[Queller]

My incredulity is a conclusion, not a starting point.

That still doesn't make it a valid form of argument.

I gave evolution a fair shake

Given the times I've interacted with you and all of your responses that I have read, I don't believe this is true.

but it came up wanting.

What would it take to convince you evolutionary theory is correct?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What would it take to convince you evolutionary theory is correct?

Prove that the eye wasn't purposefully designed.

 

[Speedwell]

Prove that the eye wasn't purposefully designed.

View attachment 253498

Impossible to do. Design is an unfalsifiable proposition. Design can sometimes be inferred to be present, but it can never be ruled out. There is no evidence that it was designed, but you can't say not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Impossible to do. Design is an unfalsifiable proposition. Design can sometimes be inferred to be present, but it can never be ruled out. There is no evidence that it was designed, but you can't say not.

The greatest evidence for design is the improbability that it came about by any other means.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The greatest evidence for design is the improbability that it came about by any other means.

Except it's not.

 

[Speedwell]

The greatest evidence for design is the improbability that it came about by any other means.

That is a mathematical claim. Let's see your math.

In fact, the interacting stochastic processes which make up the biosphere have more than sufficient information processing capacity to produce the functional complexity of the eye.

 

[pitabread]

The greatest evidence for design is the improbability that it came about by any other means.

Design is not the null hypothesis in comparison to other means. Furthermore every single probability calculation I've seen trying to argue for design are usually don't have enough information to make them meaningful.

If this is design's "greatest evidence", it speaks very poorly of the arguments for design.

 

[Speedwell]

What it boils down to is "The eye is so complicated that it could not possibly have come about by a natural process which I deny (but do not really understand) so it actually must have come about by "design" (a process which I can't explain.) That's all they've got.

 

[dad]

I have no power or authority to force anyone to take vaccines, nor would I want to.

Nor would people obey anyhow.

I think education & incentivisation is better. If I could, I'd arrange it so that being vaccinated was a significant financial advantage (i.e. make refusing vaccination a significant financial disadvantage). In some places, kids are only allowed in school if they've been vaccinated. It seems unfair, but it's up to the parents.

Bribery. OK. Maybe you could follow up with bribing folks to kill their babies?

It's simply a question of relative risk - it would be irrational to decide to drive to work instead of taking the train simply because people can be killed in train crashes - trains are far safer than cars. Refusing vaccines because of the remote chance of adverse effects is similarly irrational.

Guess choice is not something you would give the peasants. Frumy knows best?

Red herring. Bacteriophages are not drugs, and they attack bacteria, not human cells. The clue is in the name.

One year they think attacking something is great, maybe the next year they find it is not so great. One year they are claiming non coding DNA is junk, last weeks news is an example of how that idea went the way of dinos.
Study uncovers genetic switches that control process of whole-body regeneration
"Using three-banded panther worms to test the process, Srivastava and Andrew Gehrke, a post-doctoral fellow working in her lab, found that a section of non-coding DNA controls the activation of a "master control gene" called early growth response, or EGR. Once active, EGR controls a number of other processes by switching other genes on or off."

Study uncovers genetic switches that control process of whole-body regeneration

Direct experience is a poor and biased guide to risk.

I take that with a grain of salt. People in WW2 found Hitler was taking over countries. That direct experience did show their was risks.

When the health risks of smoking were first revealed, people said, "Oh, but my grandad smoked 50 a day and was healthy for 95 years" - but that is no guide to the risk. That's why large studies are done.

Not sure if it's true, but I have heard some folks in China and elsewhere preach that smoking is beneficial. I asked one old guy in Canada why he didn't give it up since the doctor suggested it due to a heart attack and etc...and he told me that all his friends who gave it up died shortly after! He thought it was healthier to keep smoking.

In my view, vaccinations that demonstrably provide significant public protection from serious disease should be mandatory. YMMV.

For the most part I disagree. I think big brother can't be trusted generally. I think soon the bible says a procedure will be mandatory for example, and we will all be told similar arguments to yours. 'Oh, because of the atomic blasts and the financial meltdown that happened (or whatever things happen that are the excuse) , we need security. So all people will be required to get the mark of the beast in their arm or forehead. The bible goes on to tell us that this will eventually result in horrible grievous sores. And of course hundreds of millions of people will go underground and refuse that procedure. So we will have to agree to disagree on blind trust in big brother.

 

[dad]

Design is not the null hypothesis in comparison to other means. Furthermore every single probability calculation I've seen trying to argue for design are usually don't have enough information to make them meaningful.

If this is design's "greatest evidence", it speaks very poorly of the arguments for design.

Look at the basis of what is supposed to make something probable in your studies. --religion.

 

[pitabread]

Look at the basis of what is supposed to make something probable in your studies. --religion.

Huh?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What it boils down to is "The eye is so complicated that it could not possibly have come about by a natural process which I deny (but do not really understand) so it actually must have come about by "design" (a process which I can't explain.) That's all they've got.

That's all I need.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Design is not the null hypothesis in comparison to other means. Furthermore every single probability calculation I've seen trying to argue for design are usually don't have enough information to make them meaningful.

If this is design's "greatest evidence", it speaks very poorly of the arguments for design.

And yet science uses the original pattern when trying to repair or replace what has been designed.

 

[pitabread]

And yet science uses the original pattern when trying to repair or replace what has been designed.

Huh?