|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Darwinism is wrong | |||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Exactly, it is that way with 100 year floods. The chance of having a 100 year flood this year is 1/100. The chances of having two-100 year floods this year (before the fact) is 1/100 x 1/100 or 1/10000.
However if two hundred year floods occur this year then after the fact the probability of having the two floods is 1 or 100%. There is also a problem of assigning probabilities to natural events because there are so many different ways of arriving at the same result - in other words, it is not a random process like tossing coins (even coin tossing isn't always truly random). Another way of saying is that each natural event, whether a hurricane, a flood, or a speciation event is unique - the exact circumstances for that event have never occured before and never will again. So in a sense, there is no way to assign a probability and if fact if we were to assign a probibility, we would have to say the probability is zero because the event has never occured before. And yet we know unique events occur. The probability of me as an individual being born was zero, yet here I am. So probabilities are not actually very useful for predicting unique or near unique events.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
"Or at least provide the website that you probably cribbed that old chestnut from so we can denounce it properly."
Heh. Good one. Now how am I going to get this coffee out of my keyboard?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Actually convergent characters are predicted by (and therefore a strength of) evolutionary theory and is a big problem for special creation. (Why use several ways to solve the same "problem" when one way is probably superior?) It is the some of the Rube Goldberg like results of evolution that is the best evidence for it. One would expect a designer to design the perfect structure for each function and then simply repeat it over and over. But that is not what we find. Nature is full of ad hoc solutions to life's requirements. The panda "thumb" is just one example.
http://www.athro.com/evo/pthumb.html This message has been edited by deerbreh, 07-29-2005 03:18 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
I was referring to many examples of convergent evolution where there may be similar solutions to a particular problem, but in fact if you look carefully at the anatomy you will find that the "solution" was arrived at in very different way. The panda's "thumb" is a good example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Well, first of all, most houses are pretty similar in design (in spite of having many designers). They are mostly variations of a rectangular box (or boxes) with a pitched roof. Now you are claiming one designer. What happens when we have a single designer of houses? Have you ever heard of Levittown? Or just driven through an older development? The main reason there is variety in house designs is that a variety of people with different needs, available resources and tastes are building or buying them. If evolution had designed houses I would expect a lot more variety and hey, when buildings that were not intended to be residences in the first place are then turned into residences (such as old warehouses in Boston), we do get more variety. Fancy that.
A little exercise for you. Feel your gums above your canine teeth. Why do you suppose you need such a massive bone structure to support those little canine teeth? Doesn't this "design" seem just a little ad hoc y?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
"But my point is made by the fact that evolutionists only consider convergent evolution to be plausible, until recently, for the changes you refer to here, but now we see that in reality, convergent evolution, if evolution is true, can account for just about any similarity."
No. Most similarities are explained by common ancestry. You gave one example (mammalian ear bones) where convergence is being claimed when it seems as if common ancestry or a designer would be a more convenient explanation. Is it not also true that this is one paper that has not yet been fully vetted by the rest of the scientific community? The researcher found one monotreme that did not have the three ear bones found in all other mammals. Actually, he only found a lower jaw bone. So you are hanging your skepticism of convergent evolution on the discovery of one jaw bone of one extinct monotreme species - that has not been fully vetted by the scientific community. Against all of the other evidence for convergent evolution and in light of your designer bias, this seems like an extremely thin reed to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Did you try the little exercise I suggested?
"Biology reflects what we know and is fully congruent with what we know of design" How can you possibly say that? What are your biological credentials/training that allow you to make such a sweeping generalization?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Was this a response to my post?
On edit: I was questioning how you could be so sceptical of convergent evolution based on one recent discovery that has not been verified by other scientists? You have a habit of repeating "boiler plate" instead of answering specific questions. It is a little annoying. This message has been edited by deerbreh, 07-29-2005 05:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
I don't really understand what you are trying to say here but in general:
Similarities in function that have somewhat different structures are explained by convergent evolution (and I think it is a huge stretch in logic to ascribe such a result to a creator). Similarities in function that have similar structures are best explained by common ancestry. (A creator is more logical here except there is no need to invoke one since there is plenty of evidence for common ancestry in nearly every case which has been studied.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024