Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
97 online now:
(97 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,294 Year: 4,940/14,102 Month: 538/707 Week: 93/176 Day: 2/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 17 of 252 (812358)
06-16-2017 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by aristotle
06-16-2017 4:19 AM


That asked, the chances of the mutations required between human and primate, occurring in the right gene and often enough in the population to change the genome of the entire species, are next to naught.

Ordinary old lottery fallacy. The chances of you winning the lottery are next to naught. The chances of somebody winning the lottery are pretty high. Similarly, the chances of evolution producing one pre-specified result are next to naught, but the chances of evolution producing something viable are nearly 1.

By themselves, random base substitutions, and deletions, resulting in beneficial changes to the organism, do not occur frequently enough.

Show your calculations or references.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 4:19 AM aristotle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 8:43 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 20 of 252 (812375)
06-16-2017 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by aristotle
06-16-2017 8:43 AM


The problem is that the 'result' that you claim evolution produces, is always 'pre-specified', because it is incredibly complex and cannot function without all it's part

Nope. You are confusing "specified complexity" (which in itself is meaningless) with "specified result". By "pre-specified" we mean the nature of the organism produced. Evolution has no goal. Evolution didn't "try" to evolve humans. It could have produced an essentially uncountable number of other organisms, some more complex than humans and some less complex. When calculating probability you must take all possibilities into account, not just the one possibility that happened.

If you flip a trillion fair coins, you will get some number of heads and some number of tails. The probability of getting those two numbers is essentially zero. And yet you got them. Because the probability of some pair of numbers is one.

(And next you have to account for the effect of selection).

Complexity is not a problem. "Irreducible complexity" is not a problem. Evolution can produce and has produced such things.

"Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½) , or one chance out of 10 . The number 10 , if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200- component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion,
trillion, trillion!" - Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Yep, standard creationist straw man. And the lottery fallacy again. Evolution does not require any number of successive successful mutations. Evolution has trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of attempts, almost all of which are deleterious or have no effect. Winning the lottery is almost impossible, but we won the evolutionary lottery once and that's enough.

For example, Behe calculated that it would take 20,000 years for a bacterial population to evolve a novel protein, starting with a population of one billion. He actually published that. Many people pointed out that his calculation was reasonable (but overly simplistic) except for the starting population. There are about 100,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria per tone of soil on the Earth. Re-run the calculation again and a novel protein is almost guaranteed to emerge in 20,000 years. See Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 8:43 AM aristotle has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 64 of 252 (814126)
07-04-2017 4:35 PM


Tits?

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 89 of 252 (814465)
07-10-2017 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by CRR
07-09-2017 7:54 PM


Professor Dr Bernard Brandstater, Prof. Stuart Burgess, Professor Dr Ben Carson, Dr Raymond Damadian, Dr John Hartnett, Dr Raymond Jones, Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Dr John Sanford, Dr Wally (Siang Hwa) Tow

I don't see any evidence that those people are creationists.

Not to mention all past scientists such as Faraday and Maxwell.

Yeah, not to mention. Scientists who were unaware of the ToE or did not attempt to use Biblical-based creationism in their scientific work were not creationists in the modern sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 7:54 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by CRR, posted 07-11-2017 5:40 AM JonF has responded
 Message 135 by dwise1, posted 07-11-2017 8:52 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 100 of 252 (814540)
07-10-2017 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
07-10-2017 5:02 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
The difference, of course, is that nothing discovered by fallen human intellect is absolutely true

Including your discoveries of your God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:37 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 107 of 252 (814558)
07-10-2017 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Faith
07-10-2017 5:37 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
You mean "Faith's infallible interpretation of the Bible".

But humans are fallible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:37 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 6:38 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 110 of 252 (814568)
07-10-2017 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
07-10-2017 6:33 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Yep, that's your interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 6:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 111 of 252 (814569)
07-10-2017 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
07-10-2017 6:38 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
No, I mean the obvious incontrovertible meaning of the Bible as interpreted by normal ordinary readers -- believers of course

I.e. subjective and fallible.

Unbelievers come up with all kinds of dumb stuff but they don't count.

Whether their critiques are true or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 6:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 7:03 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 113 of 252 (814575)
07-10-2017 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
07-10-2017 7:03 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
That would be "your interpretation of what you believe is God's word".That's not an objective fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 7:03 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 9:31 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 133 of 252 (814615)
07-11-2017 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
07-10-2017 9:31 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Doesn't work that way. God does it all or it's not valid. You can't believe the Bible is God's word unless He causes you to believe it.

That's your fallible interpretation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 9:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 134 of 252 (814616)
07-11-2017 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by CRR
07-11-2017 5:40 AM


His religion may have encouraged him but he did not use religion in the actual scientific investigations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by CRR, posted 07-11-2017 5:40 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 144 of 252 (814713)
07-12-2017 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by CRR
07-12-2017 1:20 AM


Re: Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell
Cool.

Did they use the Bible in their experiments and theories or did they use purely known physical principles and methods?

if yes, please cite where they did so.

If not, they were not creationists in the modern sense.

(Are you aware of Maxwell's work on the age of the Earth? He was no YEC).

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by CRR, posted 07-12-2017 1:20 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by dwise1, posted 07-12-2017 10:35 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 149 of 252 (814738)
07-12-2017 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Faith
07-12-2017 12:51 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Pascal's wager.

The problem is who provides the benefit? Wotan? Zeus?

You think you know the answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 12:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 1:00 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 158 of 252 (814764)
07-12-2017 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Faith
07-12-2017 1:00 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
That's your fallible opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 1:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 221 of 252 (818547)
08-30-2017 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by CRR
08-30-2017 12:04 AM


Re: Non homologous genes between humans and chimps
So the hypothetical common ancestor of humans and chimps would have had a few hundred more genes that either humans or chimps.

The hypothetical common ancestor of humans, chimps, Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque must have had several hundred more genes than any of its descendants.


I'm sure Taq can answer this better than I, but "gene loss" does not mean "gene disappearance".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by CRR, posted 08-30-2017 12:04 AM CRR 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 © 2021