|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5573 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
I'm a bit dubious about this story. A bit of a internet rummage doesn't seem to reveal any source for it that isn't a direct quote from the Sun. The Sun's not exactly a reliable news outlet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I would tend to think Mulder is just repeating some rumour he heard. I did a fairly extensive search for info on this and the Sen article is all that I could find. As The Sun is not the most reputable source, I would think we should chock this up to urban myth. If anyone can provide other sources I am more than willing to change my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
RickCHodgin writes: I understand this is a reality of the mechanics of evolution. However, I don't buy it. It results in too many direct and specific changes needing to have occurred for it to be real - even over extremely long periods of time. I have seen scientific reports which claim there are more than 1 billion genes in a human's DNA. In order for us to have gotten to where we are today over the (I believe) 1.5 billion years scientists claim life has existed on Earth in multi-cellular form, it would've required a direct change rate of nearly one gene change per year on average. If we assume an average reproductive lifespan of 24 hours from the early forms until much later ones, that means a maximum of 36 billion generations from single-celled life to us. It is not possible to generate the changes necessary to create us without having gone through literally trillions of failed species. And there is no evidence of the variations that should exist in us today which would allow us to continue to evolve. We are all pretty similar to one another, maybe a little better at breathing, or able to deal with cold better, etc., but nothing significant that would allow us to evolve over time. I just don't see any evidence. And that's me being completely honest. Hi brother Rick. A hearty welcome to EvC. Our Christian constituency here at EvC is growing. After six relative lonely years it's nice to have more company. It also balances out the debating for the good of the cite at large and to relieve the workload of the minority POV. I totally agree with your message here. There would have had to be millions if not billions of positive random steps for life to have progressed to the extent of design which we observe today. There's just no random model to support this. I don't know how much you have read of me or agree, but I go with the corroborative other evidence of the veracity of the Biblical record. Add all of this to the point your message here makes and there's very good reason to go with the Biblical record to explain the complexity of design which we observe on this planet and in the cosmos. You appear to have some knowledge in the science arena. I hope we see more of you. May God bless you and yours. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Hi brother Rick. A hearty welcome to EvC. Our Christian constituency here at EvC is growing. After six relative lonely years it's nice to have more company. It also balances out the debating for the good of the cite at large and to relieve the workload of the minority POV. It's true. There does seem to be a sudden influx of creationist/biblical types around EvC at the moment. Have you been recruiting Buz? On the whole it has to be a good thing.............
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
caffeine writes: A bit of a internet rummage doesn't seem to reveal any source for it that isn't a direct quote from the Sun. The Sun's not exactly a reliable news outlet. I'm not backing the story by any means. Just presenting it as-is. Take it or leave it sort of thing. The story says something about this kids eyes acting like a cats (built to let in more light then our eyes). But then they say things like "he can read perfectly fine in a pitch-black room." And, well, I thought cats-eyes didn't even work in pitch-black? That is, they just are able to see in less light than we can... but not no light. Then again, I don't really know much about cats or eyesight, so... meh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I totally agree with your message here. There would have had to be millions if not billions of positive random steps for life to have progressed to the extent of design which we observe today. There's just no random model to support this. It's called "genetics". You may want to look that word up.
You appear to have some knowledge in the science arena. No, he's just making stuff up as he goes along. One of the big disadvantages of knowing damn-all about what you're taking about is that you're unable to tell the difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
There would have had to be millions if not billions of positive random steps for life to have progressed to the extent of design which we observe today. There's just no random model to support this. Really? Not even natural selection? Here are two ways of looking at this: The task is to roll 25 dice and get all sixes 1) The typical mathematician or creationist would be there for decades, rolling all 25 dice each time, never getting more than a few sixes. They would then tell you its impossible, the odds are just too high. 2) A biologist or evolutionist would probably roll the 25 dice, and then reroll only those that weren't sixes! With several repetitions the whole thing would take just a few minutes. Lest you say that this doesn't apply to evolution, think again. You don't have to get all 25 dice right on the first try--neither did evolution. Natural selection builds on successes, while failures are discarded. You yourself are the product of millions of successes, coming one at a time and building upon the ones that came before. You are the product of millions of ancestors who each got it right and left descendants! But each came one at a time, building on the successes of the previous generation. There's a whole new way to look at "random" for you. Of course I expect you won't accept a word of this for religious reasons. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The typical mathematician or creationist would be there for decades, rolling all 25 dice each time, never getting more than a few sixes. They would then tell you its impossible, the odds are just too high. Yeah, 'cos us mathematicans are so stupid that when ambiguous frameworks are given, we have no ability to map out all of the possible responses. Unlike the mighty biologists, who are like gods to us when it comes to Bayesian statistics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Coyote writes: The task is to roll 25 dice and get all sixes You've set the bar way too low for yourselves. Likely the task would be more like rolling a few thousand dices, each having a thousand symetrical facets and getting all nine ninety nines. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Likely the task would be more like rolling a few thousand dices, each having a thousand symetrical facets and getting all nine ninety nines. But seriously, the idea wasn't to set the numbers at some arbitrary value to incite awe, but to give an understanding of why it's not as awe inspiring as one would first assume. The point being that one doesn't have to get all 999's in a roll. You get to keep any 999 you get along the way, and only re-roll the non-999's. A diligent roller could knock it out in a month two if he's unionized. Your threshold of awe is set way too low. I have a higher threshold of awe than do you. If awe has a genetic component, that difference, plus selection, is the material for evolution. Of the six and one-half billion people on Earth there is a mean value for the threshold-of-awe with values spreading out on both side of that mean. If awe ever becomes a dangerous trait those with a higher threshold will fare better than those with a low threshold. And they'll pass along that trait to their kids, who will also fare better. The mean value for the threshold-of-awe will shift to the high end. And not a single die need be cast today to do it. The die had been cast for millions of years, aimlessly widening the spread away from the mean. All the while getting to keep, not just the 999's, but all the rolls that weren't deleterious. Mutations that merely increased the spread away from the mean in seemingly insignificant ways under the circumstances that existed when they arose can become harmful or beneficial millions of years further down the road. It's not the mutation that arrives just in the nick of time but the selection pressure. There's lots of time to roll the dice, and the only ones we don't keep are the ones that hurt. And in some far-flung future my descendants will be unfazed by how awe-full your descendants will be. Edited by lyx2no, : Prose Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
lyx2no writes: But seriously, the idea wasn't to set the numbers at some arbitrary value to incite awe, but to give an understanding of why it's not as awe inspiring as one would first assume. The point being that one doesn't have to get all 999's in a roll. You get to keep any 999 you get along the way, and only re-roll the non-999's. A diligent roller could knock it out in a month two if he's unionized. Your threshold of awe is set way too low. That's not the way the odds game works. It's all or nothing. Coyote, to whom I was responding was talking the odds game, relative to the event in question, with the 25 die. Right? The die had to be thrown until all 25 matched. Right? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
The die had to be thrown until all 25 matched. Right? Wrong. You've been here six years now, Buz, and this still hasn't sunk in? You've learned nothing at all about what modern biology claims in all this time? "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
That's not the way the odds game works. It's all or nothing. Coyote, to whom I was responding was talking the odds game, relative to the event in question, with the 25 die. Right? The die had to be thrown until all 25 matched. Right? I think Coyote answered this question:
quote: Your answer seems to put you in the 'typical creationist' bracket. Is that like with evolution? Coyote continues:
quote: You might argue that analogy doesn't work - but the game clearly allows for cumulative selection. Do you agree that this makes it a lot easier than getting all the dice to turn up '6' or '999' or whatever?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
That's not the way the odds game works. The "odds game", as you call it, is not all or nothing. One examines at the mechanics of the game and describes the game with the math. Not the other way round.
Coyote, to whom I was responding was talking the odds game, relative to the event in question, with the 25 die. Right? Coyote, to whom you were responding, also mentioned the mechanics of two ways to play to an end. One where sixes are retained and one where they are not. Evolution is a game that clearly gets to keep the sixes already rolled.
The die had to be thrown until all 25 matched. Right? All 25 matching is an end. The difference is in the means. As I'm a bit brighter then a lump of coal it instantly dawns on me that answering your question in the positive is trivially true. What is this penchant you have for trivial truths? The two means given by Coyote are not trivially distinct, right? Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
That's not the way the odds game works. It's all or nothing. Coyote, to whom I was responding was talking the odds game, relative to the event in question, with the 25 die. Right? The die had to be thrown until all 25 matched. Right?
Its not all or nothing! I know that IDers are big on the "irreducible complexity" dodge, but that has been discredited in every example that Behe has proposed. If IC were accurate, then you would have to get it right with a single throw of the dice. But its not accurate. Rather, evolution builds on successes. Each success allows the population to build on that success. That's why the analogy of rolling 25 dice and keeping the sixes, then rolling the remaining dice is an accurate one. That is a better analogy for how evolution works, and the mathematicians who model evolution the other way are not producing an accurate model--just one that creationists like to taut. Creation "science" as usual, eh? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024