Evolution is mathematically impossible

[OldWiseGuy]

Huh?

I'm going in soon for an eyeball lens replacement (cataracts). The lens they will put in mimics the original one. Organ transplants are the 'original design' as well. Even mechanical implants, like the pacemaker, are intended to stabilize the original. They are even trying to 'grow' new replacements organically to actually replicate the originals. The finest optical instruments are still evaluated using human vision. As 'flawed' as we are we are still the 'gold standard' of design.

 

[pitabread]

I'm going in soon for an eyeball lens replacement (cataracts). The lens they will put in mimics the original one.

Good luck with the surgery.

Though I'm still not sure of the point of your prior response to my post.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Good luck with the surgery.

Though I'm still not sure of the point of your prior response to my post.

Revisit my last post. I added some stuff.

 

[pitabread]

Revisit my last post. I added some stuff.

Okay. That doesn't have anything to do with what I posted about design not being the null hypothesis, nor that any probability calculations thereof don't have enough information to be meaningful.

 

[Queller]

Prove that the eye wasn't purposefully designed.

And that's why I don't believe you've ever given evolution a "fair shake". You don't understand how science works because you ask for evidence of something that is impossible to disprove.

 

[Queller]

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

On what math do you base this claim? Show your work.

 

[Queller]

That's all I need.

Then why are you here? You don't understand or care about science and there's apparently nothing short of God Himself telling you evolutionary theory is correct that would change your mind.

 

[Queller]

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

Of course we do. Why would we design something completely different that what is already existing? If we did whatever we designed would be incompatible with the existing framework in which it will be used.

That doesn't mean the existing design is the best it could be, quite the opposite in many cases.

 

[the iconoclast]

No, I 'gave up' because I recognise someone who's disingenuous and actually isn't interested in a discussion. I.E. You.

Hey hey not my dear

Im very interested in a discussion. Motivated like you wouldn't believe.

Its you who does not want to continue and cannot. Dont try and pass it off as anything else.

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

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?

Hey hey queller

Wow 6 replies, i feel very wanted!!! Im in too many discussions right now to take anymore on at the moment.

Ill come looking for you soon

Cheers you beautiful creature and God bless

 

[OldWiseGuy]

On what math do you base this claim? Show your work.

Science is withholding the data I need to construct the equation.

 

[dad]

Huh?

You said this

" Furthermore every single probability calculation I've seen trying to argue for design are usually don't have enough information to make them meaningful."

Explain what makes something probable in your calculations.

 

[sfs]

So what does this mean when we consider the word random ie to be made, done, or happened without method or conscious decision?

That's not what 'random' means in science. 'Random' means that the specific outcome of a process or event is unpredictable. From Randomness: "Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or "trials") is predictable. For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy." An example of a random natural process is a rainstorm. Precisely where each raindrop falls is unpredictable, even though the whole process follows physical laws.

Also you never did tell me what this human ancestor - common descent - who living many years ago, remember?

No, I don't remember you ever asking me anything about any human ancestor.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Prove that the eye wasn't purposefully designed.

What would you accept as proof?

What would you accept as proof that anything wasn't purposefully designed?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What would you accept as proof?

What would you accept as proof that anything wasn't purposefully designed?

What would you offer as proof, as proof is not possible, by science's own admission. Scientific "proof" is a conclusion reached by subjective interpretation of evidence. However, not everyone comes to the same conclusion.

 

[VirOptimus]

What would you offer as proof, as proof is not possible, by science's own admission. Scientific "proof" is a conclusion reached by subjective interpretation of evidence. However, not everyone comes to the same conclusion.

Nope, the ”conclusions” are theories that are tested and must explain all data.

Not some opinion like all you post. Its a world of difference.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Seriously? what a disturbed and disturbing thing to say

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

Everyone has a choice, whether peasant or noble. It's a question of what is best for everyone - would you rather have preventable diseases return to their pre-vaccination levels of harm and death, or to keep them at almost insignificant levels and even eradicate them? Vaccination is estimated to have saved more lives than any intervention besides clean water and sanitation.

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
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.

Wildly irrelevant red herring.

For the most part I disagree. I think big brother can't be trusted generally.

So you don't take medicines? In terms of individual risk, vaccines, in general, are lower risk and more effective than many common medicines, including antibiotics.

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.

Irrelevant gibberish.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What would you offer as proof, as proof is not possible, by science's own admission.

That's the point - as you are obviously aware that science doesn't deal in proof, for your demand request to be an honest meaningful one, you presumably have a different standard or criteria for proof that can, in principle, be satisfied - and of which we are unaware.

So the question is simple - what would you accept as proof?

Or was it just a dishonest meaningless demand request?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nope, the ”conclusions” are theories that are tested and must explain all data.

Not some opinion like all you post. Its a world of difference.

I doubt is all data is actually tested. Most is run through the mysterious process of natural selection.

 

[pitabread]

You said this

" Furthermore every single probability calculation I've seen trying to argue for design are usually don't have enough information to make them meaningful."

Explain what makes something probable in your calculations.

That's... not my point.

What I am saying is that such calculations are not meaningful to begin with because they don't have enough information to be properly formulated in the first place.

Plus, calculating probabilities of something after the fact is irrelevant.