Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

6&1
5&2
4&3
???
5&1
4&2
3&3
???
6&2
5&3
4&4
???Why is seven more likely than six or eight?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

True, but exactly how that applies to my question is far from clear.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Anytime one of the dice comes up 1 you can't make 8. Anytime one of them comes up 6, you can't make 6.Put it another way, there are two different ways to get each of the combinations you listed for 7, but only one way for them to come up 3 & 3 or 4 & 4.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

It might be clearer if your imaginary dice were two different colors.Ways to make 7: 1 & 6
2 & 5
3 & 4
4 & 3
5 & 2
6 & 1Ways to make 6: 1 & 5
2 & 4
3 & 3
4 & 2
5 & 1Ways to make 8: 2 & 6
3 & 5
4 & 4
5 & 3
6 & 2

Okay. Makes sense.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I don't see why that would be any less random.In a Vegas casino, for instance, you're more likely to find dice being rolled on the craps tables than at the blackjack or the slots, right? Does that make a roll of the dice any less random?Or, for that matter, on the roll of a pair of dice you're more likely to roll a 7 than a 12. Is that an element of "nonrandomness"? Or is that simply a recognition that "randomness" doesn't mean "equal probability"?I'm not challenging you, I'm just asking what you mean. It's up to you to decide what "random" means, I guess; but while it's true that in some species and under some circumstances some areas of DNA mutate more or less frequently than others, mutation is ultimately a random process because, ultimately, chemistry is a stochastic process.

Ha, I love it. Darwinian evolution, the greatest theory ever proposed, and you guys are struggling to find even ONE real experiment that makes any predictions whatsoever based on the mechanisms of your theory.I can make one prediction for your theory. "Ask an evolutionist to provide evidence for their theory and they will carp and moan, and dodge, and cry foul and blame the lack of evidence on the ignorance of those who asked for it."

quote:

---

Surely these must have been bacteria, not viruses. This might help you to find the link

---

No, I'm pretty sure it was viruses. Bacterial DNA has a lot more proofreading mechanisms built in than viral RNA, so experiments with viral RNA would likely be more time-efficient to fully show the extent of 'evolution'.And I actually just found it..it had to do with QB viral RNA: Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origin - Robert M. Hazen - Google Books

See above link.. that clearly shows that within 72 generations, a "population" of viral RNA evolved to optimize to its conditions. This occurred through mutation and natural selection. Even better, the study directly relates to the "creation of life", because it deals essentially with replicons, the earliest forms of "life" that would have cropped up. The true first self-replicating molecules would likely be significantly smaller than these, however.There are also theoretical computer models that will map the 'evolution' of digital, higher lifeforms. Obviously these kind of experiments would be impossible to perform on actual animal populations due to the massive evolutionary time frame we would be looking at.Edited by abrown9, : adding information

I gave you one that I myself performed. Could you explain what you found insufficient about it?Be honest. You didn't even understand it, did you?

Ah ... RNA species. Which aren't bacteria or viruses.Thanks.

If you believe that this mishmash of lies and nonsense was in any way a reply to my post, which read, in full, "Surely these must have been bacteria, not viruses. This might help you to find the link", then perhaps you will say why.

Well clearly that shows that the link probably didn't exist!

"This occurred through mutation and natural selection."Mutation and natural selection are documented scientific processes. Dog breeders constantly 'weed' out genetic material that is undesirable to get a perfect breed look. This is micro evolution, which works on the principle of genetic loss over time. This is also a documented and observed fact.MACRO evolution works on the opposite theory, that information over time is gained. There is no evidence for this."Obviously these kind of experiments would be impossible to perform on actual animal populations due to the massive evolutionary time frame we would be looking at."No, actually, these experiments would only take millions of years if done on dogs, cats, humans, etc. There is experiments that are ongoing today, that have been for over 60 years until now, on fruit fly mutation. Since fruit flies have rapid generations, genetic mutation passed from generation to generation can be observed in a much faster timeframe."In 1904, Walter S. Sutton, an American cytologist, decided there might be some connection between Gregor Mendel's 1860s research and the newly discovered chromosomes with their genes. A major breakthrough came in 1906, when Thomas Hunt Morgan, a Columbia University zoologist, conceived the idea of using fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) for genetic research. This was due to the fact that they breed so very rapidly, require little food, have scores of easily observed characteristics and only a few chromosomes per cell."
2021, 10 "Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.

This is not only false, but contrary to your admission that mutation is a "documented scientific process". Clearly a new mutation adds information to the gene pool. And we have in fact observed novel mutations in fruit flies. Spot anything new about the mutant type? And incipient speciationThat was an odd thing for him to say. No-one supposes that a single point mutation is at all likely to produce speciation.