Some random discussion on evolution...

[OldWiseGuy]

So what you want is the probability that those variants which are equal or better in their ability to survive than the previous generation will be more complex than the previous generation as well. They are all dissimilar. That's why they are called variants.

What is the evidence that they produce structural, and not merely cosmetic, changes? Humans come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, but structurally we're all the same.

 

[Speedwell]

What is the evidence that they produce structural, and not merely cosmetic, changes? Humans come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, but structurally we're all the same.

I'm not sure of what you mean by the distinction. The theory of evolution holds that over time, the forelimbs of some species evolved into wings. If you examine the wings of a bat, for instance, you will see that the bones, muscles, nerves, are the same as those of the forelimb of the ground-dwelling mammalian ancestor. Only the shape and relative proportion of these elements have changed. Is that "structural" or "cosmetic?"

 

[xianghua]

Flat out false statements.

Much like your false statements about the mathematics of evolution you don't have any odds to list.

You only have a feeling that evolution is impossible and false.

Actual probabilities can be calculated... you have no calculations.

do you have a calculation that shows volution is reasonable?

 

[pitabread]

These are not issues with the OP.

At no point in your response did you address any of the points I raised. Simply denying them doesn't make them go away.

The OP simply demonstrates what creation powers the evolution process should have had to account for the enormous novelty over a relatively short geologic time span(early Cambrian).

No, what the OP does is equivocates between multiple scenarios of significantly different magnitude.

Single-species evolution of humans over 300,000 years or the E.Coli experiment over 30 years is far smaller in scope than even the ~13+ million year estimated period* of the Cambrian explosion which would involve the entire biosphere and many different species all simultaneously evolving.

So I don't know why you'd expect to see the same level of evolutionary change in each respective scenario.

(* Edited my prior post to correct the estimated length of the Cambrian explosion. And as previously mentioned there is debate over how much of a pre-Cambrian fuse there may have been which also may account for the evolutionary morphology found in Cambrian organisms.)

Then it demonstrates that scientifically, the creation powers of the evolution process are zero.

No, what it demonstrates is an inability to understand relative magnitude of different scenarios and a poor attempt at equivocation thereof.

And the reason for that is also simple: the number of interactions outcomes that are biologically (mechanically) non-functional versus those that are functional is so huge that even if the interactions continue until the heat death of the universe (in 10^100 years) no new and distinct biologically (mechanically) functional outcome will emerge.

Are you attempting a probability argument?

And although nature is capable to rearrange particles and generate specific arrangement of particles no rational person would claim that nature can create a car.

Cars are not biological organisms and therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

That is why we, rational people, claim that, although natural process of evolution is capable to rearrange particles and generate specific arrangement of particles (CHANGE) it cannot produce heart, kidney or wing.

That's not a rational claim; that's just an argument from incredulity.

On top of that, it appears to be a problem with conceptualization of what actually constitutes novel functions or structures. This is why I'd again refer back to my prior point about wings; they are simply modified forelimbs that bear the same structural and anatomical hallmarks thereof. There are not a completely novel structure and certainly don't appear to have been created out of thin air.

 

[pitabread]

The ToE will self-destruct eventually. It's just a matter of time.

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

 

[pitabread]

We are in the last days.

No we're not. Not for another ~4 billion years or so.

 

[loveofourlord]

can you calculate the chance for a non-living watch to evolve by a natural process?


have you heard about feathers? a reptile dont have feathers.

yeah, but dinosaurs that birds evolved from DO have feathers, infact many of the features you listed above they already have or those that evolved into birds have.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm not sure of what you mean by the distinction. The theory of evolution holds that over time, the forelimbs of some species evolved into wings. If you examine the wings of a bat, for instance, you will see that the bones, muscles, nerves, are the same as those of the forelimb of the ground-dwelling mammalian ancestor. Only the shape and relative proportion of these elements have changed. Is that "structural" or "cosmetic?"

That's creation by design. Why would God have to reinvent the wheel with each species?

 

[loveofourlord]

I can only present the obviously overwhelming odds against it. At a certain point improbable becomes impossible.

odds are meaningless when it comes to evolution, because we only know the odds at best of the evolution of the wing in a particular way. What we don't know is.

How many other ways the wing could have formed *though we can look at how many times it's independantly evolved*

what other novel evolutions could have happened to create something new from dinsosaurs like birds that wasn't taken.

E-coli experiments have shown that by breaking the flagellum, that the bacteria will evolve novel ways for it to work through randomness. There is no goal, there was no reason that birds HAD to evolve, there fore the odds of them doing so is meaningless.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

As stated the demise of the ToE will come from the scientific community itself, not from creationist arguments.

 

[pitabread]

Why would God have to reinvent the wheel with each species?

Because they are supposed to be a supernatural entity with unlimited power? You make it sound like God would have had to retool the factory every time they wanted to make something new so they opted for reuse instead.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

odds are meaningless when it comes to evolution, because we only know the odds at best of the evolution of the wing in a particular way. What we don't know is.

How many other ways the wing could have formed *though we can look at how many times it's independantly evolved*

what other novel evolutions could have happened to create something new from dinsosaurs like birds that wasn't taken.

E-coli experiments have shown that by breaking the flagellum, that the bacteria will evolve novel ways for it to work through randomness. There is no goal, there was no reason that birds HAD to evolve, there fore the odds of them doing so is meaningless.

You're missing the point of the sheer complexity of organisms, and the processes needed for evolution to occur.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because they are supposed to be a supernatural entity with unlimited power? You make it sound like God would have had to retool the factory every time they wanted to make something new so they opted for reuse instead.

I'm saying that God uses a common design for many creatures. I don't redesign my table saw each time I cut a different species of wood. I do adjust it however.

 

[pitabread]

I'm saying that God uses a common design for many creatures.

A common design which oddly enough mimics what we would expect from the process of biological evolution.

Curious, that.

 

[pitabread]

As stated the demise of the ToE will come from the scientific community itself, not from creationist arguments.

I don't see its "demise" so much as being replaced by something more comprehensive in the future (e.g. a unified theory of life or something).

It's certainly not going to be replaced by creationism or ID, if that's what you're wondering though.

 

[Speedwell]

You're missing the point of the sheer complexity of organisms, and the processes needed for evolution to occur.

Considering the biosphere as an interacting system of stochastic processes, there is sufficient information processing capacity to account for the biological complexity which we observe. But you didn't answer my question.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A common design which oddly enough mimics what we would expect from the process of biological evolution.

Curious, that.

The horse fly isn't the common ancestor of the horse.

 

[pitabread]

The horse fly isn't the common ancestor of the horse.

What? Seriously dude, stop drinking and posting.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Considering the biosphere as an interacting system of stochastic processes, there is sufficient information processing capacity to account for the biological complexity which we observe. But you didn't answer my question.

I don't accept the premise of your question.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What? Seriously dude, stop drinking and posting.

It's one thing for a critter to grow bigger, smaller, or more hairy. It's quite another for it to change into something entirely different.