Evolution is FACT!

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by davesidious
 





No, you're making very little sense.

Well you've caught me on a day that my patience has some longevity.

So basically, take one hand full of corn, throw it up in the air.
If all the pieces of corn do not form an absolutely straight line with equal spaces throughout.
Keep grabbing handfuls of corn and tossing them until they do.


How many handfuls will he need?

[edit on 6-1-2010 by randyvs]

Give me a few hundred million years then we'll discuss the results. Where exactly did you hope to go with this one?




posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 





Any takers? Anybody care to tell me where the vast ocean of failed mutant creatures are? I also want to see the vast number of dogs that SHOULD exist that have some kind of partially developed evolutionary mechanisms developing in-progress.


Here it is:
weirdnewsfiles.com...

And here is a partially developed eye:


Here is another one:

Yes, human eye is not perfect, so it is partially developed, as you call it...



Also, please show me a create that has a single eye, or three eyes. In a random world, it is totally unbelievable that eyes could develop over time, and the only number of them on any creature would be two, that happen to work in tandem to provide stereoscopic vision. That odds of that go beyond impossible, no matter how many gazillion years you have.


As you can see in the "gallery of freaks", not all mutations have minor effects. Some cause very big lateral changes - so evolution os stereoscopic vision or similar structures by multiplication is very likely.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 




Give me a few hundred million years then we'll discuss the results. Where exactly did you hope to go with this one

Absolutly nowhere. The point is, this being the challenge, you should not have thrown one handful of corn. It is absurd to expect it to ever fall
with in the guidelines.The randomness of the corn falling to earth will never be the perscribed constent.

How is this hard to folllow?

"Science can tell us so many things, this no one can deny. It most certainly
can not tell us what ought to be done".

author unknown





[edit on 6-1-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 




Let's say I want to open a safe that has a 10-digit combination. Opening this safe represents a SINGLE biological improvement. Now, I try every combination randomly, and every time I try a combination, I write it down and throw the paper on the ground. I keep trying a new combination and throwing the papers on the ground. Finally, as the law of averages would dictate, I open the door after about 5 billion tries (half of 10 billion). So what does the record show? An open safe (new single mechanism found by chance), and 5 billion fossils showing the failed attempts.


This is NOT how evolution works. It is not a fully random process, randomness provides only variation, but the rest of the process, natural selection, is not random. Your analogy is incorrect because it ignores natural selection and intermediate beneficial steps. It should be like this:

I start with random combination, and every step I change one digit randomly (mutation). When the correct digit is inserted, it no longer changes (natural selection). How many steps (mutations) are required to open the door?

In the worst case 10 x 10 = 100 steps, but most likely 5 x 10 = 50 steps. Thats far less, isnt it?


Even on the site you linked, it says analogies like yours are incorrect, because "never use simple probability theory when natural selection is involved".



The fact is, when a mutation happens, it is nearly always harmful, and in the rest of the cases, it is harmless. But harmless is not the same as beneficial. Plus, mutations don't typically get passed down to subsequent generations, since it was a mistake in the first place.


No. Majority of mutations are neutral, and only neutral and beneficial matter in the long run, because harmful ones are eliminated through natural selection.
Mutations always get passed down - when mutation escaped all cellular control mechanisms, it is indistinguishable from the rest of the genome.

To your radio "analogy". All organs and features in the body can be evolved by continuous mutation process, when all steps are more beneficial than the ones before. "Irreducible complexity" can be evolved step by step.
What use is "half an eye"? In an eyeless population, it is of enormous use.

Edit to add: www.talkorigins.org... - Exploring the evolution/creationism controversy from scientific point of view - here you will find your answers.


[edit on 6-1-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by john_bmth
 




Give me a few hundred million years then we'll discuss the results. Where exactly did you hope to go with this one

Absolutly nowhere. The point is, this being the challenge, you should not have thrown one handful of corn. It is absurd to expect it to ever fall
with in the guidelines.The randomness of the corn falling to earth will never be the perscribed constent.

How is this hard to folllow?

"Science can tell us so many things, this no one can deny. It most certainly
can not tell us what ought to be done".

author unknown





[edit on 6-1-2010 by randyvs]


Yes, very good point. To add more to it, tf there are a billion possible configurations, then for every single throw the odds are precisely 1 out of a billion. It doesn't matter if you throw the corn for a quintillion years, the odds are still 1 out of a billion each time. That is what these bozos don't get. It doesn't matter how long you take, the odds do not change over time. Then, let's say you are trying to throw the same configuration two times in a row... the odds of throwing that is tremendously reduced. So the more complexity you have, the worse the odds.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by john_bmth
 




Give me a few hundred million years then we'll discuss the results. Where exactly did you hope to go with this one

Absolutly nowhere. The point is, this being the challenge, you should not have thrown one handful of corn. It is absurd to expect it to ever fall
with in the guidelines.The randomness of the corn falling to earth will never be the perscribed constent.

How is this hard to folllow?

"Science can tell us so many things, this no one can deny. It most certainly
can not tell us what ought to be done".

author unknown





[edit on 6-1-2010 by randyvs]


Yes, very good point. To add more to it, tf there are a billion possible configurations, then for every single throw the odds are precisely 1 out of a billion. It doesn't matter if you throw the corn for a quintillion years, the odds are still 1 out of a billion each time. That is what these bozos don't get. It doesn't matter how long you take, the odds do not change over time. Then, let's say you are trying to throw the same configuration two times in a row... the odds of throwing that is tremendously reduced. So the more complexity you have, the worse the odds.

What? If you do this for long enough, the odds WILL come up.
2nd line.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by randyvs
 


Are you off your rocker? Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god. That's not unbelievable, that's the default position of every human being that has ever existed. You were an atheist before your parents told you about god.



Wow, you know a LOT. How'd you figure that one out?

Did you ask?

I have always known God is there.

I didn't have a name or know that we called Him God at first - but I have always known that God is there.

You know that feeling like you're being watched? I've had that non-stop my entire life.

I used to be way more in tune, actually. I used to be able to feel the life everywhere I was. I could always feel the energy going into my body and my mind wherever I was. I have taken it for granted more lately -- no thanks to logic and reasoning (upon which I have this horrible habit of relying lately).

downisreallyup -- I love you. But I am married, so don't get any ideas.

WalkingFox, you are certainly intelligent, but intelligence isn't enough. Look at my avatar to see what trumps intelligence.

Also, for anyone here to claim that a theory is not a guess is foolish at best. If a theory is not a guess, how is it possible to have multiple theories attempting to explain the same problem? A theory is truly the next step after developing a hypothesis, but there is still yet another step... it is called, "proof". Evidence does not equal proof (as y'all so eloquently point out when attempting to discredit my God's existence). Once there is proof beyond the shadow of a doubt, then you have a fact.

NO ONE WITH HEALTHY EYES CAN DENY A COLOR.
NO ONE WITH HEALTHY EARS CAN DENY A SOUND.

These exist as proof beyond the shadow of a doubt!

The incredibly simple logic, which is so ironic, that you with so much intelligence lack such simple understanding, is that there is a division on the belief of secular sciences because secular sciences are based wholly upon theories instead facts. Further, the proof of God's existence is the very existence itself. Existence CANNOT happen by itself, by YOUR VERY OWN LOGIC. Sanitize a petri dish. Put it into a clean room. Remove EVERYTHING besides the petri dish. Watch the petri dish for years. See if anything shows up in it. Does anything show up in it? Maybe you're just not waiting long enough... Oh wait. But, something has to be there in order for something to show up!

According to y'all, the universe has a finite age. If that is true, that means at one point the universe didn't exist. At all. I mean, in a clean room with nothing but a petri dish, it would seem that you would have more luck finding something new inside that petri dish than if, well... there was nothing in the beginning!

By your very own logic, your intelligence is a failure.

Yes, everything you do, say, and feel is known and recorded. I know, the government is getting better at it, but someone has been doing that way before the government thought of doing it.

You're being watched. You're being heard. Even if you do not speak, you are heard. Your heart is wide open. You can't hide anywhere. The Boogie-man's gonna get you! Mwahah!

Okay, maybe I shouldn't be preying off of your fears... but, it's funny. Seriously think about it. With all of the mistakes that y'all claim exist within religions, the Bible, the existence of God - all things that you claim are created by man - don't you think it's funny that you delight in science, which is WHOLLY of men?

Not to mention, didn't your daddy ever tell you to not believe everything you see? Science is 95% sight.

Yeah, sure, a lot of religious people don't know squat about nature. That's a fair judgment. But, there are a lot more anti-God people who don't know squat about God - case-in-point. Further, do not take every self-proclaimed religious person's word on what the honestly faithful believe... just like I don't take every self proclaimed (degree or not) scientist's word on what the honestly intelligent believe.

There is plenty of room in this universe for devout faith in God combined with understanding of His creation...

In fact, the two can ONLY GO HAND-In-HAND. Any other way, and you're just foolin' yourself. Faith with works becomes knowledge. Faith without works becomes nothing. Works without faith becomes nothing.

So, in reality, for you to ever come to a scientific fact, on purpose, you must first have had to have faith in what you believed.

For you to have faith in your evolutionary theory moreso than faith in our Creator is a sign that you have totally failed to understand how to figure ANYTHING out.

By your own arguments, we humans could not just have popped up here. The universe could not just have popped up here. No kidding. We all had to eventually come from somewhere. So, by your very own logic, there HAD TO BE AN ORIGIN.

If you think that by attempting to prove a theory, one of evolution (particularly in regards to life on this planet earth), that you will somehow discredit the existence of God, which is before your theory of evolution on the timeline, then you are logically bankrupt.

If you want to determine the reason why something is happening, you must find the origin. The cause, if you will.

Determine the cause, and you will have the answer to your question! You won't need theories to plug into the middle of your algebraic equations of life!

Some of us are smart enough to figure out the Cause! Some of our brains, thank God, actually process this information pretty easily! It may not be as easy to articulate, but that is because the information is so simple that it's hard to convey or convince.

But, in actuality, I believe all of our brains are wired to understand this. I think the reality is that intelligent people learn how to play stupid as children and then grow up to use it to their advantage. I've seen far too many people not grow up -- or even REGRESS -- because they are stressed out or bored in life.

Well, I'm almost at my 6500 maximum and I feel as though I haven't done nearly as much justice as a technical thesis, but what am I? I understand things without dissecting them physically. My math teachers were always mad that I never showed my work...

Enjoy.



[edit on 1/6/2010 by TarzanBeta]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by downisreallyup
 





Any takers? Anybody care to tell me where the vast ocean of failed mutant creatures are? I also want to see the vast number of dogs that SHOULD exist that have some kind of partially developed evolutionary mechanisms developing in-progress.


Here it is:
weirdnewsfiles.com...

And here is a partially developed eye:


Here is another one:

Yes, human eye is not perfect, so it is partially developed, as you call it...


[edit on 6-1-2010 by Maslo]


Thank you for taking the time to provide actual things to look at and consider. Yes, indeed, you did find mutant creatures, and of course those things do happen. The question for those particular creatures is, will their children have the same mutation? Not to take away from what you found, but there really aren't any new mechanisms there. Obviously the shark had some leg DNA woven in somehow, since the appendages have feet, toes, etc. Somehow, that shark got some leg DNA spliced in. Multiple heads is easy to accomplish by simple cell-division malfunction, much the same way that twins happen. So, two of the same thing next to each other isn't really the kind of mutation I'm looking to see. What I'd like to see if a creature that has an arm extending from the middle of its spine, or a head with the eyes on the bottom, the mouth above that, and the nose above that, or perhaps a human nose turned upside down.

Even if you can produce a single freak, which can certainly happen by mutation, that does not answer the question I asked, really. What you are really suggesting is that new mechanisms occur by a process that is similar to annealing... where crystals form in a slow cooling/freezing liquid. For the annealing process to occur, there are millions of "trial and errors" made for every successful state of stability. So, those freakish animals you showed should be the NORM, not the exception, and the fossil record should be littered with them, overwhelmingly inundating the planet.

Also, I'd like to know how a woodpecker's tongue could be routed around the back of the head, up and over, then proceeding down a special chamber down through the beak. How would any intermediate bird live as the tongue takes a mutated path backwards up the head? For the creature not to die, the entire pathway, length of tongue, and neurons to use it would all have to be in place and working, else the bird would not be able to eat at all. And, this trait would have to be passed to its children, which even in the best case is only 50% chance, and depending on the mutation, it may not even express.

Basically, if a creature has a 1 in 500 million chance to have ANY mutation at all, any given creature has the same odds, no matter how many zillions of years you spend. Each individual creature stands alone in the statistics analysis, so this whole business of "anything can happen over millions of years" shows a basic misunderstanding of odds and statistics.

A monkey who pounds on a keyboards will NEVER produce an encyclopedia... never. The odds of him hitting the right key each time goes up exponentially the more keys he types. When I get time, I will produce a statistical analysis of the estimated odds for producing the genetic sequence by chance, even if you could produce a new pattern every second of every day.... which is far faster than what you are proposing. You will see, that if you generated a random genetic pattern every second, a hundred billion years would be anywhere near enough time to do even that, and that is not taking into account that the odds present for each new pattern is exactly the same huge number.

Heck, let's do it now:

The human genome has 3 billion base pairs. Essentially these base pairs have to be in the correct sequence to create a human being, with certain variations within limits to produce a unique human. So, using odds, it can be said that for each random mutation, there is a 1 out of 3 billion chance that a random generator would get the right sequence. Now, if instead, the DNA is built up slowly by adding more codon sequences over time, the odds would be as follows:

There are 64 possible coden encodings, so to get the right first codon would be a 1 out of 64 chance. To get the next codon would be 1 out of 4096. The next codon, 1 out of 262,144. The next would be 1 out of 16,777,216. Now, that is just the first 4 codons and we are already at huge odds.

To get all 3 billion codons in the right order would be 64 raised to the 3 billionth power! Do you have any idea how large that number is? Well, let's chop this down to a number my BigDecimal calculator can handle. Let's assume the genome only has 1000 codons, instead of 3 billion.

That number 64 to the 1000 power is:
1,513,470,582,304,237,072,513,410,067,329,391,955,423,482,356,622,077,508,836,389,416,646,889,306,993,564,534,635,830,817,676,552,456,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000.

Continued:



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
That is the odds of getting 1000 codons in the correct sequence if you build the sequence up over time. In other words, that is how many permutations you would have to go through in order to get the right sequence.

Now, let's say we could have a new random codon added on once every second of every day and we did this for 1 trillion years. That would give us this many permutations:

31,536,000,000,000,000,000.

So, that is a very puny number compared to the number above, which is how many permutations you would have to go through to get the right sequence. Actually, the average number would be half that, since the median value represents a statistically average likelihood.

Now, remember, this is how many random permutations could be produced in 1 trillion years assuming a UNIQUE codon (1 of 64) is added on every second. If you are then saying that mutations happen much less frequently than that, the situation only gets worse, not better. Also, in reality there would be much duplication of codons already visited, so the actual rate of going through all possible permutations would be much greater.

Now, remember, this example shows a very fast progression of change, and how bloody long that would take (much, much, much older than the age of the universe). If you then say "you'd be surprised what can happen over a long time" you are only shooting yourself in the foot. The longer it takes between each new permutation, the worse the situation becomes.

No, sorry, the human being and nearly all creatures are just too complex, and the universe is just too young for evolution to be possible. Plus, if it were true, the world look much more like a chaotic zombie freak show, and would certainly not be the beautiful and ordered world that it is.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Clearly you didn't read the evolution wiki article.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Your statistical example is wrong, again, because simply does not work like that. It is NOT random permutation that needs to test all the possibilities.
Your example would test not only humans, but all the primates, cows, insects, plants, dinosaurs, aliens and every possible life form with less than 3 billion base pairs genome. That is not how evolution works.

This is how your example should be, again:

Human genome has 1 billion codons that are coding for 20 amino acids. Probability of having the first aminoacid/codon right is 1 in 20, or 0.05. After that, it becomes LOCKED IN by natural selection.
The probability of having the next codon right is 0.05, again. Thus, the probability of having both codons right is 1 in 40, or 0.025, NOT 1 in 400, because the first codon is already locked in (if it changes, the organism dies - natural selection).
The number of variations that needs to be tested to get human genome in this "evolutionary" model is 20 times 1 billion = 20 billion variants.
Thats far less than your example.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I think it's safe to asume that for every little thing in this universe there is a law with boundries.

How is evolution possible if everything is predifined and anyting can alter within limits of laws. Is there such thing as predefined evolution ?
Laws state very clear what you can become and what you can't become.
So if everything is set we just change in one of the possibilites of a law.
Anything above that would be breaking the law. We even guide our self by
universal laws making laws of our own.

It's where I find evolution pointless, alteration is not evolution, for evolution to be real we would have to get rid of the laws.

Just like the starter of this thread "chaos" there would need to be total random chaos for evolution to be real, I guess he forgot about the laws of phisics. So were back at creation it seems where everything was predefined.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by john_bmth
 




Give me a few hundred million years then we'll discuss the results. Where exactly did you hope to go with this one

Absolutly nowhere. The point is, this being the challenge, you should not have thrown one handful of corn. It is absurd to expect it to ever fall
with in the guidelines.The randomness of the corn falling to earth will never be the perscribed constent.

How is this hard to folllow?

"Science can tell us so many things, this no one can deny. It most certainly
can not tell us what ought to be done".

author unknown





[edit on 6-1-2010 by randyvs]


Yes, very good point. To add more to it, tf there are a billion possible configurations, then for every single throw the odds are precisely 1 out of a billion. It doesn't matter if you throw the corn for a quintillion years, the odds are still 1 out of a billion each time. That is what these bozos don't get. It doesn't matter how long you take, the odds do not change over time. Then, let's say you are trying to throw the same configuration two times in a row... the odds of throwing that is tremendously reduced. So the more complexity you have, the worse the odds.

What? If you do this for long enough, the odds WILL come up.
2nd line.


No, that is an error. There is no memory between throws. The odds it will come up the first throw is exactly the same odds it will come up after the trillionth throw. If the odds are infinitesimally small for the first throw, they will be infinitesimally small after the trillionth step.

This, what you just said, is the fallacy that many people make.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup

No, that is an error. There is no memory between throws. The odds it will come up the first throw is exactly the same odds it will come up after the trillionth throw. If the odds are infinitesimally small for the first throw, they will be infinitesimally small after the trillionth step.

This, what you just said, is the fallacy that many people make.


Yes they are - odds of mutation being beneficial, neutral or harmful do not remember previous attempts. But how is that relevant?
You are asking the wrong question. Your question: "What is the probability that ALL of the billion throws would fall in a row?" Of, course, very very small. The evolution-relevant question would be "What is the probability that AT LEAST ONE of the billion throws would fall in a row?" Remember, natural selection preserves good traits, so beneficial mutation has to happen only once - then it becomes written in the genome and passed down.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   


What? If you do this for long enough, the odds WILL come up.



What? If you do this for long enough, the odds WILL come up.
reply to post by john_bmth
 

Ummm, No!
Downisreallyup
That number 64 to the 1000 power is:
1,513,470,582,304,237,072,513,410,067,329,391,955,423,482,356,622,077,508,836,389,416,646,889,306,993,564,534,635,830,817,676,552,456,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000.

So goes the corn.
That was one hell of a Response. lmao.



[edit on 6-1-2010 by randyvs]

[edit on 6-1-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Your statistical example is wrong, again, because simply does not work like that. It is NOT random permutation that needs to test all the possibilities.
Your example would test not only humans, but all the primates, cows, insects, plants, dinosaurs, aliens and every possible life form with less than 3 billion base pairs genome. That is not how evolution works.

This is how your example should be, again:

Human genome has 1 billion codons that are coding for 20 amino acids. Probability of having the first aminoacid/codon right is 1 in 20, or 0.05. After that, it becomes LOCKED IN by natural selection.
The probability of having the next codon right is 0.05, again. Thus, the probability of having both codons right is 1 in 40, or 0.025, NOT 1 in 400, because the first codon is already locked in (if it changes, the organism dies - natural selection).
The number of variations that needs to be tested to get human genome in this "evolutionary" model is 20 times 1 billion = 20 billion variants.
Thats far less than your example.


The first codon can't get "locked in" because there is not a single viable variant with a single amino acid. That is a fallacy right there. You believe that for any unique combination of simpler patterns there is some mystical "natural selection" force that allows only a small set of larger patterns to propagate. That doesn't make sense, since mutations are random mistakes to begin with. You can't claim that randomness allowed us to violate the status quo, and then at the same time claim that the same randomness is not permitted in the future. By its very definition, a mutation goes AGAINST the current steady state.

Ah, circular reasoning! First of all, there are 3 billion codons, not 1 billion. Secondly, there are 64 possibilities for each. You can't assume there are only 20 amino acids, because the use of each amino acid is not "locked in" as you say. Even the amino acids are forming randomly from the supposed "soup." If we looked at the odds that any particular amino acid would form, it would also take longer than the age of the earth... but we won't do that here at this point.

You said that the first codon gets locked in, and then by some mystical process, the creature would die if that one codon was not correct? And yet, above it was claimed that most mutations were neutral? Those two ideas don't jibe. You can't just call something "natural selection" and that fixes basic logic flaws.

The fact is, if a mutation is neutral, it may not be recognized as "flawed" until a million stages later. Think of traversing a maze. Let's set up a thought experiment to see what I'm talking about. Imagine a maze with 1 billion pathway segments

As a mouse randomly goes through it, each step is a mutation (neutral), and then when the mouse gets trapped in a false path, that would be like the creature dying. Now, let's say you have a maze that has a billion pathway segments. You release a mouse at the starting point (single molecule), a point that is farthest from the exit (which represents humanity). As the mouse walks, that represents a mutation. Each step the mouse takes is a mutation. Many will be neutral, or at least they will appear that way. Once a mouse takes a turn into a false path, that would a harmful mutation, but you still don't know if it is harmful, not until the mouse (molecule) bumps into a wall and is trapped.

This mystery force you call "natural selection" violates all the principles we KNOW exist in the universe. The original DNA mistake occurred as a random event. You then claim it would get "locked in" because it would give the creature an advantage of survival. But since you said that most mutations are neutral, how can it be of benefit? The fact is, as a complex mechanism is developing, it is far more likely that at some point the non-working mechanism would be a hindrance to the creature, which would also tend to negate the continued survival of the modification.

Your big mistake is that you believe that partially developed mechanisms are either neutral or positive, since that is the only thing that would allow that trait to develop. I maintain that in nearly every case, a partially developed mechanism is detrimental at some point, which, according to supposed "natural selection" would eliminate the thing. My position is also backed by actual observations now. Go and look up any article on biological mutation, and you will them classified according to the severity and nature of DNA damage. Mutations are seen as failures of DNA error-correction, and these kind of mistakes only happen because the error-correction mechanism is faulty. A faulty error-correction mechanism, if propagated will only continue to produce likely-harmful mutations.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by downisreallyup

No, that is an error. There is no memory between throws. The odds it will come up the first throw is exactly the same odds it will come up after the trillionth throw. If the odds are infinitesimally small for the first throw, they will be infinitesimally small after the trillionth step.

This, what you just said, is the fallacy that many people make.


Yes they are - odds of mutation being beneficial, neutral or harmful do not remember previous attempts. But how is that relevant?
You are asking the wrong question. Your question: "What is the probability that ALL of the billion throws would fall in a row?" Of, course, very very small. The evolution-relevant question would be "What is the probability that AT LEAST ONE of the billion throws would fall in a row?" Remember, natural selection preserves good traits, so beneficial mutation has to happen only once - then it becomes written in the genome and passed down.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Maslo]


Once again, mutations leading to anything beneficial will be in a state of flux for a very long time. You can't get an arm from nothing, in only a single step. You can't even get a joint with a single genetic mutation. Remember that DNA tells the cells how to divide over a course of time, so there are millions of steps necessary to form any given mechanism, like a finger-joint, for example. You can't just make a single change to DNA and expect to see a brand new mechanism. Given this fact, you can't explain how a brand new mechanism appears quickly, and you all maintain yourselves that this takes billions of years, which means that any new mechanism would take many, many generations to develop, which means that in the mean time, as it's developing, it is NOT beneficial at all, but perhaps neutral during some of it's development, and most likely negative as it continues to develop, prior to any benefit being realized.

The very thing that makes it conceivable for a beneficial mechanism to develop is also the very thing that makes it highly unlikely... and that is time. So, to go from a creature that has no appendage joint, to a creature that has an appendage joint, may take 200 million incremental mutations, over a very long period of time. The first 10 million changes may be neutral, by adding extra calcium deposits. Then, as the deposits get larger, they become more negative, hindering the creature from mobility in certain ways, and providing no benefit whatsoever. Natural selection should, by your own definition, eliminate this deposit once it begins to hinder the creature. Only at the point where the calcium deposit became beneficial would a "natural selection" process help it to become dominate. Meanwhile, however, there should be a massive number of mutated versions of that creature, all with partially developed mechanisms. This we don't see.

In fact, the world should have far more creatures that are in a state of "evolutionary flux," existing with all kinds of partially-developed traits... but we don't see those. What we do see, however, are creatures that have a certain number of mechanisms, some simpler, some more complex, and yet, all fully functional. These are not the traits of a "mechanism factory" where things are being added over long periods of time. These are the traits of highly-diverse, highly-creative, design... much like our own world.

I envision a world with roller skates, skate boards, tricycles, unicycles, bicycles, motorcycles, cars, trucks, boats, ships, airplanes, and spaceships. Because these are increasing in complexity, you would say that each one evolved from a simpler one, citing that this is evident since they are so similar in various ways and they increase in complexity. You would say that this is the only explanation that makes sense.

So, to test this idea, let's imagine a world where things like this could be made, but only by people making random modifications to the existing devices, and without using any intelligence in making the random change.

As I looked out across the world at all the millions of these devices, I notice something odd. I ask you, "well, where are the skateboards with 3 wheels, or even 3.5 wheels? Where are the motorcycles with partially-developed motors, having piston rods, but no pistons, partially closed exhaust ports, etc. I ask you to show me the step-by-step process of changes that occurred to allow the bicycle to become a motorcycle, and also to show me evidence of the vast number of intermediate versions. I also ask how the mostly-extinct ancestor to the car, which is the carriage, developed by a series of random modifications.

I also ask you to show me the vehicles with square wheels, and also those with axles that are not oriented parallel to each other, since random changes would produce all manner of strange configurations, and many of these would be in the "fossil record" of the scrap heap, and some would even still be in existence.


[edit on 8-1-2010 by downisreallyup]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


So this boils down to you not understanding evolution or genetics.

You're making the argument of irreducible complexity. You should read that article, especially the part 'Argument from ignorance'.

Good luck! You're going to need it.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


So this boils down to you not understanding evolution or genetics.

You're making the argument of irreducible complexity. You should read that article, especially the part 'Argument from ignorance'.

Good luck! You're going to need it.


I read your little referred article and found it unconvincing. I can see clearly where you may think these arguments presented against "irreducible complexity" are valid, but you still have not answered the main flaws I see in those arguments. First off, I could care less what any other court or scientist says, unless what they say makes logical and reasonable sense. If I can see how their reasoning is incomplete or flawed, then I will dismiss their arguments out of hand.

You still did not address the issue of WHERE ARE ALL THE FAILED ATTEMPTS? There should be a vast number of these, both in the fossil record and among the living animals today. But, please, just show me evidence of any multi-generational mutation sequence that adds a new mechanism, even a simple one. So, show me a creature that has a bone spur, whose child has a larger spur, or a spur that is disconnected as a precursor to a joint. Then show how a disconnected spur, which doesn't have a smooth ball-joint yet, would not be a serious source of pain for the creature.

Also, in that Wikipedia article, they mentioned things that were supposedly not reducible, and yet those are not the best examples. Instead, please explain how ATP Synthase came about... every organism has it, and it stores the energy needed by the organism. It is a complex mechanism that operates at the very core level of all creatures, whether single-cell or human beings.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup

I read your little referred article and found it unconvincing. I can see clearly where you may think these arguments presented against "irreducible complexity" are valid, but you still have not answered the main flaws I see in those arguments. First off, I could care less what any other court or scientist says, unless what they say makes logical and reasonable sense. If I can see how their reasoning is incomplete or flawed, then I will dismiss their arguments out of hand.

You still did not address the issue of WHERE ARE ALL THE FAILED ATTEMPTS? There should be a vast number of these, both in the fossil record and among the living animals today. But, please, just show me evidence of any multi-generational mutation sequence that adds a new mechanism, even a simple one. So, show me a creature that has a bone spur, whose child has a larger spur, or a spur that is disconnected as a precursor to a joint. Then show how a disconnected spur, which doesn't have a smooth ball-joint yet, would not be a serious source of pain for the creature.

Also, in that Wikipedia article, they mentioned things that were supposedly not reducible, and yet those are not the best examples. Instead, please explain how ATP Synthase came about... every organism has it, and it stores the energy needed by the organism. It is a complex mechanism that operates at the very core level of all creatures, whether single-cell or human beings.


I showed you some failed attempts, but it is illogical to think that there should be so many of them. Failed attempt will, by definition, prevent the creature from procreating, so there should NOT be many of them.

There are millions of animals and people that will not make it to procreate - failed attempts.

There are millions of people that live only because of modern medicine, and would not make it to procreate naturaly. They are all your living "failed attempts".

Also, define failed attempt. Because, most of the species that lived in the past is now extinct, so they all are "failed attempts".


ATP synthase evolution has more to do with abiogenesis than biological evolution, which comes in after the first cell is completed. And abiogenesis is not proven yet, but here is some educated guess from wiki:
en.wikipedia.org...





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join