evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

What do you think improbable means? What do you think probability refers to? Have I not demonstrated this?

Originally posted by speaker
What do you think improbable means? What do you think probability refers to? Have I not demonstrated this?

Not really. You've said you think it is improbable, just an expression of personal incredulity. Although I've just presented evidence, you have really just ignored it.

You keep saying we are ignoring 'probability', then go on to associate the probability of a lottery with this, but you have not shown it is improbable at all. Just made an assertion.

Why is it improbable? Do you have maths to show why? Evidence to show why? Anything but incredulity?

[edit on 19-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Why is it improbable? Do you have maths to show why? Evidence to show why? Anything but incredulity?

I guess he must know the exact size of the universe, the exact number of suns and planets and the exact number of planets capable of supporting life. Knowing all these things is the only possible way an estimate could be made.. he must be a god or something.

Originally posted by speaker
shaunybaby:
Try finding some proof to back up your claims.

What have I claimed?

Originally posted by speaker
I would give you the probability for evolution occurring but unfortunately it is 1 over a number that is so large it hasn't been given a name yet!

Why is it 1 over a number that is so large it hasn't been given a name yet? Exactly how do you come to this conclusion? Can we see some workings.

Originally posted by speaker
There also isn't a calculator that has been invented that has been able to handle the answer without generating an error.

Input to computer: 'What's the probability of evolution occuring?'

Computer response: 'Error'.

Yeah.. really really factual work you're doing here speaker.

Originally posted by speaker
Your reasoning that evolution must be a fact because of the similarities between species, is reliant on probability also, is it not?

It's not reliant on probability at all. The connection between life on this planet can be seen in two ways 'a coincidence' or 'evolution'. At the moment you're seeing everything as a coincidence. That's okay, alot of people do. But there's a fair few who think those coincidences are actually linked and actually for a reason. There's nothing wrong with that.

Originally posted by speaker
It's very interesting how evolutionists are happy to fall back on probability when it suits them, but ignore it when it doesn't.

Again, I addressed your probability arguement. I've not ignored it.

melatonin:
I've demonstrated why I think it's improbable. 3,000,000,000 represents the number of base pairs in human DNA apparently. 60,000,000 represents the 2% difference in genetic makeup between humans and apes apparently. You tell me how probable it is that purely random events will cause this number of mutations in the DNA to result in the two different species. In fact, go and plug this number of permutations into your calculator as I already instructed you, and put the issue to rest! How much clearer can I make it?

You've say you've presented evidence? Is it for evolution, or merely some other arbitrary event you are confusing for evolution? I have yet to see any evidence for evolution, which is what the OP's question was asking, was it not?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
What have I claimed?

That energy always existed. From all reports, scientists attribute all of the energy in the Universe to the Big Bang. I don't recall them saying the Big Bang was just transforming the energy into another form.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Why is it 1 over a number that is so large it hasn't been given a name yet? Exactly how do you come to this conclusion? Can we see some workings.

Sorry, I forgot to explain what the figures meant last time. As I mentioned in my last post, the 3,000,000,000 represents the number of base pairs supposedly making up human DNA. 60,000,000 represents the 2% difference between the genetic makeup of apes and humans. In order for evolution to be responsible for apes and humans having a common ancestor, purely random mutations amounting to 60,000,000 in 3,000,000,000 base pairs of DNA would have to occur in the correct sequence and to the exact specificiation required. Although the answer will be heavily bias towards evolution due to the generalisations made, you should get some idea if you plug in to your calculator how many permutations of 60,000,000 there can be in a pool of 3,000,000,000. Place a 1 above this number and you have the probability. Let me know what answer you come up with.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
It's not reliant on probability at all. The connection between life on this planet can be seen in two ways 'a coincidence' or 'evolution'. At the moment you're seeing everything as a coincidence. That's okay, alot of people do. But there's a fair few who think those coincidences are actually linked and actually for a reason. There's nothing wrong with that.

And what do you think is the difference between co-incidence and another explanation? It's probability! YOU and ALL of the other evolutionists believe that the probability of these similarities between species being independant of one another is far too great to be a coincidence, therefore there must be another explanation. Your answer to this is evolution. It's inextricably linked to probability!

Whether you admit it or not, you are still ignoring the probability argument, despite your veiled attempts to show otherwise.

Originally posted by speaker
melatonin:
I've demonstrated why I think it's improbable. 3,000,000,000 represents the number of base pairs in human DNA apparently. 60,000,000 represents the 2% difference in genetic makeup between humans and apes apparently. You tell me how probable it is that purely random events will cause this number of mutations in the DNA to result in the two different species. In fact, go and plug this number of permutations into your calculator as I already instructed you, and put the issue to rest! How much clearer can I make it?

You likely have about 175 mutations compared to your parents DNA. That is one single generation for one single descendent, most were neutral. I think several million years is sufficient time.

You've say you've presented evidence? Is it for evolution, or merely some other arbitrary event you are confusing for evolution? I have yet to see any evidence for evolution, which is what the OP's question was asking, was it not?

Yes, I have. You can try to call it something else, but evidence it is. It strongly suggests a common ancestor between humans and chimps. Have you a better explanation? Or are you going to play semantics?

Evolution predicts such relationships, like any good scientific theory it makes clear testable and falsifiable predictions. When we find scientific evidence of them, they are, as you would expect, used as evidence for evolution.

I suppose you think DNA fingerprints used in criminal cases are not evidence either...

Here's a good place to start for some more evidence:

www.talkorigins.org...

ABE:

In order for evolution to be responsible for apes and humans having a common ancestor, purely random mutations amounting to 60,000,000 in 3,000,000,000 base pairs of DNA would have to occur in the correct sequence and to the exact specificiation required

No, it wouldn't. That is just plain wrong. You are making post-hoc assumptions here, statistics doesn't work like that. Over time the mutations would have to produce some modifications, mutations would occur, the modification was not specified in advance.

If you shuffle a set of 52 cards and deal them out, are you amazed at the probability of producing the particular order that is dealt? It had to deal out in some order surely? You are misusing probability here. The mutations that produced humans were not specified in advance, evolution does not work like that.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by speaker
That energy always existed. From all reports, scientists attribute all of the energy in the Universe to the Big Bang. I don't recall them saying the Big Bang was just transforming the energy into another form.

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Hence, it's been here in one form or another. So the Universe did not start with 'nothing'. Can you grasp this concept?

Originally posted by speaker
In order for evolution to be responsible for apes and humans having a common ancestor, purely random mutations amounting to 60,000,000 in 3,000,000,000 base pairs of DNA would have to occur in the correct sequence and to the exact specificiation required.

Why do you attribute mutation and evolution to this 'randomness'. Do you think a lion's claws are sharp and their teeth are sharp because of randomness? Do you think we have opposable thumbs because of randomness? Evolution is not random.

Originally posted by speaker
And what do you think is the difference between co-incidence and another explanation? It's probability! YOU and ALL of the other evolutionists believe that the probability of these similarities between species being independant of one another is far too great to be a coincidence, therefore there must be another explanation. Your answer to this is evolution. It's inextricably linked to probability!

It's not linked to probability at all. It's not like all of a sudden one day life decided to evolve, despite the long shot odds that apparently can't even be expressed as a number.

Probability has everything to do with 'chance', hence the 'chance' of something happening or not happening. You attribute this to evolution, because you think that somehow evolution, if it's right, came about by 'chance'. This is an assumption. You assume evolution came about by chance and that any mutation or genetic difference is by random occurance only. The opposable thumb is not random, it's for a reason.

melatonin:
Whether you have 175, 250,000,000 or 16 mutations each generation makes no difference. The fact is not only are 60,000,000 mutations required, but they must be in the correct sequence, correct composition and to the correct specifications to result in the species we have. You said yourself that most of the 175 are neutral! It's not just a case of building up to 60,000,000 and kazaam! you have a new species. They have to be the correct 60,000,000. This is why you need to account for all the permutations. Even so, this calculation assumes there is only one type of mutation, not the multitude that there are in reality! Furthermore, I chose an example where the similarities between the two species are high to aid the evolutionist argument. Imagine what the result would be had a chosen less similar species?

You can try and call it something else but evidence for evolution it is NOT. If it was, there would not be room for another explanation, because evolution would be the ONLY explanation. As it stands, the similarities could be mere coincidence, as I've mentioned. Unlikely, you say? Why? Probability? For your sake, let's not go down that road again.

In the case of DNA fingerprints, the same logic applies. There are multiple possibilities that could give rise to a particular DNA composition. Could it be a coincidence that two are identical? Yes it could, but unlike evolution the probability that two identical DNA compositions are a coincidence is less likely than it being the same DNA. You see, it all comes down to probability. Is it evidence that both DNA samples are the same? No, because as long as the evidence caters for more than one possibility, it cannot be aligned with one over another. It's merely evidence that two samples have the same DNA composition.

Granted, using statistics after the fact to show probability isn't the ideal scenario, however I have included more than enough evolutionary bias to counter-balance this. Your card shuffling example is a far more ridiculous analogy. In this example you are assuming that any sequence will be successful. To quote your good self, "evolution does not work like that."


[edit on 20-4-2007 by speaker]

shaunybaby:
Again, where's your proof Einstein? Show me proof that the Big Bang theory merely involves energy changing form, as opposed to being created. I'm well aware of the laws of physics, this is why the Big Bang doesn't make any scientific sense. Can you grasp this concept?

Whoah! Are you sure you want to go down the 'evolution is not random' path? I commend you on your bravery, but I fear you will end up looking like a fool. I don't attribute mutation and evolution to randomness, evolutionary theory dictates this. Actually, to be honest, I feel that had evolutionists taken the 'evolution is not random" line in the first place they would have a much more probable theory on their hands. As ridiculous a theory it would be, at least the probability may be comprehendable! For the mutations to be anything but random, a scenario along the lines of the following would be required to repeat itself over and over and over:

Cells would each need to be able to think, remember and communicate individually. During the course of an animals life, the cell would take note of what improvements could be made to the vehicle it resides in to increase it's efficiency. At the end of the cells lifespan, it would report back to HQ it's findings and recommendations. This process would happen many times. Eventually a pattern would start to emerge, where the same recommendations are being reported over and over forming a petition if you like. At this point the grand council president would take the overwhelming advice of the petition on board and order an adaption to in the animals genetic makeup to cater for the new recommendation. This would result in a new more efficient version of the animal. Evolution at work! These must be some pretty crafty cells!

Let me know if you need any help wiping that egg off your face?

[edit on 20-4-2007 by speaker]

Originally posted by speaker
melatonin:
Whether you have 175, 250,000,000 or 16 mutations each generation makes no difference. The fact is not only are 60,000,000 mutations required, but they must be in the correct sequence, correct composition and to the correct specifications to result in the species we have. You said yourself that most of the 175 are neutral! It's not just a case of building up to 60,000,000 and kazaam! you have a new species. They have to be the correct 60,000,000. This is why you need to account for all the permutations. Even so, this calculation assumes there is only one type of mutation, not the multitude that there are in reality! Furthermore, I chose an example where the similarities between the two species are high to aid the evolutionist argument. Imagine what the result would be had a chosen less similar species?

Again, you are misusing probability. If I deal out 10,000,000,000 packs of cards, again, do you look at the probability of the specific order, post-hoc and claim it to be improbable?

Why do they need to be in a specific order? Are all the 60,000,000 beneficial? Considering only a fraction of the genome actually codes for proteins, why would it be important?

You can try and call it something else but evidence for evolution it is NOT. If it was, there would not be room for another explanation, because evolution would be the ONLY explanation. As it stands, the similarities could be mere coincidence, as I've mentioned. Unlikely, you say? Why? Probability? For your sake, let's not go down that road again.

We are not just talking about human-chimp similarities, but similarities across the whole of the nested hierarchy. Too much for any coincidence.

Granted, using statistics after the fact to show probability isn't the ideal scenario, however I have included more than enough evolutionary bias to counter-balance this. Your card shuffling example is a far more ridiculous analogy. In this example you are assuming that any sequence will be successful. To quote your good self, "evolution does not work like that."

No, the card analogy shows why your line of argument holds no weight. There is no specification in advance for evolution, just like there is none for future changes. Genetic change will occur in each generation, in several million years, large scale change may well result.

If we started from a population of proto-ape, which diverged into two populations - one leading to chimps and another to humans, mutations would occur for each individual in each generation, most detrimental changes will be weeded out. They will occur, just like they do now. Like dealing a pack of cards, some order of genetic change would happen. To then, several million years later, turn around and say the resultant changes were impossible, is ridiculous - a complete misuse of probability - just like saying the same for the 10 billion packs of cards post-hoc.

ABE: Speaker, you need to go and read a bit about evolution, when you have done so, we might be able to have a useful discussion. Evolution is not random. Natural selection is not a random process, many mutations may be, but subsequent selection is far from random.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by speaker
shaunybaby:
Again, where's your proof Einstein? Show me proof that the Big Bang theory merely involves energy changing form, as opposed to being created. I'm well aware of the laws of physics, this is why the Big Bang doesn't make any scientific sense. Can you grasp this concept?

I didn't ever say that the big bang theory involves energy changing form, why do you keep making up things I've said, when I've not said them? Big bang theory also doesn't state that the universe started with 'nothing' as you tried to make us believe. If you're well aware of the laws of physics then why can't you grasp the concept that energy has always been here.

Originally posted by speaker
Whoah! Are you sure you want to go down the 'evolution is not random' path? I commend you on your bravery, but I fear you will end up looking like a fool.

I've lost count of the things you've called me. What do we have.. 'contradiction', a sarcastic 'einstein' comment, and now a fool. What else you got in your armory?

I don't believe that evolution is random. Is there a set rule that says if you believe in evolution that you have to believe it's random?

Originally posted by speaker
I don't attribute mutation and evolution to randomness, evolutionary theory dictates this. Actually, to be honest, I feel that had evolutionists taken the 'evolution is not random" line in the first place they would have a much more probable theory on their hands.

So the reason we developed opposable thumbs and the fact that we walk on two legs is pure randomness? If evolution was purely random then that would dictate that we would have four legs, even though two of those legs weren't needed, or 50 toes.. that would be random. We are what we are, not because of random mutations, but from millions of years of specific changes to better suit our world and our environment.

Originally posted by speaker
Cells would each need to be able to think, remember and communicate individually.

Not at all.

If evolution doesn't happen for a reason, then why do finch's beak sizes differ on the Galapagos, depending on their food source. Hence, the ones that eat insects or small seeds have a thin narrow beak, but the birds that eat large seeds have a wide beak. Where is the randomness in these bird's beak size?

Originally posted by speaker
Let me know if you need any help wiping that egg off your face?

Is that supposed to be another insult? It doesn't surprise me, it's all you seem to do, is throw around names like a child. That's okay, I guess that's how you have discussions.

melatonin:
Yes, the order matters! Are you trying to say an ape would result from any assortment of 3,000,000,000 base pair human DNA with any 60,000,000 mutations? Whose being ridiculous? The vast majority of combinations would produce an unsuccessful result. Not what evolution requires is it?

Again, why is it too much for any coincidence? The odds are too great? Well, similarly evolution faces the same dilemma as coincidence. Only difference is the odds are not just great, they are a incomprehensibly enormous!

The card analogy has been rendered impotent. I've already demonstrated this. However to aid your argument and give you a sporting chance, why don't you reduce the number of permutations in a pool of 3,000,000,000 from 60,000,000 to 10. In fact, why not make them combinations. Fair enough? Surely if only 10 mutations out of 3,000,000,000 were enough to create a new species evolution would be plausible, right? Plug it in, and see what you come up with. The answer is the number of attempts required to be sure of a successful result.

Again, I am aware that the frequency of reproduction would increase as time passes, giving rise to more opportunites for mutation, however I have made many generous allowances all favouring the evolutionist argument to more than account for this.

I don't need to read anything. In order for us to have a useful discussion all you need to do is come up with any scrap of evidence that identifies evolution as the only possibile scenario which would result in the diversity of life we have today, as the OP has requested. You say evolution is not random. You say natural selection is not random. Just make sure you steer clear of saying mutations are not random, or you could face the same fete as shaunybaby.

shaunybaby:
Once again, where is the proof of your claims about the Big Bang Theory? Show me a link, an extract, something please!!?

Fair enough about the Einstein comment and the egg on your face down further, I get carried away sometimes and I apologise. However, the contradiction and fool assessments are purely based on what you have written, they are not personal attacks.

Well, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the difference between science and other religions was that scientific theories don't require you to believe in them? Supposedly the belief factor is substituted with provability. In which case, the set rule is probably the theory itself. If you don't adhere to that you probably don't believe in evolution at all? Then again I'm not religious, so I probably am mistaken.

As far as I'm aware, in regards to how random evolution is, the mutations are supposedly random giving rise to successful and unsuccessful results. The susccessful results produce more and less efficient models. The less effficient models are eliminated and the more efficient models take over, survival of the fittest. From what I can gather, evolution dictates that the humans with 4 legs and 50 toes did exist at one point, but due to there inefficiencies, they weren't able to prosper leaving the two legged, 5 toed, opposite thumbed version we have today. I may be mistaken, but I think this is how evolution is supposed to work in a nutshell.

If it makes you feel any better, I think exactly the same as you on this issue. The only realistic way evolution can work is if the mutations are not random, but alas, evolutionary theory seems to have other ideas.

I noticed this thread was getting quite long and thought I would comment. I sense confusion between thermodynamics, the process of meiosis (& recombination), the origin of diversity, and natural selection.

Anyone familiar with the laws of thermodynamics understands that biochemistry follows physical laws. Nature always seeks the path of least resistance, whether it involves folding a protein or surviving an environmental catastrophe.

Life evolves because environmental processes act on the natural diversity in a population. For instance, if changes in the atmosphere led to greater UV exposure in people, those who produced lower levels of melanin (i.e., Northern European ancestry) would be more susceptible to skin cancer and may die before reproducing. If this happens often enough, eventually our society will lose everyone who does not make enough melanin naturally before these people can reproduce and pass on this trait to their children. Then, pale skin would disappear from humans.

Evolution is all about living long enough to pass your genes onto your kids. If some crisis prevents you from doing so because of a trait you interited from your predecessors (and share with others in the population), you and all carriers of this trait will go extinct along with the trait. Meanwhile, the descendants of people who did not die in the crisis (environmental change) keep passing on their dark genes. Here, changes in the evironment "selected" people who carried a trait that allowed them to survive long enough to pass their genes (coding for higher melanin production/dark skin) onto their children. Consequently, humans will acquire darker skin as a whole and be more resistant to higher UV exposure.

Like evolution, diversity is not divine either. For organisms that reproduce sexually (like us) the genes we inherit from our parents are recombined in a variety of mixtures every generation. For the most part, the only genes we have to start with come from what was available in our parents' genomes. DIVERSITY, not evolution does contain some element of chance since the process of meiosis (production of sperm & eggs) by your parents leave you with only half of each parents' genome for the composition of your own. We are diploid organisms and this means that we possess 2 sets of chromosomes; one from each parent that in turn, originated from their haploid cells (1 set of chromosomes). The only chance at play is WHICH of your mother's/father's chromosome (each #) you will inherit. They are not automatically inherited as a set so your grandmothers chromosome #4 could come with grandpa's #2.

Additional diversity comes from the process of "crossing over" where pieces of chromosomes can break off and exchange with each other,, leading to 2 genes that would never otherwise be found together (i.e., blue eyes and black hair) winding up on the same chromosome together. This is completely natural. There are also many instances where bits of these chromosomes can be broken off and lost, recombine with the wrong mate (m4 -->f6 instead of f4), wrong direction, etc. Errors in cell division can result in missing or extra chromosomes (as in Down's syndrome).

All organisms contain spontaneous mutations, unrelated to sexual reproduction. Often environmental toxins & our old friend UV can damage DNA in ways that cannot be repaired properly. Subsequent generations of cells carrying this damage will pass it on to their progeny if the cell does not die from it (preserving the mutation). Most mutations are deleterious/lethal and of those that are not, only a tiny fraction confer any advantage in a given environment. A benefit in 1 environment (fat retention to fight starvation) can easily become costly in another (obesity).

Every organism alive today merely results from our ancestors surviving long enough to reproduce. Diversity helps the whole SPECIES, not individuals, adapt to environmental change (i.e., antibiotic resistance).

Originally posted by speaker
melatonin:
Yes, the order matters! Are you trying to say an ape would result from any assortment of 3,000,000,000 base pair human DNA with any 60,000,000 mutations? Whose being ridiculous? The vast majority of combinations would produce an unsuccessful result. Not what evolution requires is it?

Speaker, I understand there is no point, you are unable to grasp the basic idea here. But I'll try to make it clear once more, you are misusing probability.

We start with a 3,000,000,000 base pair DNA with the common ancestor, (ABE: this is an already fixed order that is the DNA of a proto-ape, so the 'any order' idea is moot). This population diverges into two populations, they are separated for some reason. Within the populations, for each generation mutations will occur. This is a proven fact, but exactly how many is variable, 175 is one figure in recent studies. Give enough generations over several millions of years, lets say a generation every 30 years (probably shorter):

7,000,000/30 = 233,333 generations.

233,333 x 175 mutations = 40,833,333 possible mutations. We have two divergent popluations, so this occurs in each population.

So, we know that more than enough mutations can occur. They have to occur in some order, yes? Just like dealing 60,000,000 cards, they will happen in one order over time, but this is not specified beforehand. Claiming the particular outcome is impossible due to placing a specification post-hoc is a ridiculous criticism, just like saying the dealt card order is impossible. The 60,000,000 mutations/cards had to unfold in one order. The genetic differences we observe is the outcome of such a process.

I don't need to read anything. In order for us to have a useful discussion all you need to do is come up with any scrap of evidence that identifies evolution as the only possibile scenario which would result in the diversity of life we have today, as the OP has requested. You say evolution is not random. You say natural selection is not random. Just make sure you steer clear of saying mutations are not random, or you could face the same fete as shaunybaby.

I have provided evidence, another 30 predictions with supporting evidence were in the link I provided. I don't need to rule out every alternative, that is another ridiculous comment, science don't work that way - do I need to falsify creation by space-monkeys first? What the theory of evolution needs to do is provide a coherent logically consistent theory that results in testable, falsifiable predictions. This is what it does, and the data I provided earlier about chromosome 2 is completely consistent. What you need to do is provide an alternative theory that can explain the evidence better. When you do so, we can discuss why it is not scientific or why it is false.

Most, or even all, mutations are random. But evolution is not. Evolution requires variation and selection. Mutations provide variation on which natural selection acts. Mutations are random, but natural selection is not. NS selects the most adaptive individuals in a population, they outbreed other individuals and come to dominate. This is not random.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by melatonin]

melatonin:
I appreciate your attempts to educate me, but it is in vain. I already understand what you are saying about probability. I understand that we don't need to wait until will get the whole requirement of mutations in one go, we can achieve this gradually. I understand that there is not only one specific composition of mutations that will be successful (the ape) there are a multitude. I understand that the chances will increase as the population increases. This is why I have afforded evolutionists the very generous bias' in my calculations, which more than balance out my misuse of probability in this instance, in favour of evolution.

Tell me then, is 40,833,333 multiplied by the two divergent populations, greater or smaller than the number of different combinations (Combinations ignore order, whereas Permutations do not) of a measley group of 10 in a pool of 3,000,000,000?

Again, just like your ridiculous card analogy, you assume that every mutation is a successful one. This is the fundamental flaw! The vast majority are not! How much clearer can I make it?

You need to read the title of this thread. It doesn't ask for an alternative explanation to evolution, it asks for evidence for evolution. You can say it's ridiculous to rule out every alternative to the 30 pieces of so called evidence you provided, but until you do, the FACT is, that none of those 30 pieces are evidence for evolution.

You don't need to falsify creation by space-monkeys first, all you need to do is provide the smallest shred of evidence that demonstrates evolution is the only possibly solution. With all of the supposedly abundant evidence for evolution out there it shouldn't be too much of a challenge. Achieve this and we can move on.

Originally posted by speaker
melatonin:

Tell me then, is 40,833,333 multiplied by the two divergent populations, greater or smaller than the number of different combinations (Combinations ignore order, whereas Permutations do not) of a measley group of 10 in a pool of 3,000,000,000?

But we don't need to worry about the combinations possible. In each generation mutations happened, some were passed on, and so forth, in some particular order (like dealing cards) until we have what we see. A certain degree of genetic difference between the two species that diverged from a single ancestor.

If it was possible to produce the exact environmental situations and replicate from the initial proto-ape, it is very unlikely we would produce the exact same outcome, this is where the randomness would come into play. We might get a degree of convergence though, as natural selection would be favouring particular traits.

Again, just like your ridiculous card analogy, you assume that every mutation is a successful one. This is the fundamental flaw! The vast majority are not! How much clearer can I make it?

Well, not really. Most of the mutations will be totally neutral. A few will be beneficial and be fixed in the population. The detrimental mutations will be weeded out, most won't even see the light of day (aborted fetuses).

You need to read the title of this thread. It doesn't ask for an alternative explanation to evolution, it asks for evidence for evolution. You can say it's ridiculous to rule out every alternative to the 30 pieces of so called evidence you provided, but until you do, the FACT is, that none of those 30 pieces are evidence for evolution.

But I have provided evidence. This is what scientists are doing, and have been doing for decades, using predictions from evolutionary theory to gather data and test the theory. 150 years later, we still find no evidence that is an issue for this very robust theory. Journals are full of this evidence, scientists are working to produce more every day.

You don't need to falsify creation by space-monkeys first, all you need to do is provide the smallest shred of evidence that demonstrates evolution is the only possibly solution. With all of the supposedly abundant evidence for evolution out there it shouldn't be too much of a challenge. Achieve this and we can move on.

I have. Chromosome 2, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses etc. Explain this data another way...

I can explain why chimps and humans have pseudogenes broken in exactly the same way, why chromosome 2 contains remnants of a centomere and telomere at exactly the location it is. Why we see relationships between the great apes reduce as we move down the phylogenetic tree. Why such relationships are seen across the animal kingdom. Why mammals never existed millions of years ago, reptiles million of years before that, amphibians before that, fish before that. And why all these species can be placed in a nice nested hierarchy, with strong molecular and structural homolgies with fossils placed in the exact strata we would expect them to be. I can use a scientific theory that has developed over decades of hard work, survived numerous challenges of major scientific advances. Can you?

[edit on 20-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by speaker
...I have afforded evolutionists the very generous bias' in my calculations, which more than balance out my misuse of probability ...in favour of evolution....is 40,833,333 multiplied by the two divergent populations, greater or smaller than the number of different combinations (Combinations ignore order, whereas Permutations do not) of a measley group of 10 in a pool of 3,000,000,000?...It doesn't ask for an alternative explanation to evolution, it asks for evidence for evolution. You can say it's ridiculous to rule out every alternative to the 30 pieces of so called evidence you provided, but until you do, the FACT is, that none of those 30 pieces are evidence for evolution. ...provide the smallest shred of evidence that demonstrates evolution is the only possibly solution. With all of the supposedly abundant evidence for evolution out there it shouldn't be too much of a challenge. Achieve this and we can move on.

I am trying very hard to try and figure out where you are coming from Speaker but I am totally lost. If something is being "misused", shouldn't it be abandonned in favor of a better method? Are you attempting to reconstuct a molecular clock in order to pinpoint divergence between other primates (chimps/bonobos) and us? rRNA sequences are best for this because mutation rates are quite low over long periods of time and the sequence is sufficiently long to cut down on errors. If you want to perform sequence alignments on the genomes in question, analyze all the duplications, deletions, inversions, transpositions, etc. and perhaps include a few other sequence alignments (such as those for highly conserved proteins) for comparison, it could take a very long time indeed!

Since mutation itself encompasses many different processes, it simply does not make sense to take the size of one genome and compare it directly to another (permutations or not). How would such an approach be affected by a mutation that duplicates/deletes human/primate genes, inverts a sequence that encodes a common (homologous) protein to both species or fails to translate a sequence the same way (some codons --> same amino acid, species codon bias, diferent regulatory systems, etc.) ? Comparing size alone misses the most important parts of a genome, namely regions of alignment between species and the mutation rate over time that leads to speciation in highly conserved sequences.

As for evidence, there is no evidence that anyone created us or life in general but there is evidence of evolution in every population of organisms that ever existed. Those with genes coding for traits that happend to be so costly in their particular environments that they didn't live long enough to breed, went extinct. Our genes are not shuffled like a deck of cards when we reproduce. If anything, it is more like software: each choice 2 results- 1 or 2. Mom or Dad. Fix or Leave. Start or Stop. Live or Die. Pyrimidine or Purine. Code protein or instruct translation? Intron or exon? Old strand or new strand? Evolve or die.

When I start a culture of E. coli in the lab, there are 2 ways for me to isolate a strain that is resistant to Ampicillin:
1) Insert a plasmid containing an Ampicillin-resistance cassette in the bacteria before I inocculate the broth with it or...
2) Dump in the E. coli as is. There are always a few that happen to be naturally resistant because of some spontaneous mutation along the way. Ther wild "buddies" will die, leaving the mutants to take over and multiply!
#1 is faster but #2 is just as effective. This is not an exercise in permutations, it is just plain science.

I recently came across a wicked-cool paper on heritable mutation accumulation in mtDNA for people living in a highly radioactive region in India. Local geology contains high levels of a certain Thorium isotope which, coincide with mutation hotspots in the human genome over the past few million years. See next post.