Mutations Really Do Happen

[SkyWriting]

Shuffle a deck of cards then calculate the odds of those cards appearing in the order you shuffled them in.

But finding said cards in order shows intent.
We would never shuffle a deck and expect order.
That's why we shuffle.

 

[[serious]]

Did you misread? I said like, as in for example, a mouse.

The odds of a mouse evolving going forward is 100%

Mice exist and evolve.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The odds of a mouse evolving going forward is 100%

Mice exist and evolve.

I'll grant adaptation through mutation ,going forward. My son had skinny calves until he started skateboarding and snowboarding. Now his calves actually look weird they're so overdeveloped. However, he didn't pass this on to his son, who also has skinny calves.

 

[[serious]]

I'll grant adaptation through mutation ,going forward. My son had skinny calves until he started skateboarding and snowboarding. Now his calves actually look weird they're so overdeveloped. However, he didn't pass this on to his son, who also has skinny calves.

Traits acquired during a creatures lifetime are not passed on as a rule. That's how genetics work.

what makes your odds-of-a-mouse argument silly is that there is nothing special about a mouse other than it existing. The only reason you know to ask about it is because it exists. hence, the odds of a creature known to exist existing are 100%

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Traits acquired during a creatures lifetime are not passed on as a rule. That's how genetics work.

I thought that the need for change presents itself in the present generation, and that it must be passed on if the next generation is to survive. If evolutionary change occurs in an organism that doesn't need to change, that is evidence of thought and planning.

what makes your odds-of-a-mouse argument silly is that there is nothing special about a mouse other than it existing.

That's my point. How do mice exist at all?

The only reason you know to ask about it is because it exists. hence, the odds of a creature known to exist existing are 100%.

Sure, but why do they exist? According to evolution mice exist because of millions of uninterrupted, successful changes over millions of years. How likely is that?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm glad one person looked up the odds/did the math.

It's simple physics.

After you predict the order they are going to be in, shuffle the cards and turn the first card up.

The first card has a 1 in 52 chance of being the correct card.

Then turn the second card up = a 1 in 51 chance of being the correct card.

And so it goes: 1/52 x 1/51 x 1/50 x 1/49 x 1/48 ... etc.

 

[crjmurray]

It's simple physics.

After you predict the order they are going to be in, shuffle the cards and turn the first card up.

The first card has a 1 in 52 chance of being the correct card.

Then turn the second card up = a 1 in 51 chance of being the correct card.

And so it goes: 1/52 x 1/51 x 1/50 x 1/49 x 1/48 ... etc.

But you are making the prediction after the results.

 

[sfs]

That's my point. How do mice exist at all?

Quite easily. They're very good at being mice. And their near-mice ancestors were very good at being almost-mice.

Sure, but why do they exist? According to evolution mice exist because of millions of uninterrupted, successful changes over millions of years. How likely is that?

It's very likely that there would be millions of uninterrupted, successful changes over millions of years. What's very unlikely is that they would produce exactly the mouse we see today.

That's what everyone is trying to tell you. Any particular sequence of specific events is highly unlikely, but it's inevitable that something is going to happen. The odds of producing any particular human being are immensely small, but it's highly likely that human beings will continue to be produced.

In short, your question still doesn't seem to have a point.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you are making the prediction after the results.

It doesn't matter if you shuffle the cards, then make a prediction; or make a prediction, then shuffle the cards.

As long as you don't see the cards first.

Let's use the four aces as an example:

1. Shuffle the four cards, then predict the first card will be the the Ace of Clubs, the second the Ace of Diamonds, the third the Ace of Hearts, and the fourth the Ace of Spades.

Your chances are 1/24 that you are correct: 1 in 4 times 1 in 3 times 1 in 2 times 1 in 1 equal 1 in 24.

2. Predict the first card will be the the Ace of Clubs, the second the Ace of Diamonds, the third the Ace of Hearts, and the fourth the Ace of Spade, then shuffle the four cards.

Same thing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Quite easily. They're very good at being mice. And their near-mice ancestors were very good at being almost-mice.


It's very likely that there would be millions of uninterrupted, successful changes over millions of years. What's very unlikely is that they would produce exactly the mouse we see today.

That's what everyone is trying to tell you. Any particular sequence of specific events is highly unlikely, but it's inevitable that something is going to happen. The odds of producing any particular human being are immensely small, but it's highly likely that human beings will continue to be produced.

In short, your question still doesn't seem to have a point.

Rhetorical questions are the point.

 

[sfs]

Rhetorical questions are the point.

If pointless rhetorical questions are your point, then you haven't got much of a point.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If pointless rhetorical questions are your point, then you haven't got much of a point.

I have said before that one of the problems creationists face is we are not able to get satisfactory answers to our questions. We ask for the time and you tell us the weather.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It doesn't matter if you shuffle the cards, then make a prediction; or make a prediction, then shuffle the cards.

As long as you don't see the cards first.

The relevance to the current thread is that we have peeked and already seen the mice. So now we see that asking for the probability of a mouse or a tarantula after the fact is meaningless.

 

[AV1611VET]

The relevance to the current thread is that we have peeked and already seen the mice. So now we see that asking for the probability of a mouse or a tarantula after the fact is meaningless.

I'll tell you what.

If evolution is such an exact science, then why don't evolutionists just tell me what is (or should be) found 350 feet below the Taj Mahal, or the Kremlin, or Joe's toolshed in Timbukthree, or wherever I point?

Instead of finding something first, predict you'll find it, then find it.

And let me do the pointing.

Only it doesn't work that way, does it?

Scientists make the rules, don't they?

That's how they can claim they're right all the time.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'll tell you what.

If evolution is such an exact science, then why don't evolutionists just tell me what is (or should be) found 350 feet below the Taj Mahal, or the Kremlin, or Joe's toolshed in Timbukthree, or wherever I point?

Instead of finding something first, predict you'll find it, then find it.

And let me do the pointing.

Only it doesn't work that way, does it?

Scientists make the rules, don't they?

That's how they can claim they're right all the time.

Evolutionary scientists HAVE done pretty much that (predict what sort of creature would be found where and how deep without ever finding a fossil of it before, testing their prediction by digging, and finding the sort of fossil they predicted). Now, you can't just point somewhere and expect there to be a fossil to find, due to the requirements of fossil formation, but feel free to ask about certain traits and where the first animal that had them could be found.

 

[SkyWriting]

Evolutionary scientists HAVE done pretty much that (predict what sort of creature would be found where and how deep without ever finding a fossil of it before, testing their prediction by digging, and finding the sort of fossil they predicted).

Likely then, you can point to many published examples?

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolutionary scientists HAVE done pretty much that (predict what sort of creature would be found where and how deep without ever finding a fossil of it before, testing their prediction by digging, and finding the sort of fossil they predicted).

Nice.

Now let me do the pointing.

Now, you can't just point somewhere and expect there to be a fossil to find, due to the requirements of fossil formation, but feel free to ask about certain traits and where the first animal that had them could be found.

Fine.

I'll accept "nothing" as an answer.

Just let me do the pointing.

(And welcome back, by the way!)

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nice.

Now let me do the pointing.

Fine.

I'll accept "nothing" as an answer.

Just let me do the pointing.

(And welcome back, by the way!)

Then be aware that there might not be any fossils to find where you are pointing, and accept that this doesn't serve as evidence against evolution. It was only to save you some time, seeing as you aren't a professional in the field and would also pick some pretty cheeky places to point (college knocked me out of this for a while, had to focus on studies).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Likely then, you can point to many published examples?

Of course, tiktaalik is, of course, the most famous and well-published example
Tiktaalik roseae: The Search for Tiktaalik

 

[AV1611VET]

Then be aware that there might not be any fossils to find where you are pointing,

Again ... fine.

I'll accept "nothing" as an answer.

What should they find 350 below the Taj Mahal ... say ... in a one cubic mile tract?