|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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 () , 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Tits?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
The difference, of course, is that nothing discovered by fallen human intellect is absolutely true Including your discoveries of your God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You mean "Faith's infallible interpretation of the Bible".
But humans are fallible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Yep, that's your interpretation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
That would be "your interpretation of what you believe is God's word".That's not an objective fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
His religion may have encouraged him but he did not use religion in the actual scientific investigations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Pascal's wager.
The problem is who provides the benefit? Wotan? Zeus? You think you know the answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
That's your fallible opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
So the hypothetical common ancestor of humans and chimps would have had a few hundred more genes that either humans or chimps.
I'm sure Taq can answer this better than I, but "gene loss" does not mean "gene disappearance".
The hypothetical common ancestor of humans, chimps, Orangutan, Gorilla, and Macaque must have had several hundred more genes than any of its descendants.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024