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.
its true that english isnt my native. so i may not understand some words.
can you give evidence for that claim?
Because mammals evolving identically twice from two separate lineages is NOT predicted by TOE.
Which calculation are you referring to?first: they dont need to be identical. they only need to be mammals. secondly: prove it by calculation .
the calculation that show why its impossible to evolve a mammal twice.Which calculation are you referring to?
If you say so. But why must that be the case?And that "designer" will be God as conceived of by Creationists--none other will be tolerated. That is what the creation/evolution controversy is about. It is not a cosmic struggle between theismand atheism.
If you say so. But why must that be the case?
The God of Abraham is the uncaused cause of the universe and the greatest conceivable being. I'm not sure if it is necessary to invoke this persin to explain the phenomina of biological design. Certainly a number of people (including [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Dawkins) have suggested beings from within the Universe or even within this Galaxy as a possibility.
The evidence will lead wherever it leads.
No doubt. But so far it has not lead to right-wing YEC Protestantism, and the attitude of Christians of that persuasion towards non YEC Christians (not to mention towards atheists) has become intolerable.If you say so. But why must that be the case?
The God of Abraham is the uncaused cause of the universe and the greatest conceivable being. I'm not sure if it is necessary to invoke this persin to explain the phenomina of biological design. Certainly a number of people (including [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Dawkins) have suggested beings from within the Universe or even within this Galaxy as a possibility.
The evidence will lead wherever it leads.
hmmmm.......if you cant then im right and even such a case will not falsify evolution.
Well now,No doubt. But so far it has not lead to right-wing YEC Protestantism, and the attitude of Christians of that persuasion towards non YEC Christians (not to mention towards atheists) has become intolerable.
hmmmm.......
When someone hands you a counterfeit hundred dollar bill, how can you make it even more worthless ?
LOL! Border patrol agents? You do realize that the war has been over for 150 years and your side lost? It's time you got over it.Well now,
if some border patrol agents came to your area of residence,
Non-YEC Christians are telling you this?and started telling residents that your church and you and your family are unredeemed animals,
If you really understood science you would know that science can prove no such thing.and proved it using the so-called science you seem to believe...
As difficult as it may sound to you, I believe that is how Christ taught us to behave. Of course I am used to having my faith denounced in such terms, having lived in the Bible Belt as a non-YEC Christian....would you say to the agents "God Bless You" and fix them a meal ?
Well, the earliest fossilised examples of microbes don't have flagella. As for unique structures emerging, there are a number of plausible paths as demonstrated, especially from the Type II Secretory system of the bacterium that caused the Bubonic Plague. These are natural processes we know occur that don't have an intelligent designer.Plausible? The Model T Ford did not have electric windows and yet later vehicles do, and I still havn't seen any evidence of Henry Ford in any of them. Should I proclaim to all that Henry Ford never existed?
It doesn't take a qualified bioligist to know that Natural Selection only works on populations of self replicating organisms."Appearance of design", because we know of and have in fact observed the natural process that causes this phenomena, and it isn't an intelligent designer - it is Evolution by natural selection! We've observed it to no end, we've documented many, many ways in which it happens and we've never been able to falsify it. Why don't you ask these Biologists why they don't believe in any Intelligent Designer....after all, they are absolutely qualified, and have followed the evidence to its inevitable conclusion, right? Of all people you could ask, surely they'd be in the know?
It does not invent anything rather it selects by survival of the fittest and population dynamics for beneficial mutations.
At the point of origin of life Natural Selection has no part to play because there is nothing to work with.
Subsequent mutations are accidental and purposeless (unless they form a part of the designed flexibility of the organism), so the only part NS has to play is in the selection of whether a particular mutation in a population is beneficial.
The path of NS to a functionally coherent and novel organism must be beneficial to the population of the organism at each and every step or it is selected against.
It doesn't take a molecuar biologist with an appreciation for the incredible complexity and very high levels of funtional coherence in even the most basic life form to understand that this birdy does not fly.
Over 150 years and thousands upon thousands of people studying the topic so as to keep the foot of a designer out of the door, and nothing to show for it.That's presumptuous to say a natural explanation will never be known - you might be right but even if you are right and we'll never have a verified explanation, that's still not confirmation that it didn't happen naturally.
I have had evolution rammed down my throat for 38 years now, but not one single plausible explanation for origins that does not involve a designet has raised its head.
I would rather go to the grave presumptuosly aknowledging the designer than hanging to a whole lot of empty promises from people who beleive in biological fairy tales.
Study the mutation rates of Malaria, HIV and E-Coli. These organisms reproduce and mutate at some of the highest rates observable and E-Coli was (or is) the subject of an evolutionary study that was up to more than 50 000 generations the last time I looked.The process of Evolution gives rise to this phenomenon. If you understood it, you'd know this.
We have a wide variety of verifiable documents, photography and
It hasn't and is still in full effect - nothing has changed with respect to evolution, and it's all working as it has all along just fine. Why do you say all that when it's not what we observe? What's your reference?
It is estimated that HIV mutates at all single points in every person who carries the virus every single day. Millions upon millions of generations and many more millions of mutations.
Malaria operates at similar high rates of reproduction and yet is the only one of tje 3 that has evolved a beneficial multiple point enzyme mutation on one protein in millions upon millions of generations.
At this observed rate of mutation and Natural Selection it would take many more billions of years than the universe has existed for even one protein to evolve into something new.
Wow! A confirmation of the process. Although as a good student of evolution perhaps I'm jumping the gun. I still havn't met the designer yet.My post sure is designed, no problem there.
So for things that display even higher levels of FC, say a single functional protein, the probability of coming together by accident as a new invention is significantly lower.
Such a thing cannot happen by accident, it must therefore have happened by means of a process with purpose.
If you're thinking about the sort of algorithm that Dawkins produced to evolve the sentence "methinks it's a weasel" in a short series of steps, it's shot through with intelligent interference guiding the process to a desired result. Very disingenous.You're right, even the environment for the experiments are designed too, but the evolutionary reaction to the intelligently designed environment (i.e. the topic of study) is completely natural. Literally the only thing designed is the environment, and that's so we can study how evolution reacts to such conditions and changes in nature. I understand you don't like that we make these observations that continue to affirm the Theory of Evolution, but perhaps you could accept the evidence since it is reality after all, plenty of other religious folk of all stripes (not just Christianity) can do it, so you can too.
No, it just isn't. Evolution (as mentioned innumerable times by people working in this field) creates the illusion of design without any intelligence involved - we've seen it happen in real
A loud honking of just so stories is not evidence. Perhaps my skepticism is to well developed, but I do not find it at all convincing the idea that once upon a time in a land far far away magically popped into existence (and it must have been magically because there is no natural law or no designer to do the job).Show me the Designer then. We have demonstrable evidence that Evolution does it already, so your evidence of a "designer" will have to be just as convincing as the evidence we already have in spades for Evolution.
The repeated independant confirmation of design should then enable us to recognise design even in the absence of the confirmation.No, because we literally have the evidence of a designer designing these tools, even if we haven't seen the specific designer for this specific designed thing, we have a well-established history of these things being designed and relocated accordingly. Nothing like that for naturally occurring organisms.
Particularly when the only plausible explanation available points to a designer.
You really need to read the book. I'm not going to reproduce Douglas Axes work here but here is an excerpt from one section:I *Literally* Cannot Wait to see how you come to the probability of something being designed! I thought you believe Everything is designed, so this is gonna be good. I would like if you could, something that has a set of criteria or process by which we can test whatever arbitrary thing we want to test it on so we can see how accurate this method is.
Waiting EVER So patiently.... O.O
Do you really think that "calculation" of yours has any resemblance or application to how evolution works? Or is just supposed to be a red herring?You really need to read the book. I'm not going to reproduce Douglas Axes work here but here is an excerpt from one section:
To calculate the probability that half a page of random keystrokes would consist entirely of English words, we start with 1 and multiply by 1/31 (the probability of a letter grouping being a word) over and over, a total of 600 times. According to the principle of reciprocal scale, the number of half pages that would have to be filled with blind typing in order for one of them to consist entirely of words is expected to be roughly equal to the reciprocal of this multiplied fraction. Equivalently, we can start with 1 and multiply by 31 (the reciprocal of 1/31) over and over, 600 times. When that calculation is done, the printed result fills just over eleven lines with numerals, making this a paragraph-size number instead of a book-size number—fantastically big nonetheless. Living as we do in a universe that can’t produce two lines’ worth of physical attempts at anything, this eleven-line number delivers an overwhelming victory to the search space. In terms of the pin-dropping metaphor, the difficulty of the blind search finding even this meaningless jumble of short words equates to that of blindly hitting the cuna target forty-four times in a row (four hits per line, as noted in chapter 8).
I didn’ say it was impossible.the calculation that show why its impossible to evolve a mammal twice.
I'm fine with probability and statistics, I'm asking how one measures "Design" in biological organisms with it. I don't see how it could be done, hence the post.You really need to read the book. I'm not going to reproduce Douglas Axes work here but here is an excerpt from one section:
To calculate the probability that half a page of random keystrokes would consist entirely of English words, we start with 1 and multiply by 1/31 (the probability of a letter grouping being a word) over and over, a total of 600 times. According to the principle of reciprocal scale, the number of half pages that would have to be filled with blind typing in order for one of them to consist entirely of words is expected to be roughly equal to the reciprocal of this multiplied fraction. Equivalently, we can start with 1 and multiply by 31 (the reciprocal of 1/31) over and over, 600 times. When that calculation is done, the printed result fills just over eleven lines with numerals, making this a paragraph-size number instead of a book-size number—fantastically big nonetheless. Living as we do in a universe that can’t produce two lines’ worth of physical attempts at anything, this eleven-line number delivers an overwhelming victory to the search space. In terms of the pin-dropping metaphor, the difficulty of the blind search finding even this meaningless jumble of short words equates to that of blindly hitting the cuna target forty-four times in a row (four hits per line, as noted in chapter 8).
That "suggestion" by Dawkins is a quote mine.
Here is an excerpt from a discussion between Douglas Axe and Hans Vodder on the topic:Do you really think that "calculation" of yours has any resemblance or application to how evolution works? Or is just supposed to be a red herring?
You really need to read the book. I'm not going to reproduce Douglas Axes work here but here is an excerpt from one section:
To calculate the probability that half a page of random keystrokes would consist entirely of English words, we start with 1 and multiply by 1/31 (the probability of a letter grouping being a word) over and over, a total of 600 times. According to the principle of reciprocal scale, the number of half pages that would have to be filled with blind typing in order for one of them to consist entirely of words is expected to be roughly equal to the reciprocal of this multiplied fraction. Equivalently, we can start with 1 and multiply by 31 (the reciprocal of 1/31) over and over, 600 times. When that calculation is done, the printed result fills just over eleven lines with numerals, making this a paragraph-size number instead of a book-size number—fantastically big nonetheless. Living as we do in a universe that can’t produce two lines’ worth of physical attempts at anything, this eleven-line number delivers an overwhelming victory to the search space. In terms of the pin-dropping metaphor, the difficulty of the blind search finding even this meaningless jumble of short words equates to that of blindly hitting the cuna target forty-four times in a row (four hits per line, as noted in chapter 8).
Why? Yes I beleive that everything is designed, and the evidence presented provides some confirmation of my beleif, thus strengthening my faith in what I beleive.I'm fine with probability and statistics, I'm asking how one measures "Design" in biological organisms with it. I don't see how it could be done, hence the post.
I also noted that as a Creationist, wouldn't everything be designed in your point of view? If so, then the point is moot to start with, and why even present this?
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?