Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (9005 total)
34 online now:
driewerf, Son Goku (2 members, 32 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,189 Year: 12,937/23,288 Month: 662/1,527 Week: 101/240 Day: 0/29 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 293 (803494)
03-31-2017 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by forexhr
03-31-2017 11:51 AM


Premise 5: There are 10e63 junk(non-selectable) arrangements of CHNOPS in just one simple bio-structure (protein).

Your source for this is behind a pay-wall. What are those arrangements based on? Are they spatial, physical, chemical? What kind of arrangements?

Proteins don't form mechanically so those odds probably aren't apt - most of the time we see this arguments about evolution being too improbable it is because the math is wrong - the statistics are based on the wrong calculations.

Added by edit:

Here some posts I wrote the last time an argument like this came up:

From Message 35

quote:
A major problem is that functional proteins appear to be exceedingly rare in the space of all proteins. Axe estimated it to be about 1/10^77. This makes de novo production of new proteins practically impossible.

I don't think those stats are correct for what you're trying to say. There's chemistry involved, so it's not going to be the same as like the odds of a purely-physical event happening, like coin flips or something. Like if there were electromagnetic forces involved in the coin flip, it might not be purely random anymore; the chemistry catalyzes certain reactions and not others, plus, the "space of all proteins" would include ones that aren't even realistic.

But to go with the coin flip analogy, you're saying something like: There are two ways in which a coin can land on its side, heads or tails. But, there are a almost an infinite number of ways that the coin could land one of the many places along its edge. Therefore, it is practically impossible for a coin flip to land on heads or tails.


From Message 61

quote:
Errr, no. It is quite obvious that the probability of landing on an edge is infinitesimal in the total result space.

That's what I'm saying. When you wrote:

quote:
A major problem is that functional proteins appear to be exceedingly rare in the space of all proteins. Axe estimated it to be about 1/10^77.

The probability of getting most of the proteins in "the space of all proteins" is also infinitesimal, so you have the wrong statistical estimate there. There is not equal weight on those improbable proteins forming so you can't include them like that in the estimate of the functional proteins forming. If you did, it would be just like including all the places where a coin could land on its edge in the calculation of the odds of it landing on heads or tails.

Rather the analogy would be that finding a functional proteins would correspond to a flipped coin landing on its edge.

Then something has to be wrong, because functional proteins do form. The problem is that proteins don't form from random pieces randomly coming together and joining mechanically. There's chemistry involved and some reactions are catalyzed and some are practically impossible. To calculate the odds of one particular protein forming out of the space of all proteins is not the right calculation to determine the chances of a particular protein forming.

In fact, some proteins could form inevitably.


From Message 71

quote:
And the same calculation done on the space of all coin landings shows us that coin flips landing on either the heads or tails side are exceedingly rare.

I assume you mean "neither the head or the tail".

No, I meant what I wrote.

Heads and tails are 2 out of a nearly infinite number of places that a coin flip can land, if you are included all the places along the edge. So, using that in your calculation of the odds of it landing on heads or tails will get you an almost impossible chance of it.

Similiarly, that's why using the calculation in the space of "all possible proteins" is also erroneaous, for the reasons I've prevoiusly explained.

It's a lot more than "chemical doing chemistry".

Like what? Do you have an example?

All biology can be boiled down to complex chemistry, just like all chemistry can be boiled down to complex physics.

There are no exceptions that I am aware of. You?

If that was all the frog in a blender experiment should work.

Wrong. It takes more than just setting the ingredients in the oven to get bread, but the bread is not made of more than the ingredients.

It is a nanotechnology machine powered by a flow of protons through a turbine.

That's still chemicals doing chemistry.

The extreme rarity of functional proteins means that it is practically impossible to get from one functioning protein to another by incremental beneficial steps. Let alone explaining the appearance of the original protein.

That is based on bad math though, so it isn't true.

Added by edit:

From [msg=-67]:

Put a frog in a blender and blend well. All the chemicals are there so the chemical reactions should continue if it's just chemicals doing chemistry.

No, this is completely wrong. Not all chemical reactions are the same. For example, some of them require catalysis while some of them are spontaneous.

The incredibly complex chemical system know as "a frog" cannot be created by simply setting all of the ingredients next to each other.

Salt water, on the other hand, yes - just mix them.


Edited by New Cat's Eye, : see Added by edit


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 11:51 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 293 (803662)
04-03-2017 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by forexhr
04-03-2017 4:58 AM


I am genuinely stunned with the ability of the people in this thread to ignore the essence of my argument. This argument simply expresses the lack of the resources necessary to extract bio-functionality from organic matter, while most of the responses are just personal rationalizations of a priori belief in evolution.

I find your argument unconvincing because your math is bad.

The denominator used in your odds way too high. You're using a number for all the physically imaginable arrangements of atoms that could conceivably be possible. That is the wrong number to use.

In order to explain why, I would have to use an analogy and we'd have to talk about the physiochemical implications.

If you want to hear about that, let me know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by forexhr, posted 04-03-2017 4:58 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 293 (803669)
04-03-2017 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by forexhr
04-03-2017 10:29 AM


Re: star dust and the origin of life
This topic is about share of bio-functionality in organic matter and resources necessary to extract this bio-functionality.

"Extract" is an interesting word-choice...

Can you expound on what you mean by that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by forexhr, posted 04-03-2017 10:29 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 51 of 293 (803749)
04-04-2017 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by forexhr
04-04-2017 3:14 AM


All the responses made after my last post are boiling down to one hidden assumption, and that is that evolution jumps from one bio-functional solution to another.

Jumps? More like drudges...

What are you talking about?

This hidden assumption is deeply flawed and it doesn't have any basis in reality because bio-structures exist as tiny clusters of bio-functionality in a vast empty space of non-functionality.

Not really. With regards to the things that are evolving, all of the involved bio-structures are going to be functional. If not, they won't reproduce.

And there are no jumps to wholly different structures - just functional modifications to pre-existing ones, else no reproduction.

This tiny clusters are like islands where mutations can explore the same qualitative type of bio-function to at least some selectable advantage - along the edges of the islands are arrangements that are marginally beneficial, while in the center of the islands are arrangements that are strongly beneficial for the particular type of bio-function in question - gamma repressor fold for e.g. In this scenario, it is very easy to move the population rapidly up the slopes of the island to the very peak of the island. Hence, improving bio-functionality of a given type on a particular island isn’t a problem for evolution.

Are you describing fitness landscapes? 'Cause those are kinda like that, but not really. Here's a gif of a dynamic one:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/...ynamic_fitness_landscape.gif

Notice how there are no "jumps" in the population, and that it gradually drudges from one island to another?

But the problem arises when one tries to leave the island in order to find(extract bio-functionality) other islands(new protein folds or new organs), and find itself in a vast empty space of non-functionality - in an ocean. Here, evolutionists presuppose the existence of a nice little paths of closely spaced sequentially selectable steppingstones.

I'm struggling with the analogy, but the "stepping stones" would be like a pile of toppled dominoes that are all partially laying on top of each other rather than like a stone walkway in a garden. Everything is connected and there are no gaps.

Unfortunately, these paths are just mental fantasies that are not grounded in reality. Once you start messing up with the information on how to build a specific organ or a protein fold you won't end up with another functional organ or protein fold, but probably with cancer and junk sequence of amino acids that is unable to fold into a specific tertiary structure.

Well, I'm sure that "probability" is based on bad math, so until you address that I'll continue assuming you're wrong here.

But you also don't seem to be considering that if we are talking about populations of organisms that are evolving, then the ones that are reporoducing are going to have to be fully formed and functional - otherwise they won't reproduce.

Magic jumps from one bio-functional solution to another do not exist.

True, but that is nothing to do with evolution.

Hence, when one tries to leave the island of bio-functionality he will end up in the vast ocean of non-functionality.

No, because that organism cannot function - therefore it cannot reproduce and therefore it will not contribute to evolution.

Also, you're failing to account for another important factor: the changing environment. What was once something that couldn't function well could end up being something that does when the environment is changing.

Once in the ocean, there is a lack of resources to reach another island(like I already explained).

No, your explanation is wrong and you won't address the rebuttals. It turns out that your math is bad and you're either unwilling or unable to address it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by forexhr, posted 04-04-2017 3:14 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 70 of 293 (803846)
04-05-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by forexhr
04-05-2017 9:37 AM


I would like to remind that this thread is not about just so stories, evolutionary models, hypotheses and ad hoc hypotheses, fictional explanations... but about the physical reality of matter, or more specifically, about the share of bio-functionality in it.

Then why are you avoiding all the posts that talk about that stuff?

The more particles there are, the more different 3D structures can be created. With 2 particles we can create 1 3D structure, with 3 particles 2 different 3D structures, with 5 particles 12, with 15 particles 3426576, with 28 particles 153511100594603 and with 1000 particles we can create 8.37x10e3271 differnet 3D structures.

That's wrong. Not all physical arrangements of particles are possible structures in reality. There are constraints.

This error is ruining your probability calculation and your math is bad so your claim is false.

My point is that evolutionary resources are millions and millions orders of magnitude insufficient to extract functional, pump like structure from billions of particles(cells).

And you're wrong because your math is wrong. See my previous posts for more explanations.

It is irrelevant how evolution works.

If you are going to provide an argument against evolution, then the thing you are arguing against has to actually be evolution.

This nonsense you are describing and calling evolution is not what scientists call evolution. You're arguing a straw man.

You have to provide an argument that takes account of the actual evolutionary processes and show how these processes overcome infinite potential of matter for non-biological manifestation.

Or, on the other hand, we can continue to point out that there is no infinite potential to overcome - that's based on bad math that you are wrong about.

Sorry Paul, but you cannot refute an argument by saying: your argument is based on a ridiculous false assumption. You need to explain why the assumption is false.

We're trying; you're just not replying to those posts.

So, here evolution needs to find a solution to this problem which means, evolution needs to find the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA so that cell can produce functional enzymes with the ability to convert energy rich substances into usable energy.

Whatever it is you think you are describing, it isn't how evolution is proposed to actually work. You are not making an argument against evolution, but rather your own cartoon version of it.

This, too, has been pointed out to you more than once.

Yes it was done, by intelligent design. So are you saying that functional bio-structures are intelligently designed?

Not necessarily, another possibility is that these things don't assemble randomly like your bad math calculations require.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 9:37 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 293 (804022)
04-06-2017 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by forexhr
04-06-2017 9:11 AM


which means that in order to be able to evolve, an organism needs...

BZZT! Wrong again.

Organisms don't evolve, populations do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by forexhr, posted 04-06-2017 9:11 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:44 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 96 by forexhr, posted 04-07-2017 5:07 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 95 of 293 (804039)
04-06-2017 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
04-06-2017 1:44 PM


When one refers to "organisms"evolving one usually has a whole population of same in mind, making these objections on the basis of individual organisms just straw man arguments.

Au contraire, the author was talking about chemical processes within individual organisms so they could not be talking about populations.

Too, they didn't refer to "organisms", the referred to "an organism".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 116 of 293 (804120)
04-07-2017 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by forexhr
04-07-2017 5:07 AM


The fact that the gene pool of that 'population' contains all three alleles needed to build metabolic pathway, have nothing to do with evolution of this metabolic pathway.

I don't believe you.

I know that evolutionists often change definitions and play semantic games, but biological reality won't change because of that.

Well this is really confusing. I mean, here you come along and tell us that you have an argument against evolution. Then, it turns out that the thing you are arguing against isn't the Theory of Evolution that people ususally mean when they say "evolution". Instead, you are arguing against some different kind of evolution that you are saying is the real biological reality - but also that it cannot work

Suppose I told you that dogs don't exist - because in biological reality dogs are green and have five legs and those things just don't exist. Wouldn't you think that's weird?

Population genetics deals with populations, while evolution does not. Evolution deals with an individual organism.

Okay, well I don't know anything about this new evolution of individual organisms you are talking about.

I'm only familiar with the Theory of Evolution as put forward by Darwin.

Also, population genetics has nothing to do with the origin of alleles, but...

By "population genetics", are you referring to the thing that scientists study? Or are you talking about some new biological reality thing that nobody else knows about?

My argument states that evolution if physically impossible due to the fundamental contradiction between 'maintenance and reproduction cycle' and 'evolution cycle'.

Okay, but by "evolution" you are NOT talking about the Theory of Evolution that Darwing originated, correct?

Now, if we say that bio-structures that are needed for maintenance and reproduction cycle - evolved, than we are actually saying that in the past these bio-structures didn't exist. In other words if organs like lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, brain, nerves, prostate, penis, vagina..., etc., work together to achieve the function of reproduction and maintenance and then we say that for e.g. heart evolved then we are actually saying that in the past this type of organism didin't have heart. But we know from the direct observation that this type of organism cannot complete its maintenance and reproduction cycle without a heart. Hence, it cannot evolve to produce the heart. This is true for all other organs - stomach, brain, penis... - without them, maintenance and reproduction are impossible.

There's this thing that helps that is called self-replication. You should learn about it. An ovum doesn't need a heart to divide.

Now, if we say that some bio-structure that is needed for binary fission -evolved, than we are actually saying that in the past this bio-structure didn't exist which means that in the past bacteria was unable to pass its genes to the next generation.

It was unable to pass its genes to the next generation in that particular way, but it must be true that is was able to pass on its genes to the next generation in some other way - otherwise it wouldn't be here.

This is the direct, empirical science, and according to it, evolution is physically impossible - maintenance and reproduction apparatus of an organisam simply cannot exist in a simpler mode to become more complex in the future.

It is also wrong.

So, how do evolutionists respond to this kind of argument?

As an evolutionsist, I will respond by saying that I don't believe in the thing that you are talking about when you use the word "evolution", and the scientific theory that I accept is very different from what you are describing.

Well, it has a hidden assumption that the existance of different modes of maintenance and reproduction in nature automatically means that the path from one mode to another exist. This is like saying, because differnet modes of energy conversion exist, for example, simple lawn mower engine and complex Ferrari engine, there is a step by step path from lawn mower engine to Ferrari engine.

First off, machines are not alive and cannot reproduce. You do know where babies come from, right?

Second, other modes just mean its possible - not that it must be that way.

It that were true, then the removal of Ferrari engine components would result in some simpler engine with retained energy conversion funtction and ultimately, in lawn mower engine. But we know this is not true. Component removal will result in nothing but malfunctioned engine. So in reality, step by step path from one mode of energy conversion to another does not exist. If the Ferrari engine were the result of a step by step design process, with retained energy conversion funtction at every step, then component removal would not result in malfunctioned engine but in some simpler engine with retained energy conversion funtction.

Exactly the same is true for organisms.

Organisms are self-replicating and car engines are not. Organisms can do things that car engines cannot, like reproduce and grow. That matters.

If bio-structures needed for maintenance and reproduction were evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps, by adding structures one step at a time, then their removal would not result in death or infertility but in some simpler mode of maintenance and reproduction . But since direct, empirical science shows this is not the case, the hidden assumption that the existance of different modes of maintenance and reproduction in nature, means that the path from one mode to another exist is false.

That is why evolution is just a mental fantasy which contradicts reality on every instance of observation.

Cool story.

You should learn about the Theory of Evolution that scientists study. It has a really good explanation for how species have evolved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by forexhr, posted 04-07-2017 5:07 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by forexhr, posted 04-07-2017 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 293 (804167)
04-07-2017 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by forexhr
04-07-2017 2:16 PM


Likewise, regarding evolution, I am simply stating the observation that there hasn't been enough resources to extract bio-functionality from matter and that the maintenance and reproduction apparatus of an organisam cannot exist in a simpler mode. So I don't care about the ToE, I am not attacking its infinite number of presuppositions. I am simply stating the fact that evolutionary processes cannot turn simple organisms into more complex organisms.

And yet, there is a large diversity of species.

You can say all you want, meanwhile scientists will continue to employ the Theory of Evolution to solve problems and learn new stuff. It simply works as an explanation despite your erroneous attempts to say it doesn't.

Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.

With evolution, practically everything does make sense. And the theory works. So there's that.

I am not attacking the ToE.

You could've told us that in the beginning...

So anyways, to the question of your thread:

"Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?"

The answer is: Yes, the argument has been disproved in multiple ways by a number of people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by forexhr, posted 04-07-2017 2:16 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 156 of 293 (804611)
04-11-2017 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Theodoric
04-11-2017 4:03 PM


Re: Predictions and Discoveries
by showing the empirical ratio of meaningful information to total sequence space of information that represent existing bio-structures and which is in line with available resources in evolution.

Can you even explain your word salad?

It's obvious they have no idea what they are talking about...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Theodoric, posted 04-11-2017 4:03 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 293 (804692)
04-12-2017 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by forexhr
04-12-2017 7:41 AM


Re: Predictions and Discoveries
Genes of today's eukaryotic cells are interrupted by noncoding sequences called introns that need to be removed via splicing machine from the RNA molecule before the process of protein synthesis can begin otherwise they would destroy the protein-coding capacity of genes. So, from the evolutionary perspective, the splicing machine is the complex evolutionary solution to the intron insertions problem, that began early in a cellular live, once these early cells got introns inserted into a critical gene. In other words, if evolution produced splicing machine, then this machine was a specific goal that evolution needed to achieve once early cells got introns within their genomes.

No, seriously:

You are so confused about how evolution is proposed to work. And you really need to learn about that Sharpshooter Fallacy.

That is so far off that you're not even wrong.

If you weren't so conceited and condescending I'd try to explain it to you, but it's obvious that you're a waste of time.

Have a nice day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by forexhr, posted 04-12-2017 7:41 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 293 (804796)
04-13-2017 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by forexhr
04-13-2017 4:05 AM


At this point I wolud argue that evolution must produce meaningful relationships between A and B from scratch and that the 'step by step' path from duplicated linguistic material to meaningful relationships between A and B does not exist.

Why would you argue that? What evidence suggests that to you?

So here is the challenge for those who argue for evolution: by using this concrete example, show us how evolution works. Show us how to get from duplicated genes(words) to meaningful relationships between A and B gradually in a step-by-step fashion.

Okay, so in the analogy:

quote:
Words are genes. Word is a smallest unit of language that functions as a principal carrier of meaning just as gene is a smallest unit of biology that functions as a principal carrier of meaningful molecule(exp. lambda repressor fold). A sentence is a linguistic unit consisting of more words that are grammatically linked into meaningful statement, question, request, command, exclamation, etc., just as assembly of genes is a biological unit consisting of two or more genes that are functionally linked together to perform an important function of the cell or the body. (exp. group of genes that code for RNA splicing machine).

How do these words reproduce additional words?

What method would you like us to use?

Copy and paste characters and then delete the ones we don't want?

Or something else?

I'll give it a shot:

On the other hand, people who argue for evolution would say that I don't understand how evolution works and that there is a step by step path form this duplication:

///"of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"///

to this meaningful relationships:

***"The names for the days of the week in English are"*** ---"Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday---.

So, using the above method of copying and pasting and then deleting:

"of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the nation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the namplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the nament of objectives, such as scientific investigation the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the names, such as scientific investigation the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the names fic investigation the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the names fon the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the names for the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the names for the daccomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the names for the day can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the names for the days for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the names for the days or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the names for the days of investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

"the names for the days of the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"

And so on... looks like I'd need to add a "W" to get the next word, but I think the point is obvious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by forexhr, posted 04-13-2017 4:05 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by forexhr, posted 04-13-2017 9:36 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 293 (804798)
04-13-2017 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by forexhr
04-12-2017 3:41 PM


why people who argue for evolution cannot choose only one of many thousands of bio-sturctures and provide an empirical illustration for the ratio of non-bio-functional arrangements of particles to bio-functional arrangements of particles and then, through simple mathematical calculations, put this ratio in the context of resources available to evolution?

I wouldn't do that because it is completely stupid and idiotic and only shows that the person asking the question doesn't understand how evolution is proposed to work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by forexhr, posted 04-12-2017 3:41 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 293 (804823)
04-13-2017 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by forexhr
04-13-2017 9:36 AM


In your method of copying and pasting you committed the same mistake - you selected the words "the", "names", "for", "the", "days", "of" and "the" just because you had a priori knowledge of the target phrase -"The names for the days of the week in English are".

You, yourself, are the one who set up the challenge to have a target goal in mind! In reality, there is no target goal so your analogy is off to begin with.

But I was trying to humor you by sticking within the analogy. And now you're saying that it doesn't count because I could plan for hitting the target that you, yourself, set up in the challenge.

That's hilarious! It fails as any kind of argument against evolution, but it is funny nonetheless.

You're misunderstanding the nature of selective pressures. There is no target goal in mind, but the environment is what it is. The individuals in the population are either going to reproduce or not, and the environment is going to select which ones do or don't.

So in the analogy, I am just the environment - it's not that I'm using magical a priori knowledge of what the target goal is, it's that I'm playing a blind unthinking environment that applies the selective pressures the will only allow the letters in the words to "reproduce" if they are fit for the environment - and fitness to the environment was pre-defined as meeting a selected groups of words.

Makes sense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by forexhr, posted 04-13-2017 9:36 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by forexhr, posted 04-13-2017 3:11 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 293 (804932)
04-14-2017 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by forexhr
04-14-2017 7:59 AM


Ability to have longer fur or larger beaks or larger size is already built into an organisam.

What do you mean by "built into"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 7:59 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020