DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
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.
simply wrong. we can arrange them in a general hierarchy: cars, vans and trucks. very simple.
since according to evolution small steps over time will become a big step, then this question actually very relevant to evolution.
So your question is about the principle of accumulation?
You need to have it demonstrated that the continued accumulation of small things will end up becoming a big thing?
That 1+1+1+1+1+1+...+1+1+1+1 will eventually add up to billions?
That the continued accumulation of moving 1 inch at a time will eventually add up to moving from many miles?
great. so by this logic a car+ small change+ small change+ small change will eventually add up to a plane.
My main objections are as follows:ok. i will try to do that simple. you can find the full paper from 2004 by searching the pdf file. what is your main objection to that paper actually?
It is not over their head in what you state, but not in line supporting their pathway of Evolution on Earth.great. so by this logic a car+ small change+ small change+ small change will eventually add up to a plane.
He interpreted correctly. It appears not to the pathways you think most about.That is not at all what I said.
It seems your imagination is going beserk again.
We'ill give you another try.It's not a hierarchy of any kind. It's just a lie about the developmental history of motor vehicles.
I was referring to Xianghua's diagram in particular. It does not reflect the actual developmental hierarchy of motor vehicles.We'ill give you another try.
Singular-pathway development is not biochemical only bound.
Through Intelligence we see Developmental Hierarchy among many things with ease.
The patent literature has tons of such to learn by.
Even about motorcycles, metallurgy used, valve train design, spark intensity and timing, ........
View attachment 220613
I could convert a car into an airplane one piece at a time without the car being entirely useless at any stage. Why wouldn't a person be able to do that? It just wouldn't be by the same process by which living organisms evolve, since they evolve over generations across a population, not individually.great. so by this logic a car+ small change+ small change+ small change will eventually add up to a plane.
there are about 10^30 bacteria on earth. if we assume a generation time=1 hour and any generation add about 100 new mutations we will get about 10^32 mutations per hour. 4.5 billion years is more then 10^12 hours so this will give us about less then 10^50 tries since earth formation.
great. so by this logic a car+ small change+ small change+ small change will eventually add up to a plane.
That appears to be his strategy, yes.Do you ignore points that have been shown to you because they disagree with your ideas?
Uh, yes I gave you twenty nine evidences for evolution. I have told you that many times. And you know this will be my answer, yes? So why do you ask the same question, when you already know the answer?no. do you have evidence that he indeed changed one into another one?
He interpreted correctly
Having only biochemicals have a pathway to increase in complexity is your Faith.
Where do other chemicals and materials do such.
Where is the grandoise pathway of elements and coumpounds of U, Ti, Sc, Pb, montmorillionite, serpentine, ........... increasing in complexity in molecular pathways - and show us what pathways of increasing in complexity have generated by evolution.
? i talk about axe work on beta-lactamase. he conclude (base on his work and others works too) that the chance to get this specific function is about on in 10^77 tries. how the fact that this wrok from 2004 is any relevant to this result? 10^77 is a huge number so its seems very unlikely to move from one functional gene into a totally different one.My main objections are as follows:
1. It's too old; our understanding of what proteins are functional has vastly improved in the time since it was. And wait, 2004? I could have sworn the date for the article you linked was 2008, and 2004 would make it even more behind! Regardless, their conclusions are based on data too old to be representative of our modern understanding of genetics.
2. You misinterpreted their conclusions entirely; they concluded that every functional region within a certain size range has likely developed within the evolutionary history of the planet. Not "all functional proteins have existed at some point" as you seem to claim. Even if that was their claim, organisms have many genes, not just one, so it would not mean that every possible viable organism has come into existence.
3. You've abandoned internal consistency. The conclusions you have made in this particular debate conflict with your previous arguments entirely, and in no way support an ID position in general. If anything, this sounds like a poorly made argument for naturalistic evolution (by arguing that all functional genes seen today were an inevitability purely by the number of organisms that have existed in Earth's history).
I could convert a car into an airplane one piece at a time without the car being entirely useless at any stage.
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?