Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 9:01 PM
27 online now:
jar, PsychMJC, Sarah Bellum (3 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,095 Year: 9,131/19,786 Month: 1,553/2,119 Week: 313/576 Day: 116/98 Hour: 0/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 265 (500322)
02-24-2009 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RickCHodgin
01-20-2009 12:17 PM


Implication Of Intelligent Design
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. :cool:

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-20-2009 12:17 PM RickCHodgin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Straggler, posted 02-24-2009 6:57 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-26-2009 12:48 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 172 by Coyote, posted 02-26-2009 1:07 AM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 265 (500658)
02-28-2009 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Coyote
02-26-2009 1:07 AM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Coyote, posted 02-26-2009 1:07 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by lyx2no, posted 03-01-2009 1:29 AM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 265 (500680)
03-01-2009 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by lyx2no
03-01-2009 1:29 AM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by lyx2no, posted 03-01-2009 1:29 AM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Coragyps, posted 03-01-2009 10:38 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 178 by Modulous, posted 03-01-2009 11:01 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 179 by lyx2no, posted 03-01-2009 11:52 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 180 by Coyote, posted 03-01-2009 4:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 181 by Percy, posted 03-01-2009 5:57 PM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 265 (500899)
03-02-2009 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Percy
03-01-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Percy writes:

Incredible that after all your time here you still don't understand how evolution works.

What you're looking for with the 25 die is an analogy with evolution. If you insist on a scenario that requires that one die is thrown once and must come up 6 otherwise you lose and there's no point throwing the next die, then that isn't analogous to evolution.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Percy, posted 03-01-2009 5:57 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 03-03-2009 8:20 AM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 265 (500975)
03-03-2009 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Percy
03-03-2009 8:20 AM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Percy writes:

Are you saying that evolution was different in principle for early life? If that's what you're saying, can you describe for us how it was different? Please don't waste everyone's time and make things up off the top of your head again - research and think through your answer this time.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 03-03-2009 8:20 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2009 5:47 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 198 by Blue Jay, posted 03-03-2009 8:28 PM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 265 (500997)
03-03-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Theodoric
03-03-2009 5:47 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Theodoric writes:

That is a rough idea of how evolution works. Very rough.

The offspring of the creature with the mutation would not revert back to the grandsire non-mutation.

That would be plain silly.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2009 5:47 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2009 6:24 PM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 265 (501008)
03-03-2009 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Theodoric
03-03-2009 6:24 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Theodoric writes:

NO. Not at all.
The analogy works quite well as an analogy. I was pointing out that your logic is quite faulty. Or it may just be your refusal to try to understand what the Theory of Evolution actually means.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2009 6:24 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2009 6:48 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 193 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2009 6:51 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 194 by Coyote, posted 03-03-2009 7:03 PM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 265 (501033)
03-03-2009 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Theodoric
03-03-2009 6:48 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Theodoric writes:

The results of the throwing of the dice are RANDOM. That is the analogy. The analogy is not the dice, it is the results. It could be anything, but dice are things people can imagine. Thus it is an ANALOGY.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2009 6:48 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 265 (501035)
03-03-2009 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Coyote
03-03-2009 7:03 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Coyote writes:

Selection pressure is what gives you the changes for the next roll of the dice.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Coyote, posted 03-03-2009 7:03 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 265 (501039)
03-03-2009 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Straggler
03-03-2009 6:51 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Straggler writes:

Buz - The dice model is an anology for selection not intelligence.

Surely after all these years you have grasped that much.......?

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2009 6:51 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Stagamancer, posted 03-03-2009 9:05 PM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 265 (501045)
03-03-2009 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Blue Jay
03-03-2009 8:28 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Bluejay writes:

The point of the dice analogy is simply that evolution has a random component (represented with a dice toss; nevermind the exact odds given), and a directed component (keeping the 6's after each toss).

That is the only point the analogy is meant to get across.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Blue Jay, posted 03-03-2009 8:28 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Blue Jay, posted 03-03-2009 10:10 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 202 by Modulous, posted 03-03-2009 10:17 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 265 (501061)
03-03-2009 11:05 PM


Pertaining Pesky Post Abiogenesis Primitives
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.
Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by lyx2no, posted 03-03-2009 11:32 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 03-04-2009 7:56 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 265 (501062)
03-03-2009 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Stagamancer
03-03-2009 9:05 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Stagamancer writes:

IN ONE GENERATION! I assure you, given the billions of years life has had on the planet, the rolling of dice has been sufficient enough to provide the mutations required for complex life.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Stagamancer, posted 03-03-2009 9:05 PM Stagamancer has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 265 (501187)
03-04-2009 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Stagamancer
03-04-2009 3:14 PM


Re: Pertaining Pesky Post Abiogenesis Primitives
Stagamancer writes:

Buzsaw:
My point in using the bacteriophage was that phage are the simplest form of "life" we know. In fact they're so simple, many do not even classify them as life, yet they evolve. Their genetic information is just a subject to natural selection as yours. Also, being more simplistic, they are more of them. Many, many, many, many more. So, one could infer that the numbers of possibly self-replicating molecules, even at the beginning, would be even higher.

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. :eek: LOL!


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Stagamancer, posted 03-04-2009 3:14 PM Stagamancer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Coyote, posted 03-04-2009 11:46 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 215 by Stagamancer, posted 03-05-2009 3:48 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 265 (501189)
03-04-2009 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by lyx2no
03-03-2009 11:32 PM


Re: Pertaining Pesky Post Abiogenesis Primitives
lyx2no writes:

There is no problem to confront. Mutation and selection existed long before anything that could be called life did.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by lyx2no, posted 03-03-2009 11:32 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019