Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight

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.

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.

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.

My apologies for taking so long to respond. I've been doing other things.I understand the process of evolution. I failed to read Coyote carefully before my responses. I mistakenly took the analogy as an odds game. My bad for carelessness.However, I'm not sure I understand the analogy as being a good one, especially for the the genesis era of evolution when simple organisms allegedly progressed to become more complex. The early processes would have been far more unlikely to be complex positive than, say, your finch analogy.It would seem that in the early stages of evolution the dice analogy would not work so well. Saving up the dice sixes would be no problem whereas the survival of the early organism/s until the process of reproduction got underway would have been difficult. Then from there, a whole lot of random natural complexity positives would have been necessary to continually advance the evolution process.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

1. It would be the same in principle, but until the ability to reproduce and until genetic information was evolved, logically, natural selection would have been less unlikely in the primitive era of evolution.2. I woke up in the wee hours this AM and lay in bed thinking about the problems with Coyote's analogy model. Perhaps this would be for another thread, but I see some reasons why the dice analogy does not fit the evolution model.a. The dice are intelligently designed cubes with symmetric dimensions so as for all available options to have an equal chance of coming up.b. The dice each have only six possibilities as intelligently determined.c. Intelligent design of the designer of the dice and the work of the intelligent dice thrower/manager is needed to throw the dice, to
save the sixes up for the next throw and to determine how many dice to throw for each round.d. The number of options are predetermined and set by the intelligent manager of the dice.None of the above would apply to random natural processes, i.e. evolution. In short, the dice are intelligently designed to guarantee all sixes eventually accumulating to fulfill the designer's goal of all sixes which would not be the case with either abiogenesis or evolution.Another possible (I say possible) problem with the dice analogy might be that with evolution all of the dices would need to be thrown each time with all previous sixes coming up in each subsequent throw. Why? Because with each new generation of the organism, the new generation (as per dice throw/evolution analogy) would need the ability to randomly save the previous evolutionary advancement/s of the organism.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Do I understand correctly then, that you agree with me that Coyote's dice analogy which does not randomly save/accumulate the sixes previously thrown is a poor analogy in that the dice process requires intelligence?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

How does a totally designed and planned intelligent design analogy model a random and undesigned event?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I think it's a poor cheater analogy. Did you bother reading the four reasons why? Please respond to my four reasons.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

1. Yes, I understand that about NS. However my contention was that during the relatively long primitive era until the organism advances to the point that there is in it a pressure mechanism such as memory data and reproduction what is the source of NS pressure?2. With the dice the number of options and the design of the dice are fixed by the designer of the dice so as to insure success. This would not be the case in the primitive era of evolution. Imo, the analogy cheats. What is scientific about that?

LOL. The model is rigged by the designer of the model to insure the designer's result, i.e. certain success (abe: for modeling early evolution.} In reality during the primitive genesis of evolution the required mix for the (abe: roll/continuity of the organism) )would be almost impossible, unlike the measly 25 dice model. Success would be neigh unto impossible, if not impossible. Edited by Buzsaw, : clarify

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hi Bluejay.But what is ultimately random by keeping the sixes and getting umteen throws for the sure win? That's no game of chance. It would be laughable at Vegas to call it chance.Nobody has addressed my points relative to the primitive abiogenesis and the early (abe; evolution) era of the first living organism/s. With the dice that's no problem at all. The dice model models only if there is a NS memory facility in the organism to effect selection because with the dice there is something/someone to save the sixes for success.There would not be in place anything or anyone in the first organism/s to naturally select so as to propagate the continuity of the organism before it's death. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add "evolution" as indicated

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I appreciate the responses but is anyone going to go head on with the problem I've been raising relative to the absence of some replicating mechanism in the post abiogenesis primitive genesis era of the first evolutionary life organism/s?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hi Stagamancer. A hearty welcome to EvC. We hope to see more of you.Thanks for weighing in here with your interesting and informative message. However, here again, as I understand your work, these are advanced organisms which can replicate readily which you work with.Do you understand the problem which I have reiterated in my last message? What do you think?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Thank you, Stagamancer. Now, you say these bacteriophage have evolved and have genetic information.1. They evolved the genetic information. Correct?2. Aren't we back to square one as to how first organisms replicated their kind before genetic information evolved into the first organism/s?With the dice analogy the person shaking the dice saves the sixes/kind for the next throw/generation. With the first organisms they're on their own random lonely selfy and must replicate before they die. LOL!

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Thanks, lyx2no. Could you cite a link where I could read up on this? If there was selection, was there replication and saved information? Did the molecules have a survival period as to how long they existed, etc?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.