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.
Do you aknowledge that an unlikely event (such as the accidental "invention" of a functional device) needs sufficient probalistic resourcing in order for it to take place?As I said, creationists are horrendous at determining probabilities and knowing how to apply them.
This little excerpt has nothing to do with what we were talking about, and is in no way analogous to...um...I'm not even sure what it was supposed to be compared with.
A string of amino acids arranged in such a way as to form a functional protein provides one way.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?
Do you aknowledge that an unlikely event (such as the accidental "invention" of a functional device) needs sufficient probalistic resourcing in order for it to take place?
then how could you possibly be impartial if you believe everything is designed?? Back to my original question then, why even bother if you already think it's all created by a designer, the point is moot.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.
Well unfortunately for doubters, Evolution is an applied science - that is, it is applied practically to real world problems and it yields predictable and useful results that could only be possible if it was true. it is used extensively in the Medical science, pharmaceutical research and development, genetic disease prevention and cure research, cancer research, it's also used to find natural resources like oil and coal seams because of the timeframes required to create the biological material that compact down to leave these resources.Conversely, many years of observing the evolutionary circus and the way in which anybody who questions Darwins dogma is attacked and maligned, have only served to reduce my faith in Scientism.
except it doesn't just come together by chance. You'd know this if you did some basic research so this method fails before it even gets out of the gate.A string of amino acids arranged in such a way as to form a functional protein provides one way.
Right. Perhaps you've come across the Miller-Urey experiments I imagine? These experiments have yielded an incredible set of results over the mere 60 or so years it's been running (it continues to run btw), it shows unequivocally that spontaneous production of proteins occur naturally and proliferate very easily in the early earth conditions. Miller–Urey experiment - WikipediaWe know roughly how many Amino acids occur naturally and what types they are. We know the sequence for a basic functional protein.
with Evolution, not only is it probable - we have living examples everywhere you look today.So what is the probability that we can get this exact sequence without intelligent intervention?
I don't believe you. This method is demonstrably inaccurate because of the faulty premise you want to feed into it.Clearly the calculation will not take into account many of the variables, and many of these are incalculable. But a simple calculation of probability using the basic knowledge will only give us a higher probability than the real world one, so will work in favour of the non-intelligence argument.
I didn’ say it was impossible.
I said it was not predicted by TOE.
Do you understand that if sometimes happens that is not predicted by a theory we can begin to doubt the validity of the theory?if so its possible according to evolution to find a 500 my old mammal fossil.
see above. its an evolutionery prediction at all. just after-the-fact explanation.
I already explained this logical error you keep making - you didn't query it then, so why repeat it now?we also observe non- hiierarchy. so if a nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution then non hierarchy should be evidence against it.
Everybody starts with a hypothesis. My hypothesis is that Darwinian evolution does not explain biological origins and recognises that the best explanation for the appearance of design in biological forms is a designer.then how could you possibly be impartial if you believe everything is designed?? Back to my original question then, why even bother if you already think it's all created by a designer, the point is moot.
Yes, elements of the science used by evolutionists have been particularly useful, nobody is denying that.Well unfortunately for doubters, Evolution is an applied science - that is, it is applied practically to real world problems and it yields predictable and useful results that could only be possible if it was true. it is used extensively in the Medical science, pharmaceutical research and development, genetic disease prevention and cure research, cancer research, it's also used to find natural resources like oil and coal seams because of the timeframes required to create the biological material that compact down to leave these resources.
All the denial you can muster won't ever make these facts go away.
My gut bacteria seem to have the methodology cracked. What makes you think it is difficult?
I have researched, everybody from Dawkins to Maddox aknowledges that we simply do not know how it all came together.except it doesn't just come together by chance. You'd know this if you did some basic research so this method fails before it even gets out of the gate.
Muller-Urey demonstrated that compounds that are used in biological things are able to be formed under certain conditions.Right. Perhaps you've come across the Miller-Urey experiments I imagine? These experiments have yielded an incredible set of results over the mere 60 or so years it's been running (it continues to run btw), it shows unequivocally that spontaneous production of proteins occur naturally and proliferate very easily in the early earth conditions. Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia
There are about 250 naturally occuring amino acids that occur in either L or D types. Only 20 of these are used biologically and only the L type. In order to build a single functional protein a string of specific Amino acids must be arranged in a certain order and then folded in the right way. Get it wrong and the protein is not functional (never mind what the function might be).Imagine what is possible if it had hundreds of millions, or even billions of years to spontaneously react?
This is called begging the question.with Evolution, not only is it probable - we have living examples everywhere you look today.
What you beleive is irrelevant. The mathematics is well proven and serves very succesfully in many fields, the only reason it is denied in biology is because some, who are fearful, wish to keep the foot of God out of the door.I don't believe you. This method is demonstrably inaccurate because of the faulty premise you want to feed into it.
That's true; but since it became clearer what the conditions were really like, things have moved on - such experiments have been repeated in simulations of a variety of different ancient Earth environments - and the results have been more productive than Miller or Urey could have dreamed. It's even been shown that RNA and other biopolymers can form in some conditions. Here's a readable BBC article on developments in the field.Muller-Urey demonstrated that compounds that are used in biological things are able to be formed under certain conditions.
It has long been recognised that the conditions they designed were not representative of any real world, nor where they conducive to conditions required for the subsequent formation of functional proteins.
What you beleive is irrelevant. The mathematics is well proven and serves very succesfully in many fields, the only reason it is denied in biology is because some, who are fearful, wish to keep the foot of God out of the door.
RNA world theory has it's own Chicken/Egg or problems.That's true; but since it became clearer what the conditions were really like, things have moved on - such experiments have been repeated in simulations of a variety of different ancient Earth environments - and the results have been more productive than Miller or Urey could have dreamed. It's even been shown that RNA and other biopolymers can form in some conditions. Here's a readable BBC article on developments in the field.
Specifically how is the math missapplied?That's because you misapply the math.
If the math is well proven, and you are using it correctly, please provide the respective design probabilities for both the flagellum and, say, water.
Show your work, please.
Half replication cracked? ROFL.My gut bacteria seem to have the methodology cracked. What makes you think it is difficult?
Specifically how is the math missapplied?
If I have a choice of 500 amino acids and only wish to use 20 of these in a specific sequence of say 50 aminos, what is the probability that I could construct my desired sequence by pulling it blindly out of a hat?
This is easy and yields a fantastically large number revealling an equally fantastic and impossibly low probability.
(500×500×500....for 50 times, because at each point there is a 1 in 500 chance we might pick the correct amino out of the hat, this assuming that all of the corrrect aminos are present in the hat at all times).
If we find that the probability is such that the probalistic resources (number of repeats, amino acid molecules, and time available) that we have are exhausted and yet somehow we have pulled the correct sequence from the hat, what should this tell us?
What if this same event repeated a few thousand times in a row (as might be required to build a basic functionally coherent replicator)
Me? I would say that somebody had been monkeying with the hat, rigging the game somehow. A designer of some sort.
You? You would say that my suggestion is silly and that it is completely unremarkable for such improbability to be overcome repeatably over millions of years. Besides, you might say, there must surely be some law at work that magically overcomes the laws of probability and that one must just have faith that one day Scientism will discover this law and then there will be no need to think about somebody who might be playing a game we don't like.
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?