Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No, natural selection can be demonstrated every day.
Need I remind you that it is creationists that believe in magic?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If something is incredible, shouldn't it be met with incredulity?
BTW, natural selection is just another word for magic.
It takes conscience thought to make a system better. It also takes reason to make a selection... Intelligent design!
It takes conscience thought to make a system better
It also takes reason to make a selection
If something is incredible, shouldn't it be met with incredulity?
BTW, natural selection is just another word for magic.
What part of surviving and subsequent reproduction is "magical"?
The parts that defy the odds of it actually happening. Science is fond of saying that "in spite of the overwhelming odds against it evolution did happen." Evolution assumes that just a few reasonable choices of change are present in an organism when actually there (would have to be) countless billions of choices. It takes more than blind luck to pick the right ones that produce the elegance seen in the creation. Evolution would produce 'functional monstrosities', not the beauty we see.
Natural selection is the idea that that which can survive, survives and that which achieves reproduction, spreads its genes.
Natural selection is all about what happened. I want to know how it happened. Creationism doesn't require details, evolution does.
There's a great joke about this subject. A scientist, arguing with God, asserts that given enough time he also could produce a man out of the dirt. God replies, "Get your own dirt".
Where does science get the 'dirt', meaning the billions of glossed-over miraculous details that are taken for granted within their theory.
Information about the ToE for the general public seems like scientists mocking our ignorance by presenting details and processes that are so incredible that they cannot possibly be understood much less believed. It seems like an ongoing attempt to 'sell' the theory by constantly adding new and wondrous discoveries that grab the attention (of those who aren't aware of the 'scientist' behind the curtain).
Evolution would produce 'functional monstrosities', not the beauty we see.
No, that's something you made up.The parts that defy the odds of it actually happening. Science is fond of saying that "in spite of the overwhelming odds against it evolution did happen."
There's two more things you made up.Evolution assumes that just a few reasonable choices of change are present in an organism when actually there (would have to be) countless billions of choices.
You got this one right. Fortunately, evolution does not involve merely blind luck, so it's not clear why you said this.It takes more than blind luck to pick the right ones that produce the elegance seen in the creation.
You need to get out and look at a few more species.Evolution would produce 'functional monstrosities', not the beauty we see.
The joke is pretty dumb. Evolution isn't about where the dirt came from, or even where life came from: it's about how life has changed over time.There's a great joke about this subject. A scientist, arguing with God, asserts that given enough time he also could produce a man out of the dirt. God replies, "Get your own dirt".
Um, the dirt is the starting point for the process; it's not the details of the process.Where does science get the 'dirt', meaning the billions of glossed-over miraculous details that are taken for granted within their theory.
So your complaint is that you don't understand what scientists are saying, and also that what they're saying is obviously wrong? Do you see any problem with that combination?Information about the ToE for the general public seems like scientists mocking our ignorance by presenting details and processes that are so incredible that they cannot possibly be understood much less believed. It seems like an ongoing attempt to 'sell' the theory by constantly adding new and wondrous discoveries that grab the attention (of those who aren't aware of the 'scientist' behind the curtain).
No, that's something you made up.
I'll rephrase it. Science writers, writing about evolution, often say this.
Science is fond of saying that "in spite of the overwhelming odds against it evolution did happen."
I'll rephrase it. Science writers, writing about evolution, often say this.
The joke is pretty dumb. Evolution isn't about where the dirt came from, or even where life came from: it's about how life has changed over time.
Originally Posted by OldWiseGuy
Science is fond of saying that "in spite of the overwhelming odds against it evolution did happen."
Could you give a few examples?I'll rephrase it. Science writers, writing about evolution, often say this.
Originally Posted by OldWiseGuy
Science is fond of saying that "in spite of the overwhelming odds against it evolution did happen."
Could you give a few examples?
I remember Carl Sagan making the very statement.
This gives a picture. Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (Addendum B to Review of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists)
However, with the application of the magic of 'natural selection' these odds are rendered moot.
I remember Carl Sagan making the very statement.
This gives a picture. Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (Addendum B to Review of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists)
However, with the application of the magic of 'natural selection' these odds are rendered moot.
You misunderstood Sagan's argument. I use a similar one involving bridge hands. The "odds" against something happening are very often misleading. If you use an argument incorrectly you may draw ridiculous conclusions. Here is what your article said about Carl Sagan:
"Carl Sagan
Even Carl Sagan has been cited, from a book he edited, Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (MIT Press, 1973), a record of the proceedings of a conference on SETI. Sagan himself presented a paper at that conference, in which he reports (pp. 45-6) the odds against a specific human genome being assembled by chance as 1 in 10^2,000,000,000 (in other words, the genome of a specific person, and not just any human). As a build-up to this irrelevant statistic he states that a simple protein "might consist" of 100 amino acids (for each of which there are 20 "biological varieties") for a chance of random assembly, for one specific protein of this sort, of 1 in 10^130. He uses these statistics as a rhetorical foil for the fact that no human genome is assembled at random, nor did life have to start with only one possible protein of a particular, specific type, but that "the preferential replication, the preferential reproduction of organisms, through the natural selection of small mutations, acts as a kind of probability sieve, a probability selector," so that one must account for natural selection in estimating the odds of any alien species existing elsewhere in the universe, and not just calculate the odds of random assembly like the examples he just gave. Nevertheless, Sagan's words are used against him by Christians who grab at the numbers without paying attention to their context, or indeed to the fact that Sagan uses extremely simplified equations and assumptions."
Sagan pointed out that by odds arguments it is "impossible" for an individual to be born. And yet that happens every day. The odds of any individual being born is all but zero. The odds of somebody being born is approaching one. That means that somebody will be born, but you cannot predict ahead of time the exact genetics of the person about to be born.
The same applies to evolution. The odds of one particular species evolving is practically zero before it evolves. The odds that evolution will occur is practically one.
You misunderstood Sagan's argument. I use a similar one involving bridge hands. The "odds" against something happening are very often misleading. If you use an argument incorrectly you may draw ridiculous conclusions. Here is what your article said about Carl Sagan:
"Carl Sagan
Even Carl Sagan has been cited, from a book he edited, Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (MIT Press, 1973), a record of the proceedings of a conference on SETI. Sagan himself presented a paper at that conference, in which he reports (pp. 45-6) the odds against a specific human genome being assembled by chance as 1 in 10^2,000,000,000 (in other words, the genome of a specific person, and not just any human). As a build-up to this irrelevant statistic he states that a simple protein "might consist" of 100 amino acids (for each of which there are 20 "biological varieties") for a chance of random assembly, for one specific protein of this sort, of 1 in 10^130. He uses these statistics as a rhetorical foil for the fact that no human genome is assembled at random, nor did life have to start with only one possible protein of a particular, specific type, but that "the preferential replication, the preferential reproduction of organisms, through the natural selection of small mutations, acts as a kind of probability sieve, a probability selector," so that one must account for natural selection in estimating the odds of any alien species existing elsewhere in the universe, and not just calculate the odds of random assembly like the examples he just gave. Nevertheless, Sagan's words are used against him by Christians who grab at the numbers without paying attention to their context, or indeed to the fact that Sagan uses extremely simplified equations and assumptions."
Sagan pointed out that by odds arguments it is "impossible" for an individual to be born. And yet that happens every day. The odds of any individual being born is all but zero. The odds of somebody being born is approaching one. That means that somebody will be born, but you cannot predict ahead of time the exact genetics of the person about to be born.
The same applies to evolution. The odds of one particular species evolving is practically zero before it evolves. The odds that evolution will occur is practically one.
That's my point. Add the magic ingredient and anything is possible.
That's my point. Add the magic ingredient and anything is possible.
No, it seems that you are still not understanding. If you want to claim there is a "magic ingredient". The fact is that changes will occur regardless of what happens. Those changes are filtered through natural selection. Change is inevitable and natural selection gives a rough guidance to that change.
But if the same conditions occurred again the result would probably be very different since changes build upon each other and each case would follow its own path.
No, it seems that you are still not understanding. If you want to claim there is a "magic ingredient". The fact is that changes will occur regardless of what happens. Those changes are filtered through natural selection. Change is inevitable and natural selection gives a rough guidance to that change.
But if the same conditions occurred again the result would probably be very different since changes build upon each other and each case would follow its own path.
"Change"? What changes? Hair color? Eye color? Hair? Number of toes? Beak size? Colorization?
Or is it entire irreducible systems like blood clotting, protein building, fetal development plans, total muscle re-arrangement, scales to feathers, etc.?
Just saying "change" happens describes nothing. Saying change happens from simple to extremely complex merely by natural means (selection) is unscientific, unobserved, untested and illogical.
Odd that you then go on to cite Sagan making a very different statement.I remember Carl Sagan making the very statement.
Which doesn't remotely support your claim, as SZ has pointed out. Sagan's argument is that you can get a very low probability of life only if you do the calculation wrong -- if you ignore reality.
You do realize that natural selection actually happens, right? Why do you want to ignore reality?However, with the application of the magic of 'natural selection' these odds are rendered moot.
"Change"? What changes? Hair color? Eye color? Hair? Number of toes? Beak size? Colorization?
Or is it entire irreducible systems like blood clotting, protein building, fetal development plans, total muscle re-arrangement, scales to feathers, etc.?
Just saying "change" happens describes nothing. Saying change happens from simple to extremely complex merely by natural means (selection) is unscientific, unobserved, untested and illogical.
Or is it entire irreducible systems like blood clotting, protein building, fetal development plans, total muscle re-arrangement, scales to feathers, etc.?
Odd that you then go on to cite Sagan making a very different statement.
Which doesn't remotely support your claim, as SZ has pointed out. Sagan's argument is that you can get a very low probability of life only if you do the calculation wrong -- if you ignore reality.
You do realize that natural selection actually happens, right? Why do you want to ignore reality?
Now, could you try again: please give some examples that actually support your claim, rather than undermine it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?