|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Evolution is science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I trust you have access to dates and locations of these momentous occasions where speciation occurred in a lab environment. Right? Something this huge scientifically should be documented. It's so common it hardly makes the news anymore. For an example of how well documented it is I refer to Aig: Arguments we think creationists should NOT useArguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis quote: Acknowledged by AiG: still want to argue this point?
The problem with abiogenesis is that an animal left on its own will never in the realm of probability mutate significantly enough to make a difference. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with mutations in existing life - that is evolution. Abiogensis is about the development of life by natural means. And the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution - animals do not mutate into new organisms - means you are arguing against a straw man and not reality.
The astronomically high number of cells in advanced animals combined with the possible amount of permutations leads to impossible odds. The problems with probabilities is that in order to calculate them you need to know all the possibilities. I suggest you read the old improbable probability problem for a number of problems associated with creationist probability calculations.
Being a mathematics professor, I would think that you would be able to see this. Then you should also be able to spot the false assumptions and improper calculations used.
Mathematics essentially doesn't allow for the possibility of helpful mutations. It also cannot rule it out. Sorry to burst your bubble, but mathematics is not reality, and it has no power over reality. If a mathematical model fails to predict what you see in reality then the mathematical model is wrong, not the reality. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Yes, I am aware they lie...especially in regards to radioactive dating. This is the biggest joke ever to hit the field. The numbers and data can be manipulated so as to achieve a desired result. This was explained to me by a scientist..Jay Gould.
For the whole field of radioactive dating to be a big joke it would take much more then some idividuals lying to get some grat money. It would take a huge conspiracy by a large chunk of the scientific community. Do you have any evidence that such a conspiracy actually exists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DivineBeginning Member (Idle past 6058 days) Posts: 100 Joined: |
The problems with probabilities is that in order to calculate them you need to know all the possibilities.
Ahh come on!! You know that is a bunch of malarkey. I majored in mathematics. I know all about probabilities. You don't have to know all the possibilities...there are computers that with the data can compute the number of possibilities. Give me a break.Also, just because new species are being found daily (if that) that doesn't mean that they evolved from anything at all. They may have been around from the beginning of time. Like some of the new species of fish they find in the depths of the ocean. Re: the AiG, That site has some good points, but the one about entropy is a joke. There is a reason why it is called a LAW. Everything follows it. They haven't disproved it...they can't. Food breaking down into it's components doesn't show that chaos is good. The quality of energy is still going down...just like the law says it will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DivineBeginning Member (Idle past 6058 days) Posts: 100 Joined: |
Yes, there are a couple of books that I don't happen to own, but have read. They are by scientists that have studied evolution for years and finally confessed to the lies they had been telling to themselves and the public about how evolution is a dead end. It has no merit. They couldn't prove it. They're great books. I'll get the titles and get back to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
AiG, That site has some good points, but the one about entropy is a joke. There is a reason why it is called a LAW. Everything follows it. They haven't disproved it...they can't. Food breaking down into it's components doesn't show that chaos is good. The quality of energy is still going down...just like the law says it will.
The point here isn't that the laws of thermodinamics don`t always work.The point is that the theory of evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DivineBeginning Member (Idle past 6058 days) Posts: 100 Joined: |
what do you mean it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics? Of course it does. If entropy is increasing how can animals evolve into something more complex? This is the main argument (on the physics side of things anyway). This is why mammals don't give birth to full sized adults. All the information needed to make that organism is contained in the very first merging of the male and female parts. Then as time goes by, you have a decrease in the quality, or increase in entropy. The amount of information/energy is still there, just in a different form. This happens all the time. Oh, one of the books is called Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson. It's really good...you should read it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Yes, there are a couple of books that I don't happen to own, but have read. They are by scientists that have studied evolution for years and finally confessed to the lies they had been telling to themselves and the public about how evolution is a dead end. It has no merit. They couldn't prove it. They're great books. I'll get the titles and get back to you.
is that supposed to be a response to my question about whether you believe there is a conspiracy among scientists to fabricate radiactive dating techniques? I don`t see the connection...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Exactly the same way that an embryo can develop into a full grown adult animal. Guess what -- entropy is increasing in this instance, too. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
what do you mean it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics?
I mean exactly what I said. It doesn`t violate the laws of thermodynamics. New life forms can evolve while the entropy of the universe steadily grows. One thing does not prevent the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
The topic is "Why Evolution is Science". Try to stick to the topic or else. All these excursions into entropy and such have NOTHING to do with the topic.
Now please head back in that direction. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DivineBeginning Member (Idle past 6058 days) Posts: 100 Joined: |
oh come on!! You're better than that!! An animal growing into a mature version of itself isn't even close to the same as something changing into something that has a totally different genetic structure!! Give me more of a challenge!!
Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: So did I. In fact, I teach college level mathematics. -
quote: Cool. I'm teaching a course in probability this coming spring. - I also have experience in scientific modelling, so I know a little bit about the weaknesses of mathematical calculations and models. In fact, earlier today I just happened to write a little post discussing the proper place of models in scientific investigations. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Okay, I will desist.
Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DivineBeginning Member (Idle past 6058 days) Posts: 100 Joined: |
Hey, it has been a true pleasure debating with you. I hope we can chat more later. Up till a few days ago, I didn't know such cool forums existed. I appreciate all your input. I have learned too.
Thanks. I'm turning in now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
DivineBeginner writes: Yes, I am aware they lie...especially in regards to radioactive dating. This is the biggest joke ever to hit the field. The numbers and data can be manipulated so as to achieve a desired result. This was explained to me by a scientist..Jay Gould. I am very interested! By Jay Gould I assume you mean Stephen Jay Gould? I would like to hear more about this. Was this in a book or personally? If personally I would like to hear about it (when, where, what did he say?), if in a book which one? This topic is interesting to me. Thanks Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape? Otto: Apes don't read philosophy. Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it. "A Fish Called Wanda"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024