Infinite monkey theorem vs first life

[Speedwell]

when would we have split off from monkeys? We know that old and new world monkeys split around 40 million years ago.

Try this:

Ape - Wikipedia

 

[loveofourlord]

Try this:

Ape - Wikipedia

yeah I just edited my post :> I was looking when did humans split from monkeys when I should have looked up apes :>

 

[Kenny'sID]

sorry no longer taking uhuh as a response, just saying, "that doesn't count." without understanding the evolution of the animals or showing why it's wrong will no longer be allowed. I'm not going to keep repeating myself so you can wave it away. Show why it's wrong.

LOL

Repeat what? What did I wave away? Did you have a question?

Why did you not answer my questions? Again, very bad sign when we skip direct questions

Fact is, it's so obvious that fly's in the face of evolution, and since you cannot refute it you and others are scared to touch it, hence nothing but excuses and contrariness.

I''m trying to prove my reasoning with the generations in between question but since I assume you all know how it will end, the very fair question will be avoided or stalled as long as possible.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Again, it's not the absolute number of fossils which have been found, it's whether any that are found contradict the theory.

No, it's the number as too few fossils as it stands contradicts the living daylights out of the theory of evolution. It's a huge factor.

Something like twenty million years ago.

Thank you. So based on a lifespan of, it really doesn't matter, but say an average of 50yrs for man. much less for most animals, how many generations does that entail? I hate math, and a few years give or take is fine.

 

[Kenny'sID]

How many "should" there be?

Seriously? You are really saying if I can't give an exact number, then I'm wrong?

You know that fossilization is a fairly rare occurrence and that not all fossils have been found. The important thing is that none found so far contradict the theory.

Think "proportionality".

I think you all see my point perfectly, so I'll just watch you all dance around it til an actual good point comes up or everyone just leaves.

 

[Speedwell]

Seriously? You are really saying if I can't give an exact number, then I'm wrong?

No, but for a provisional explanation--which is what the theory of evolution is, there really is no minimum number. The only really important thing is that none of the fossils found, however few they are, contradict the theory. You said yourself, earlier, that science s about drawing conclusions from physical evidence. It can only draw conclusions from what physical evidence is actually there, whether much or little..

Think "proportionality".

I think you all see my point perfectly, so I'll just watch you all dance around it til an actual good point comes up or everyone just leaves.

We all see your point, and would like to have tons of fossils showing complete evolutionary progression for all of the creatures and indeed, scientists are searching for them. But in the meantime, science has to draw its conclusions from what evidence is actually in hand, and so far none of it contradicts the theory so evolution will remain the accepted provisional explanation for the immediate future.

 

[loveofourlord]

LOL

Repeat what? What did I wave away? Did you have a question?

Why did you not answer my questions? Again, very bad sign when we skip direct questions

Fact is, it's so obvious that fly's in the face of evolution, and since you cannot refute it you and others are scared to touch it, hence nothing but excuses and contrariness.

I''m trying to prove my reasoning with the generations in between question but since I assume you all know how it will end, the very fair question will be avoided or stalled as long as possible.

I already gave you what you wanted and more go re-read the previous posts.

And what questions, I just see you going UHUH to the evidence we have provided. You don't get to just say, "feathered dinosaurs arn't evidence." show your work for why they arn't evidence, and not just some hand waving dismisal.

 

[ViaCrucis]

How does one measure the probability of something that has only occurred once that we know of?

Can we use probability to dismiss historical events? What is the probability of Julius Caesar being born?

Life exists, and so we have something to observe and study: Life.
Whatever the probability of it was--and I don't know how probability could be measured here given how little information we have--it did happen, so in some sense it's moot anyway. It did happen, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about it.

What would the probability be of there being an intelligence vast and powerful enough to organize reality? Or to cause life to begin? How would one measure that probability?

These are my problems with ID. Not because I reject that there is a Creator (I very obviously do believe in a Creator); but because the arguments seem fundamentally flawed and flimsy; utilizing fallacious reasoning, and amounts to being non-science and bad philosophy.

But then, I don't see a conflict between my belief in one God, the Maker of all things seen and unseen, and scientific theories of life origins, e.g. abiogenesis. The one does not preclude the other.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Kenny'sID]

I already gave you what you wanted and more go re-read the previous posts.

And what questions, I just see you going UHUH to the evidence we have provided. You don't get to just say, "feathered dinosaurs arn't evidence." show your work for why they arn't evidence, and not just some hand waving dismisal.

What questions? I know of no better way to put it than to say they are the comments followed by a question mark.

You have me quoted as stating "feathered dinosaurs arn't evidence."? Can you please show me where I said that?

Show what work? Show yours and answer the questions I might have. I'm trying to question you about it, but you won't answer. How can I possibly say it's not evidence when I can't get it out of you how that is evidence of evolution in the first place? Why can't you simply answer the questions so we can have an orderly debate, instead of claiming I said things I did not way, and demanding things from me when I'm doing my best to give you those things but can't possibly if you won't work with me?

I asked you point blank:

And because there are some dinosaurs that have feathers, how does that help make the point of evolution?

And on your prediction response and so I can find how you feel it's evidence of evolution, I asked you:

How is finding what you feel is "stronger evidence" such a gigantic breakthrough?

IOW, how is that "funny how" or strange? Is that what you are referring to as evidence of evolution? If so, then answer my return questions on it so I can understand. When you don't do that and so often, it makes me feel you have no good answer, understand?

 

[Kenny'sID]

We all see your point, and would like to have tons of fossils showing complete evolutionary progression for all of the creatures and indeed, scientists are searching for them. But in the meantime, science has to draw its conclusions from what evidence is actually in hand, and so far none of it contradicts the theory so evolution will remain the accepted provisional explanation for the immediate future.

You haven't found them because they aren't there. If evolution was a fact, they would be there and you would find them. If thousands of those exist in between and you found the one here, and then another from many years following, just the odds say you would find not only a few but many in between. How have you found the ones on each end but none in between when they are much more numerous? You haven't found them because they are not there, and they are not there because evolution is not a fact. This is a huge problem.

It can only draw conclusions from what physical evidence is actually there, whether much or little..

You absolutely can draw conclusion on the fact they aren't there when it only makes sense they should be.

Take 100 years worth of ford cars and you found the first and the last made, so if you found those, it would only makes sense we can go out and find plenty of the inbetweens. If you cannot find them, then they are not there and something is wrong. And in the case of evolution the conclusion is, we never had evidence of evolution to begin with because like here people fell into denial, so that fact was conveniently ignored.

 

[the iconoclast]

I found the party I'm looking for.

Love your work @Aussie Pete and @Kenny'sID, don't back down. They haven't got anything other than a misplaced faith.

Hey brother @Speedwell, hey hey to Mr @FrumiousBandersnatch and hey hey to my new best friend @Ophiolite.

I'm watching hehe

 

[the iconoclast]

How does one measure the probability of something that has only occurred once that we know of?

Hey hey brother

Well, first I would investigate this isolated incident. If something happened only once how do I know it happened at all or how can i trust that the official explanation is correct?

Have a go @FrumiousBandersnatch, @Speedwell or @Ophiolite

Ps @Ophiolite, hopefully you understood my post.

Cheers my dears

 

[loveofourlord]

What questions? I know of no better way to put it than to say they are the comments followed by a question mark.

You have me quoted as stating "feathered dinosaurs arn't evidence."? Can you please show me where I said that?

Show what work? Show yours and answer the questions I might have. I'm trying to question you about it, but you won't answer. How can I possibly say it's not evidence when I can't get it out of you how that is evidence of evolution in the first place? Why can't you simply answer the questions so we can have an orderly debate, instead of claiming I said things I did not way, and demanding things from me when I'm doing my best to give you those things but can't possibly if you won't work with me?

I asked you point blank:



And on your prediction response and so I can find how you feel it's evidence of evolution, I asked you:



IOW, how is that "funny how" or strange? Is that what you are referring to as evidence of evolution? If so, then answer my return questions on it so I can understand. When you don't do that and so often, it makes me feel you have no good answer, understand?

you asked for the generations GO BACK AND READ, you complaiend about us ignoring it and MULTIPLE people gave it to you, including me giving you the most concise ones.

a repeat.

"yeah, so while it would likly be linier around 175k to 262.5k generations from other apes to us."

also it was 40 million years ago when monkeys first appeared
and 30 million years ago when apes split from monkeys
and 7 million years ago when we split from other apes, hence the 175 thousand, to 262.5 thousand generations. You can at least be bothered to read it before you complain about being ignored.

and on the evidence thing, it's been explained multiple times. We knew birds evolved from dinosaurs and as we find more fossils we find more and more evidence that backs that up. The dinosaurs that birds evolved from having feathers, the progression of morphogical changes through the fossil record fitting what we already knew. what more do you think we would need to prove birds evolved from dinosaurs?

Again do you believe in a god thats so decietful that he creates the illusion of evolution by having fossils fit exactly what we would expect to see?

 

[loveofourlord]

You haven't found them because they aren't there. If evolution was a fact, they would be there and you would find them. If thousands of those exist in between and you found the one here, and then another from many years following, just the odds say you would find not only a few but many in between. How have you found the ones on each end but none in between when they are much more numerous? You haven't found them because they are not there, and they are not there because evolution is not a fact. This is a huge problem.



You absolutely can draw conclusion on the fact they aren't there when it only makes sense they should be.

Take 100 years worth of ford cars and you found the first and the last made, so if you found those, it would only makes sense we can go out and find plenty of the inbetweens. If you cannot find them, then they are not there and something is wrong. And in the case of evolution the conclusion is, we never had evidence of evolution to begin with because like here people fell into denial, so that fact was conveniently ignored.

you keep saying there should be more fossils, if you expect the world to be covered in fossils why arn't they there from the flood? Why are so few dinosuars and other extant species fossils found if this flood can magickally turn bones into stone, and bury shells within and under feet of stone?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hey hey brother

Well, first I would investigate this isolated incident. If something happened only once how do I know it happened at all or how can i trust that the official explanation is correct?

How can you know that life happened at all? Because you're here asking that question. I suppose something like cogito ergo sum is the answer here.

There is no "official" explanation for how it happened. There are hypotheses, but the origin of life remains at present an unanswered question in science.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[pitabread]

snip

 

[Aussie Pete]

I found the party I'm looking for.

Love your work @Aussie Pete and @Kenny'sID, don't back down. They haven't got anything other than a misplaced faith.

Hey brother @Speedwell, hey hey to Mr @FrumiousBandersnatch and hey hey to my new best friend @Ophiolite.

I'm watching hehe

I wanted to provide this link to speedwell (at his request) but I'm blocked for some reason. It's to do with fruit fly research that attempted to make them evolve.

No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations

The 600 refers to generations of fruit flies.

 

[Speedwell]

You haven't found them because they aren't there. If evolution was a fact, they would be there and you would find them. If thousands of those exist in between and you found the one here, and then another from many years following, just the odds say you would find not only a few but many in between. How have you found the ones on each end but none in between when they are much more numerous? You haven't found them because they are not there, and they are not there because evolution is not a fact. This is a huge problem.



You absolutely can draw conclusion on the fact they aren't there when it only makes sense they should be.

Take 100 years worth of ford cars and you found the first and the last made, so if you found those, it would only makes sense we can go out and find plenty of the inbetweens. If you cannot find them, then they are not there and something is wrong. And in the case of evolution the conclusion is, we never had evidence of evolution to begin with because like here people fell into denial, so that fact was conveniently ignored.

It is not just the first and the last. Sometimes there are whole long strings of closely related fossils showing evolutionary development.

But OK, you think there are big gaps in parts of the fossil record, and that the gaps are large enough that some other developmental process may have gone on in them. Who knows? You may be right. But you have no evidence whatever of such a process and no proposed mechanism for it. Under those circumstances a good scientist would simply wait as the gaps in the fossil regard are gradually closed by new discoveries to see what turns up.

 

[Speedwell]

I wanted to provide this link to speedwell (at his request) but I'm blocked for some reason. It's to do with fruit fly research that attempted to make them evolve.

No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations

The 600 refers to generations of fruit flies.

No thanks. I'm not interested in how ICR misrepresents that research.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Huh.

So according to creationism it sounds like animal remains should readily be preserved. Right?

Let's test this then.

I live next to a forest (~500 acres) that is full of wildlife. I'm conservatively estimating 10 animals per acre. This is probably low-balling it just given the observed animals (especially all the rodents and birds), but this will do for an estimation.

That means a population size of ~5000 animals in this forest.

The forest in question has existed for at least 200 years based on historical records in the city I live, but likely far longer. But I'll use 200 years to again low-ball things.

Assuming a mean generation time of ~2 years for animals (again, probably low-balling since most of the animals are rodents with shorter generation time), this means that over 200 years and with a mean population size of 5000, we can expect that there have been approximately a half-a-million animals that have lived in this forest over the past 200 years. (5000 x 200 / 2 = 500,000)

That puts the total number of animal remains at 1000 per acre or about 1 in every 5 square yards.

Here's the funny thing: I almost never find animal remains in that forest. I've explored it over the many years and animal remains are extremely difficult to find. In fact one year, I found a pair of carcasses but in the following yet the following years I returned to the same spot and the carcasses had vanished. How weird is that!

And this is using deliberate low-balling of numbers favoring creationism. If this forest has existed for 1000 years then I would expect even more animal remains. One every square yard!

So according to creationism I should have a forest littered with animal bones and yet I don't. I wonder what I can conclude about creationism?

Not really. Fossils are relatively uncommon as most carcases are disposed of by other animals. As it happens, many creationists (me included) argue for the world wide flood (aka Noah's flood) as the cause of much fossilisation. It still happens right now, if the conditions are suitable. Fossils alone do not destroy the evolution myth. It is much more fundamental than that.