Infinite monkey theorem vs first life

[loveofourlord]

Perhaps you could read my comment again. How can a creature develop an immune system if it does not know what a threat is. By the time it knows (a great stretch to imagine a sentient blob, I know) that it needs an immune system, it is dead. Oh, I suppose that it can evolve while it is dead, if you stick with your logic.

your understanding of the sitaution is lacking making you not understand it very well.

the first multicellular forms would have been colonies, like with jellyfish the closest it has to a immune system is that it's body may fend off bacteria and such, the first life forms would have simple, and made of protozoa that could combat bacteria naturally, as they got more complex, more complex features would form, but at first it wouldn't be very complicated or the bacteria attacks very complicated either

Remember one of the key things in evolution is variation, how does a bacrteria know to be resistant against a anti bacteria agent it's never seen? It doesn't, but the mutations with a colony of bacteria would be random enough that some might be more able to defend against it then others. Same with a colony, they had already been fighting bacteria and such for billions of years, being multi celluar doesn't mean they suddenly forget how that works. Plus having a immune system would put selective pressure on the animals to evolve some defense. At first when it appeared it probably be a random mutation that seems to be nothing, but when it deals with bacteria it suddenly is more useful. The creationist problem is they think it's all or nothing, or that the solution must come at the same time as the problem. It can come later or sooner.

 

[loveofourlord]

In a way, you are right. In a time of single-cell life forms, a species which did not develop defense mechanisms against other single-cell life forms would be dead. Our present complex immune systems are the result of a multi-million year arms race.

of course as I pointed out in my last post, the first multicelluar creatures would have just been more complex colonies so would have kept their defenses from being single celled heh.

 

[the iconoclast]

How can you know that life happened at all?

Hey hey brother

I assume the usage of life here relates to existence and, the period between the birth and death of a living thing. How about we start here, the certainty of life - in regards to my opinion of it - could relate to death and pain.

If life did happen at all what should I make of death and pain?

Let's not beat around the bush. Where are you going with this?

Because you're here asking that question. I suppose something like cogito ergo sum is the answer here.

I think, therefore I am. Do you have an issue with this line of thought?

There is no "official" explanation for how it happened.

Where does this leave us?

There are hypotheses, but the origin of life remains at present an unanswered question in science.
-CryptoLutheran

Would you say that evolution is a supposition?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

The creationist problem is they think it's all or nothing, or that the solution must come at the same time as the problem. It can come later or sooner.

Hey hey brother

An assumption built on an assumption?

 

[loveofourlord]

Hey hey brother

An assumption built on an assumption?

actually based upon facts, again like antibacterial resistance, they don't magickally get it, there are just random mutations that have no use and are neutral untill they encounter a situation like with antibiotic resistance. If it's the walls of the cells that determine it by their thickness, some bacteria will have thicker then others, untill the antibiotics show up and kill those with weaker. it's simple facts.

 

[the iconoclast]

actually based upon facts, again like antibacterial resistance, they don't magickally get it,

Hey hey brother, thank you for your quick reply and I hope we can have a polite and civil discussion. You and I are family

What evidence do you have that proves this position?

Have you performed/witnessed this process yourself or do you accept an authority on such a matter?

Im familiar with the concept of magic and 'magick'. Why did you use magick?

there are just random mutations that have no use and are neutral untill they encounter a situation like with antibiotic resistance.

What evidence do you believe supports this position?

If it's the walls of the cells that determine it by their thickness, some bacteria will have thicker then others, untill the antibiotics show up and kill those with weaker.

What does this have to with a problem that gets fixed sooner or later? How does this problem get fixed - a solution would assume a conscious element reasoned?

it's simple facts.

I love simple, simple is easy to understand. Make it simple for me.

Hey @FrumiousBandersnatch and @Ophiolite keep an eye on this discussion as your involvement will be required soon.

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey my dear creationist friends.

Don't fear those who accept evolution as fact, the only method they have is to gang up and belittle you.

My favourite is when your intelligence or iq is questioned. Press them on the matter and you will find their arguments start to crack.

The Artist's Creation is beautiful.

 

[46AND2]

Hey hey brother, thank you for your quick reply and I hope we can have a polite and civil discussion. You and I are family

What evidence do you have that proves this position?

Have you performed/witnessed this process yourself or do you accept an authority on such a matter?

Im familiar with the concept of magic and 'magick'. Why did you use magick?



What evidence do you believe supports this position?



What does this have to with a problem that gets fixed sooner or later? How does this problem get fixed - a solution would assume a conscious element reasoned?



I love simple, simple is easy to understand. Make it simple for me.

Hey @FrumiousBandersnatch and @Ophiolite keep an eye on this discussion as your involvement will be required soon.

Cheers

What is it that you would accept as evidence for evolution? Is there anything?

 

[loveofourlord]

Hey hey brother, thank you for your quick reply and I hope we can have a polite and civil discussion. You and I are family

What evidence do you have that proves this position?

Have you performed/witnessed this process yourself or do you accept an authority on such a matter?

Im familiar with the concept of magic and 'magick'. Why did you use magick?



What evidence do you believe supports this position?



What does this have to with a problem that gets fixed sooner or later? How does this problem get fixed - a solution would assume a conscious element reasoned?



I love simple, simple is easy to understand. Make it simple for me.

Hey @FrumiousBandersnatch and @Ophiolite keep an eye on this discussion as your involvement will be required soon.

Cheers

I was interested in wiccan and such a decade or two ago, so the spelling's just stuck with me heh.

I understand the process, and how it works. it's like throwing a million dice in the air in sets of 6's, then someone else deciding 26 is the right amount of those set of 6 and those are winners.

with antibiotic resistances, each bacteria mutates in various ways, when you apply antiobiotics those that randomly had the resistance survive, it's just a natural part of how dna replicates that it's not perfect so makes mistakes that can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful. Beneficial have a more imediate benefit, neutral either mutate away or might later be beneficial, while harmful often don't survive very long so they get weeded out.

 

[loveofourlord]

Hey my dear creationist friends.

Don't fear those who accept evolution as fact, the only method they have is to gang up and belittle you.

My favourite is when your intelligence or iq is questioned. Press them on the matter and you will find their arguments start to crack.

The Artist's Creation is beautiful.

maybe you will do better then the others, and I try not to question someones intelligence, though it can be a bit tough when you have the same old PRATT's coming up year after year, most of them failing from the start because the one trying to refute evolution doesn't even have basic understandings of it.

And to be fair many creationists come off as condescending and rude as shown in your post.

I will admit though I do laugh at creationists at times, but mostly because it's kinda funny to see you guys so self assured you have disproven evolution when you havn't even made a point that relates to it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If I knew all the answers to everything, I would be God. Be glad that I am not. I'd have scrapped everything and started again.

OK, so you can confidently claim that trilobites were created, but you can't say whether it was the creature or its fossil that was created, and you have no reason or explanation for it...

I think that speaks for itself.

 

[46AND2]

Be glad that I am not. I'd have scrapped everything and started again.

Er...and that would be different than the Biblical god how?

 

[SLP]

I think it's pretty common knowledge we don't know how someone as superior as God did a lot of things...what does that mean to you?

It means you have double standards and employ fallacious arguments (this one - begging the question).

Oh, and where did he get the those silicates from?

The dust of the ground.
That He also supposedly made from nothing.

What bearing does that have on the subject at hand?

Really?

Did you not just demand a 'step by step' explanation?

Yes, you did.

Just establishing the hypocrisy of the creationist. Thanks - you were a big help with that.

 

[SLP]

DNA determines what an organism will become. In order for an organism to evolve, it must receive new information.

Why do you claim that?

What do you mean "new"?

Do you consider gene duplication to produce new information? Why or why not?

Do you consider changes in promoters or enhancers that result in alterations in gene expression "new information"? Why or why not?

There is no mechanism to determine what that new information should be.

Right.

If it is incremental by pure chance, then a male and female must evolve at the same time and in the same physical location.

Wow, got us there...
Well, you got us if - and only if - speciation is a one-generation event (e.g., an archaeopteryx laid an egg and a chick hatched).

Show us where evolution requires or postulates this to be the case.

IOW, prove that your claim is not a strawman.

You also need many more than one pair. Inbreeding is catastrophic as those trying to recover near extinct creatures will testify.

Genesis 6
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.


Thanks for refuting YECism for ms!

 

[SLP]

From dust to dust. you do realize everything doesn't fossilize? right?

Yes, I do.

Curious then that so many creationists demand an unbroken trail of fossils from a non-ape to a human - like you, for example. Did you let the cat out of the bag?

So some are dust, and a few fossilized, and are still in the ground or found. And please think before you come back with your point.

Ok.... Done - I thought.

You just now realized how stupid it is to ask evolutionists for 'step by step' this and 'unbroken chain of fossils that' when it is asked of you, when it should be quite easy for you to do if your claims re: evolution and creationism were premised on reasonableness.

 

[SLP]

Gotta love it when creationists blatantly contradict their own arguments but don't even realize it.

And then actually condescend to others!!!

AMAZING!!!

 

[SLP]

From dust to dust. you do realize everything doesn't fossilize? right?

So some are dust, and a few fossilized, and are still in the ground or found. And please think before you come back with your point.

The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

"Then you are saying that's why we see so little evidence of transition because their body just by coincidence sucked up all the transition in and transition out evidence just before they virtually ALL died? Are you listening to yourself? I assumed something happened to them eventually, but what about before eventually came around? Where are the as many, actually many more in betweens before or after the resulting thing they evolved into?"

"But where are all the fossils that show the little legs before they got so little? Those several in between stages of shorter, shorter yet, and even shorter? Let's not conveniently forget about that. You wanted me to address your claims so there ya go, as if I haven't already done so."​

And another one's down, and another one's down and another creationist is down with being a hypocrite to shield his myths from scrutiny!

 

[SLP]

And there you go again, where did I say the world (earth) should be covered with fossils?

"But where are all the fossils that show the little legs before they got so little? Those several in between stages of shorter, shorter yet, and even shorter? Let's not conveniently forget about that. You wanted me to address your claims so there ya go, as if I haven't already done so."

Implication is clear.

 

[SLP]

Where did I make that specific claim, I need the exact quote before I'll go on.

Close enough:

"But where are all the fossils that show the little legs before they got so little? Those several in between stages of shorter, shorter yet, and even shorter? Let's not conveniently forget about that. "

 

[SLP]

If you understand that fossilization rarely happens, why do you think there must be millions+ of fossils and only if evolution is true? If fossilization is rare, then you would not expect millions+ of fossils.

Because that is what creationists do.

They can only pretend to be honest for appearances - for when their underhanded antics are exposed, they then whine about being labeled or 'trolled' or whatever excuse they will use to try and save face.