How long does it take to evolve?

Fictional TV show based on real life world events yes -
such as WASP and Italian immigrants,
such as High School life and diners,
such as bikes, cars and girls
and ofcourse the Leopard Lodge.

The Leopard Lodge was fiction

Yes the Leopard Lodge is fiction but the Hanover Lodge is not.See Link --> Royal Hanover Lodge - Do you want to become a Freemason - Enquire Today

Dwise:
As I believe I forewarned in one of my prior posts, I was unable to reply until now, as I was traveling . By no means am I ungrateful for the great deal of time and effort that you have put in to addressing both my direct question and the generalities of the subject matter. I would like to at least show you the courtesy that you deserve, namely to read , absorb, and respond as to whether your words have found their mark. I am still somewhat strapped for time, as I have visitors at my home for the next few days. I would like to begin now, and continue when the opportunity arises.Firstly, a short intro is in order. Please understand that this was my first post, and I did not quite know the law of the jungle, and how strictly it is unofficially enforced amongst the beasts. I had no idea the extant of the prevailing attitude of the overwhelming majority of pro evolution members, although a quick perusal would have revealed that. I found this site by Googling evolution and creation debate, and the site name seemed to indicate that this was just that. Naive? maybe. But innocent enough.Now, a little about myself. I was raised religious (not Christian), and I remain so. If this precludes any further discussion, so be it.If not, I share with you that, being a person of reason , I , like many others, was taught that the world testified about the Creator, etc. etc.. , Yet was told by virtually unanimous representation of the scientific community, at least as represented in Wikipedia, that the world can be explained without one. So I decided to investigate myself. The question I posed was original, thought of by myself alone, and I hope to get a chance to elaborate on it if we can get passed this first step.Some religious people believe in God-guided evolution- I have no interest in discussing that, as I don't really care that much how God did it. My only interest is in random, "natural", unguided ev, which I believe to be impossible due to ID and IC. Are these indeed valid confirmations of a Creator, or not? if satisfactorily explained, I will a) admit debunked b) not change my religious beliefs, as they are formed based on an overwhelming collaboration of compelling arguments ( which by nature, is a matter of opinion or choice or whatever) and is not relevant to this discussion. c) I have no interest in evangelising. d) I have no problem being shown wrong, admitting mistakes, or learning new stuff.I hope this is all OK. If not, why prolong the agony?And here we start:

quote:

---

Your question sounds very much like a common creationist "unanswerable question". An "unanswerable question" is a dishonest fundamentalist proselytizing trick widely used by creationists. It's a question that is designed to be impossible to answer, at least for most of the creationist's victims. Its primary purpose is to knock your opponent's feet out from under him and, by throwing him off-balance, hopefully to make him doubt his own position, thus softening him up for conversion (like I said, I have read their training materials). Secondarily, though in a very close second, they are useful in deceiving an audience by making the opponent's position appear weak, even to the point of making it appear that you have disproven his position.

---

I hope I took care of all that.

quote:

---

Now regard your question in light of all that. You wanted us to calculate how long it would take for single-cell organisms to evolve into humans. In order to do that, we would need to construct a detailed mathematical model of every single stage of that evolution. That would require us to possess complete and highly detailed knowledge of every single stage. Not only does that not yet exist, but the likelihood that we on this forum would be such foremost experts is extremely slim. And even if one of us were an expert, constructing that detailed mathematical model is a non-trivial task, so to expect us to do it immediately off the top of our heads and on the back of an envelope is highly unreasonable..

---

OK, this deserves a response: I do not expect anyone to know the actual answer, I am merely trying to point out that from a back of the envelope calculation, the numbers don't seem to come close enough to be a viable consideration. As Warren Buffet once quipped, ( I am in finance), he doesn't use a calculator when he performs valuation calculations- if he can't do it in his head, it's too close, and he doesn't buy the stock.
similarly, my approach was as follows: Ev started gaining traction say 100 years ago. Since then, people have been dying to find some substantial instance of ev, not just specks on moth wings etc, yet nothing has been found for 100 years. So it takes at least 100 yrs to change enough to have something to write home about. In truth,, we could ostensibly go back for all of recorded history and see if anything significant has happened to any species. say 5000 years? 10000? Have Humans changed? Multiply that by the number of changes needed to get from a single cell organism to Humans. Can we guess a minimum number of changes needed by analyzing the amount of info in the DNA code? 3 billion base pairs? So my layman line of reasoning was, even in the best case scenario, if everything mutated with marksmanship accuracy, it would have taken 3 billion times 5000 years to evolve a human, far more time than is widely considered the age of the universe, let alone the age of life.
Now, I know that some things can evolve simultaneously, as was pointed out by one of the commenters on this thread. And I know that over the past 5000 yrs, perhaps there were some insignificant mutations that did take place. But Then again, don't forget that I have allowed for perfect order. In reality, we must consider that all this has to happen randomly, in a succession that is constantly improving, and allow time for natural selection to allow the fittest to dominate.I have no doubt that there are flaws in my reasoning ( a lamden original!), but at the end of the day the numbers seem comfortable enough to allow for plenty of leeway and still be way, way off. I do not ask for an answer, just to show me if and how this particular line of reason is deluded. Why would I defend this if it is clearly wrong, I admit it just may be!)You have given me much to respond to, but this is a good start.

quote:

---

This keeps reminding me of that incident told in the Pirke Avoth ("Sayings of the Fathers") about the uppity Gentile who was going from one rabbinic school to the next demanding the head rabbi to recite the whole of the Law (ie, the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament) while standing on one foot. Now, it would not have been unreasonable to ask that they recite portions from memory, since memorizing the Torah was a primary skill that they taught (memorizing entire books was common practice even in Gentile academies, as memorizing the Talmud in yeshivas centuries later), but to have to recite the entire Torah in one session would be a non-trivial task and to have to do that while standing on one foot was just plain unreasonable.

---

I am curious as to where you read about this... It is actually not in Pirkei Avoth, and not exactly as you quoted, but in the Talmud, and very similar. However, you knew enough to have heard of Pirke Avoth, and of a story of the Sage Hillel. ( Doesn't affect your point, Just wondering... did you see it quoted as such, or have you studied these works?)Edited by Lamden, : No reason given.

This type of language will just incite insults in return. Yes a lot of members are fed up with creationist pretenses, but they will debate if you offer something of substance instead of innuendo. So Jewish then? (based on your next message), but no matter: a fair number of members, myself included, are both religious and pro-science, as their faith does not preclude science and the pursuit of knowledge about reality. The real question comes down to how you validate your concepts. Indeed, and I would add that the "universe as the work of God/s" is there to correct any false conclusions reached from other sources -- a fact checking system. What is "natural"? If God/s created the universe, then didn't they create the "natural laws" that govern how the universe works?We can model evolution in computer simulations used to develop new products in a fast and efficient process. You can think of evolution as an immense trial and error problem solving mechanism. See Is ID properly pursued? for my take on ID, and also see Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... for some of the reasons it is wrong (also part of the false dichotomy two model issue)Also see Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I) and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) -- they are both outdated by the march of science uncovering more information. "Feels wrong" is not a valid scientific argument, especially if one is not an expert in the field. As I have previously shown when you look at a specific sequence and measure the time available vs the amount needed for the most rapid and efficient evolution it shows that there is an over abundance of time: evolution could have occurred faster than the evidence says it did. Of course this also leads the argument into a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of assuming that the currently observed "end" is a goal rather that just the result of what happened. Curiously scientists have been "writing home" for some time in the last 150 years since the Darwin\Wallace concept was first formalized, and the evidence is indeed rather overwhelmingly on the side of validating not just that evolution occurs, but that it truly can explain the natural history of this planet that is testified by the evidence.What do you think should have occurred in the last 150 years?Perhaps you are not understanding what the science actually says -- a common element of under-informed, under-educated people, especially those raised religious. The good news is that ignorance is curable by learning. For instance I can recommend: Evolution 101 -- a good on-line interactive website chock full of scientific information. No, we just need to consider random mutation and natural selection doing their "jobs" generation after generation. It's a feed-back loop that tends to adapt a breeding population to the current (but everchanging) ecological conditions. Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. Natural selection has also been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesisSpeciation causes a division of breeding populations that can then evolve in different ecologies, and this has been observed to occur. If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.The question is: do you want to learn about real evolution instead of what appears to be a comic-book version? If so, all you have to do is ask.Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : updated Berkeley link

You have given me a lot of homework, some I understood, some not. please give me some time to absorb. I hope to check out that website, and get back to you with questions. figure a week or two.
so far, From what you wrote,
I do think I understood: What I meant to say is, that acc. to the way I understand natural selection, the creatures that have mutations that are beneficial to the species will tend to outlive the ones w/o those benefits, and eventually will dominate the population.
This means that it is a much longer route than had it the observed mutations occured "as the crow flies".For illustration purposes only, it would be a far longer process to rearrange a in to b if along every step of the way, the interim product had to be better than the way the product was before. I am not quite saying a feels wrong argument, but a "way off" one. I will have to go back and reread what you said earlier to see if it sufficiently covers my point, at least as far as I can understand. give me time!Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes.

I'm just a curious guy, so I have to ask - is this the "Lakewood" you are from?

YEdited by Lamden, : No reason given.

No sir!

whewThen California, New Jersey or Ohio? S'okay, you don't have to say.ps your quote in the previous post is missing the s at the closing code: you can edit it to make [/qs]If you use preview before submitting coding errors are highlighted in red.Edited by RAZD, : .

I am hesitant post in public, lots of witch hunters out there! Maybe in a pm as we get more chummy

Those that are able to survive and reproduce will do so, and those that survive longer and successfully reproduce longer or more often (mate selection) will pass more of their genes on to the next generation, increasing those alleles within the population, and hence the population will evolve. Dominance is not a necessary result as several different beneficial mutations could be operating in different individuals. Again, this assumes that the crow intends to fly from (A) to (B), that the end result observed is the goal.But there is no "intention" in evolution to reach any goal other than a breeding population that adapts to the changing ecological challenges by the process of evolution. And I am suggesting that the level of knowledge you have thus far displayed about evolution shows that you do not have a valid basis to make that judgement. I'm sure you feel strongly that your opinion on this is valid, but I suggest you look at the Dunning—Kruger effect, where the unwitting cognitive bias of an under-informed person leads them to poor decisions and erroneous conclusions, but their lack of competence also makes them unable to realize their mistakes.This is not intended to be an insult, just a warning that we all need to be wary of our opinions and feelings and be cognizant of our own level of understanding. Take all the time you need, and certainly don't restrict yourself to just those links.A question for you to keep in mind during your research is: "What is Macroevolution?" Creationists and evolutionary scientists tend to use this term entirely differently, and so this aspect of evolution can only be discussed clearly if we know what each other means.You can add MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? and "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? to the list.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

I did read it in the Pirke Avoth.When I transferred to university from junior college in '71, one of my classes that first semester was in Rabbinic Literature. Our instructor was a rabbi from Europe by way of Israel -- I later took Hebrew from his daughter.Our paper was to be on the Pirke Avoth, so to ensure that we all worked from the same text he ordered the books for us through a bookstore in the Jewish section of Los Angeles (Fairfax District? Lived next door to LA almost all my life and it's still practically foreign territory to me.) and had us go there to buy our copy. It was a dual-language book with the Hebrew on one side and the English translation on the other. I wish I still had it, but a couple years later I loaned it to a friend and he moved away without returning it. When I watched the movie, Yentl, I recognized many of the passages that she'd quote.Of course, it is possible that that account had been included in a footnote. Since that was more than 40 years ago, my memory on the details is not so good.

A proper reply will have to wait until tomorrow. We're doing Oktoberfest tonight (band is Die Odenwlder Dirndljger, "The Skirt-chasers from Odenwald"), so I'll need to start my afternoon nap momentarily. If not Christian, then why considering and the fundamentalist perspective and even adopting some of their premises? If by "not Christian" you meant "not Fundamentalist", then bear in mind that Fundamentalists (creationists are drawn primarily from Fundamentalists and a handful of other sects) are a definite minority among Christians.Not accusing, just confused and wondering what you meant. Perhaps this can help to untangle some of your confusion.Science is the study of how the universe works and how it has worked. Whether any of the gods exist or not has absolutely no effect on science -- except possibly to argue for a god's arbitrary actions causing a change in the laws of physics. Science assumes no supernatural interference not in order to deny God, but rather because including supernaturalistic explanations or causes actually explain nothing and, far worse, interferes with scientific investigation.The findings and endeavors of science would be exactly the same whether the universe had been supernaturally created or not.Creationism (in the general sense, not restricting it to the false belief of "creation science") only concerns itself with identifying a Creator and giving Him/Her/It all the credit. It has no interest in how creation happened (and indeed creationists boast that their explanation is better because they don't know how it happened and they don't claim to know).Creationism and science are two very different types of endeavors with very different goals. There is no either-or nor can there be because they are far too different.Creationists' (meaning "creation science" types) fundamental mistake is to try to prove their position through the Two Model Approach. And that fundamental mistake is compounded through yet another fundamental mistake: they chose to concentrate their attacks against science. They mistakenly think that it's science that they must fight when the real competitor of Creation is a philosophy or set of philosophies that deny the supernatural. Science does not deny the supernatural; it just simply does not deal with the supernatural since it cannot use it nor even deal with it. Same as why you shouldn't try to come up with creationist auto mechanics.Similarly, in discussions between creationism and opposing philosophies there is no place for science. Unless either side tries to make assertions about the physical universe that are contrary-to-fact (eg, "creation science's" many false young-earth claims and "flood geology" claims).And as for the question of whether "creation science" and "intelligent design" are valid, no, they are not. They both try to use sophistry and public relations ploys to sway public opinion instead of doing actual research. For example, ID wants to force supernaturalistic explanations onto science, which offers nothing and would do irreparable damage.If you read my site (http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/) you will see me stating that if you want to oppose evolution then that is your choice. But I must insist that you do so honestly and truthfully. "Creation science" and ID do neither.