Jump to content


Photo

Is Macroevolution Testable?


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#21 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 October 2005 - 01:59 PM

Given that there are many such divergences (warbler) for the argument. The next logical discussion is whether a divergence such as this can ever produce a new specie; an organism which is not a bird.


One must remember that Bird is an artificial classification, If one could travel back in time and follow the evolutionary path of a single species, the difference between generations would be small, but the difference between thousands of generations would be greater (as the selective pressures changed). There would be no abrupt change from dinosaur to bird.


Such has never been found to be true, only assumed to be true because the evolutionary hypothesis states this must be so.


No, there is excellent evidence in the fossil record. You must remember that the fossil record shows the big picture not the exact lineage of individuals.


In fact the only logical result is groups of birds so unable to intermingle and reproduce you eventually lose some of these smaller groups. We term this extinction. Therefore if this form of selection has a product it is extinction, which does not seem a useful tool for evolution.


Extinction is a very common theme, the only way life has avoided extinction is to change (evolve) with the circumstances.

#22 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 October 2005 - 07:48 PM

I thought I’d take a closer look at the article posted 92g

Cheating with chance
by Don Batten
Selected quotes:

The argument from probability that life could not form by natural processes but must have been created is sometimes acknowledged by evolutionists as a strong argument.


I doubt this.


The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged2 to be worse than 1 in 10^57800. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros.


But the author numbers are meaningless because of two important consideration. First a cell is a very complex organism, no proponent of abiogenesis has ever imagined that life suddenly leaps from goo to a single cell, that’s just preposterous. This make much of the authors remaining argument irrelevant.

Secondly if the process of abiogenesis is unknown on what is the author basing the improbability?


Evolutionists often try to bluff their way out of this problem by using analogies to argue that improbable things happen every day, so why should the naturalistic origin of life be considered impossible. For example, they say the odds of winning the lottery are pretty remote, but someone wins it every week. Or, the chances of getting the particular arrangement of cards obtained by shuffling a deck is remote, but a rare combination happens every time the cards are shuffled. Or the arrangement of the sand grains in a pile of sand obtained by randomly pouring the sand is extremely complex, but this complex and improbable arrangement did occur as a result of random processes. Or the exact combination and arrangement of people walking across a busy city street is highly improbable, but such improbable arrangements happen all the time. So they argue from these analogies to try to dilute the force of this powerful argument for creation.

You probably realize there is something illogical about this line of argument. But what is it?

In all the analogies cited above, there has to be an outcome. Someone has to win the lottery.


The author is very much mistaken, the purpose of the analogies is to make the idea explainable with small numbers, but as the numbers get larger, there will be times when there will be no lottery winner. Would you play a lottery game where you pick 8 numbers out of 100? Lottery is designed to allow, on average, a couple of big winners each week, and the pool size is representative of the population of players.





Note several other things about these analogies:

The arrangement of cards resulting from shuffling would not normally suggest anything other than a random process. However, if all the cards were ordered by their suits from lowest to highest, we would logically conclude that an intelligent agent arranged them (or ‘stacked the deck’ in card-playing parlance) because such an arrangement is highly unlikely from genuine shuffling—a random, non-intelligent process.


The author is missing an important evolutionary point i.e. the pattern that results in abiogenesis only need to happen once, lets say that’s the equivalent of getting 4 aces, once that arrangement has happened the 4 aces glue together, the pattern is not lost, and can’t be unshuffled.


The arrangement of the sand grains in a pile <snip>, and

The arrangement of people crossing a busy street would not normally suggest anything other than a random process. <snip>


Improbability does no make it impossible, the author has made no claim.


Many scientists today claim that an invisible ‘intelligent cause’ is outside the realm of ‘real’ science. These scientists have redefined science as naturalism (nature is all there is). However, scientists recognise the evidence for an invisible intelligent agent when it suits them. For example, forensic science determines if past events were the result of accident or plan and purpose (‘Who done it?’).


wow!! This is pushing the boundaries of credibility, Science is the exploration of the natural world, it wasn’t “redefined”.
Forensic sciences uses evidence to discover past events, comparing this to investigating the supernatural is stretching the use of analogy to breaking point.


The Piltdown ape-man fraud was discovered, after some 40 years and numerous postgraduate research theses, when researchers had the opportunity to examine the original bones and not just replicas, and they noticed file marks on the teeth.4 Such marks do not happen by natural processes and the researchers recognised the involvement of a human (intelligent) agent—a hoaxer.


?? Proving what?

Likewise, United States taxpayers are spending millions of dollars yearly in funding the Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). If those listening hear a radio signal with random noise, it is clearly the product of a natural process, but if there is a pattern such as ‘dah-dah-dah-dit-dit-dit-dah-dah-dah’, it will be hailed as evidence for an intelligent, although invisible, source.


perhaps, but with good reason the noise from space is random noise (some exceptions), a signal on a fixed frequency would/should point to an artificial cause.

If such evidence indicate an intelligent source then surely the incredible amount of information on the DNA in living things, equivalent to a library of a thousand 500- page books in a human being,5 shouts Creation by a Creator!


Well perhaps to the author, but as DNA is further understood it seems a very haphazard sort of thing with vast areas of inactivity, and a sort of history of evolution recorded in it (reference The recent Documentary “DNA”).

#23 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 24 October 2005 - 08:14 AM

Secondly if the process of abiogenesis is unknown


Chance, you keep defending abiogenesis by assuming that it happened. You can't use the argument that the mechanism is unknown as a defense, as if it's self-evident that it ever occurred. The fact is, abiogenesis cannot stand on its own. Your only faith in the theory rests with your belief in ToE. You have been hit with mountains of hard evidence which disproves its possibility, and you continue to assert that evolution proves that abiogenesis must have happened.

#24 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 24 October 2005 - 01:05 PM

Of the few skulls/skeletons found which have been claimed as proof of human evolution none have passed the test of reasonable doubt. Many have been found to be non-human. One formed by extrapolation was later proved to have been extrapolated from a pig tooth. Those which were found to be human are more readily identified as humans with bone diseases but fully human (Homo Erectus). Look around, most of these “missing link" skulls are walking the streets of America today, though they are more prevalent in third world countries.

As for Homo Neanderthal; he is proof of Adam. Orthodontics has proved that the older a person gets the thicker his facial and skull bones get. A 70 years old man cannot fit into the hat he bought when he was 30, his skull in thicker. Run this increase out to the size of the Homo Neanderthal skulls found and you have people of 500 to maybe 1200 years old (biblical, pre-flood ages). There is NO skull which has been unequivocally identified as both Human and not modern Human. Will science prove the Bible? The facts allow the possibility of the Biblical account. The facts argue against the hypothesis of evolution.

#25 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 24 October 2005 - 01:40 PM

Well perhaps to the author, but as DNA is further understood it seems a very haphazard sort of thing with vast areas of inactivity, and a sort of history of evolution recorded in it (

That's a very intriguing spin... now you're denying that millions of sequences of coded information isn't that complex.

#26 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 24 October 2005 - 02:05 PM

You can't use the argument that the mechanism is unknown as a defense, as if it's self-evident that it ever occurred.


Yes I can, as I will demonstrate, The claim is abiogenesis is a probability impossibility, But with an unknown mechanism that claim cannot be made. Thus one cannot claim impossibility, if you believe you can, it’s time to post the figures. (in the appropriate abiogenesis topic please).

#27 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 24 October 2005 - 02:06 PM

That's a very intriguing spin... now you're denying that millions of sequences of coded information isn't that complex.

View Post


Where have i stated it's not complex??

#28 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 24 October 2005 - 02:13 PM

Of the few skulls/skeletons found which have been claimed as proof of human evolution none have passed the test of reasonable doubt. Many have been found to be non-human.


?? well yes, that’s the whole point isn’t it? Perhaps you mean something else?


One formed by extrapolation was later proved to have been extrapolated from a pig tooth. Those which were found to be human are more readily identified as humans with bone diseases but fully human (Homo Erectus).


Home Erectus is not homo sapiens!


Look around, most of these “missing link" skulls are walking the streets of America today, though they are more prevalent in third world countries.


What is that supposed to mean??


As for Homo Neanderthal; he is proof of Adam. Orthodontics has proved that the older a person gets the thicker his facial and skull bones get. A 70 years old man cannot fit into the hat he bought when he was 30, his skull in thicker. Run this increase out to the size of the Homo Neanderthal skulls found and you have people of 500 to maybe 1200 years old (biblical, pre-flood ages).


This is nonsense, how does this stand up against a Neanderthal child?

#29 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 24 October 2005 - 02:20 PM

The question of evolution is; Can this molecule or group of molecules become more than it is. The challenge is; can this happen in nature. The answer to both is; Mankind has not been able to cause any biological substance to become more than its genetic components (without addition) no matter what method is allowed. Mankind has never been able to cause inert material (not-living, never had lived and unable to support life) to become living material. The scientific answer to both, so far, has been NO.

#30 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 24 October 2005 - 04:04 PM

Yes I can, as I will demonstrate, The claim is abiogenesis is a probability impossibility, But with an unknown mechanism that claim cannot be made. Thus one cannot claim impossibility, if you believe you can, it’s time to post the figures. (in the appropriate abiogenesis topic please).

View Post

You realize, Chance, that you could utilize that line of reasoning to defend any false theory.
As far as posting figures... I can post probabilities of DNA forming suddenly from scratch. It's on the order of 1>-40,000. Even if such ridiculously low odds were overcome and a strand of DNA were formed, it would be immediately denatured and would not constitute life. If you're asking me to post probabilities of proto-cell formation by unknown mechanisms, obviously that's a ridiculous request, since all viable self-replicating cell precursors are inconceivable.

#31 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 24 October 2005 - 04:10 PM

Where have i stated it's not complex??

I hope I didn't misunderstand you. Are we in agreement, then, that DNA is
complex?

#32 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 24 October 2005 - 07:57 PM

You realize, Chance, that you could utilize that line of reasoning to defend any false theory.


you could use it for demonstrating that it is not possible to state that something is impossible or that a level of improbability is calculable without knowing the mechanism or parameters.

As far as posting figures... I can post probabilities of DNA forming suddenly from scratch. It's on the order of 1>-40,000.


Interesting, how were the figures derived? Lets see if enough rigor was put into selections. Better still post a link to the web site and I’ll look for myself and report back.



Even if such ridiculously low odds were overcome and a strand of DNA were formed, it would be immediately denatured and would not constitute life.


why do you believe this to be so? (see last paragraph qualifier).


If you're asking me to post probabilities of proto-cell formation by unknown mechanisms, obviously that's a ridiculous request, since all viable self-replicating cell precursors are inconceivable.


Well actually I am because that’s what abiogenesis is all about. Abiogenesis must be a far simpler ‘organism’ than any current cell or virus, or component of a current cell, all it has to be is (speculation) something like a fragment of DNA/RNA stable enough to keep replicating.




I hope I didn't misunderstand you. Are we in agreement, then, that DNA is
complex?

We are in agreement, DNA is complex.

#33 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 24 October 2005 - 09:08 PM

you could use it for demonstrating that it is not possible to state that something is impossible or that a level of improbability is calculable without knowing the mechanism or parameters.

Would you agree that, given our current knowledge,(i.e., not having to invoke a hypothetical or unknown law) abiogenesis is impossible?

Interesting, how were the figures derived?  Lets see if enough rigor was put into selections. Better still post a link to the web site and I’ll look for myself and report back.

I'll get back to that later

#34 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 24 October 2005 - 09:18 PM

?? well yes, that’s the whole point isn’t it?  Perhaps you mean something else?
Home Erectus is not homo sapiens!
What is that supposed to mean??
This is nonsense, how does this stand up against a Neanderthal child?

View Post


Yes Chance you caught me, I don't pay enough attention when I use the Homo ... terminology. It stems from not believing there are different evolutions of what is now human. My sincere apologies and I will attempt to take care with my use of terminology. Thank you for your catch. A well honed edge is ground by many stones.

That (my earlier statement) means; the many varieties of skulls which have been portrayed as "evolutions" toward Human are able to be found on the shoulders of living humans now "walking the streets" of Earth. They are more common in third world countries where bone altering disease is more common.

The supposed Neandrathal children were long ago dismissed for reasons similar to my "walking the streets" statement, they were not Neandrathal, just sick. If I correctly recall the most common cause was Elephantitus. I am sure I spelled that wrong but Word did not know it either.

#35 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 24 October 2005 - 10:46 PM

One must remember that Bird is an artificial classification, If one could travel back in time and follow the evolutionary path of a single species, the difference between generations would be small, but the difference between thousands of generations would be greater (as the selective pressures changed).  There would be no abrupt change from dinosaur to bird.


There is no need for time travel. The fossil record is all the evidence we need.

No, there is excellent evidence in the fossil record.  You must remember that the fossil record shows the big picture not the exact lineage of individuals.


The record is all we need because it proves the existence of so many life forms AT THE SAME MOMENT IN HISTORY. A fossil cannot be formed, in most cases (as widely believed) over long periods of time. This is because the biological material does not remain intact (in nature) long enough for fossilization as defined by evolutionists. With rare exception, such as tar pits, fossils are formed with massive amounts of water and sediment covering and solidifying bodies in days, not centuries or millenia.

It is a big picture, but of a small time frame.

Extinction is a very common theme, the only way life has avoided extinction is to change (evolve) with the circumstances.

View Post


As discussed earlier, evolution can lead only to extinction. Science has proved evolution incapable of producing an organism more advanced than the predecessor. Every 'change' witnessed in scientific study has produced an organism with less function than the one before. Example; the "new", "more potent", "drug-resistant", viruses. They can't be countered by the drug because they are less complicated than previous versions. This causes them to be less affected by drugs designed to harm them and not humans. Eventually we get to the problem found in treating cancer. The only useful drugs are injurious to human life.

#36 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 October 2005 - 12:42 PM

Secondly if the process of abiogenesis is unknown on what is the author basing the improbability?


The possible scenarios based on what is know about genetics. This is an argmument from what is know, not what is unknown.

The author is very much mistaken, the purpose of the analogies is to make the idea explainable with small numbers, but as the numbers get larger, there will be times when there will be no lottery winner.  Would you play a lottery game where you pick 8 numbers out of 100?  Lottery is designed to allow, on average, a couple of big winners each week, and the pool size is representative of the population of players.


But as you said, the lottery is designed to produce winners, so there will be a winner.

The author is missing an important evolutionary point i.e. the pattern that results in abiogenesis only need to happen once, lets say that’s the equivalent of getting 4 aces, once that arrangement has happened the 4 aces glue together, the pattern is not lost, and can’t be unshuffled.


Whaaaaaa!!!! Can't be unshuffled? How do you know that????? Living organisms die, and a supposed 1st organism that formed could just as easily die as survive... You sit here an expound all day about how science does not know about abiogenesis, but your sure that if it did happen, that you know what the charactersits, circumstances and outcomes would be. Give us all a break please.....

wow!! This is pushing the boundaries of credibility, Science is the exploration of the natural world, it wasn’t “redefined”.


That's your materialistic interpretaion of science. Its not necessary to end up with 100% materialistic causes from scientific investigations, and as its been pointed out to you many times, is an excersize in futility to attempt it.

Well perhaps to the author, but as DNA is further understood it seems a very haphazard sort of thing with vast areas of inactivity, and a sort of history of evolution recorded in it (reference The recent Documentary “DNA”).


DNA has information, and thus intelligence written all in it. Denying it is willfull ignorance.

Terry

#37 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 25 October 2005 - 02:50 PM

Would you agree that, given our current knowledge,(i.e., not having to invoke a hypothetical or unknown law) abiogenesis is impossible?


I would say it is impossible to claim it is impossible.

#38 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 25 October 2005 - 07:12 PM

you could use it for demonstrating that it is not possible to state that something is impossible or that a level of improbability is calculable without knowing the mechanism or parameters.
.

View Post

I'll give you an example: I have a theory that I can fly to the moon. In attempting to disprove my theory, you counter by saying it's impossible because I could never muster enough power to break through the earth's gravity. Therefore, you argue, my entire proposal is outlandish. I respond by saying I just haven't figured out the mechanism yet, as if it's a given that my original theory's true. You're doing the same thing. You contend that ToE is true ... I point out a fatal flaw, and you counter by stating that that part hasn't been figured out yet, as if it's a given that ToE is true.
Think about it, Chance. You could defend any theory, regardless of how unreasonable it might be, with that logic.

#39 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 25 October 2005 - 07:15 PM

That (my earlier statement) means; the many varieties of skulls which have been portrayed as "evolutions" toward Human are able to be found on the shoulders of living humans now "walking the streets" of Earth. They are more common in third world countries where bone altering disease is more common. The supposed Neandrathal children were long ago dismissed for reasons similar to my "walking the streets" statement, they were not Neandrathal, just sick. If I correctly recall the most common cause was Elephantitus. I am sure I spelled that wrong but Word did not know it either.


There are some diseases (as you mention like Elephantitus) for sure. But what your proposing is that every skull not identified as homo-sapiens is an individual suffering from a bone disease! Including children. (from memory I think there is somewhere near 120 Neanderthal individuals unearthed ranging over much of Europe over a long period of time).
Not only that but as well as facial feature there are other differences in body proportion e.g Neanderthal have different proportions in leg, body and chest, (basically cold weather adaptation). Other indications like bone density and musculature indicate the individuals were robust and healthy, living active and dangerous lives (broken bones that have healed).

Homo erectus, Habilis etc, are fully formed and way too small to be confused with Homo sapiens, even more so with the recently discovered Homo floresiensis (the Hobbit).

Full list of our ancestors
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis


there is excellent evidence in the fossil record.  You must remember that the fossil record shows the big picture not the exact lineage of individuals.


The record is all we need because it proves the existence of so many life forms AT THE SAME MOMENT IN HISTORY.


True, but that moment may be far away in time to the ancestor it is related too. It’s like taking a road trip across the USA blindfolded (as a passenger) then removing the blindfold every one hundred or so kilometres for a split second. Sometimes little would have changed as you travel through those rectangular states in the middle as farming land goes by, but if you come to a mountain range the topography will change much faster, would even be possible to miss it.


A fossil cannot be formed, in most cases (as widely believed) over long periods of time. This is because the biological material does not remain intact (in nature) long enough for fossilization as defined by evolutionists.


I would like to see some evidence (link) where that claim is made. An organism cut off from oxygen, buried in mud, sand, silt etc can be preserved, mineralisation follows.


With rare exception, such as tar pits, fossils are formed with massive amounts of water and sediment covering and solidifying bodies in days, not centuries or millenia.


Agreed, not actually fossilisation, preservation is a term better linked with tar pits.

Extinction is a very common theme, the only way life has avoided extinction is to change (evolve) with the circumstances.

As discussed earlier, evolution can lead only to extinction. Science has proved evolution incapable of producing an organism more advanced than the predecessor.


Proven! I think not.


Every 'change' witnessed in scientific study has produced an organism with less function than the one before. Example; the "new", "more potent", "drug-resistant", viruses. They can't be countered by the drug because they are less complicated than previous versions. This causes them to be less affected by drugs designed to harm them and not humans. Eventually we get to the problem found in treating cancer. The only useful drugs are injurious to human life.


Your explanation of drug resistant viruses is a strange one. E.g. the common cold evades our own anti bodies not by becoming simpler in any way but by evolving a different external shape, this prevents our own anti bodies latching on. Do you have a link to the claim you made?

#40 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 25 October 2005 - 07:37 PM

Secondly if the process of abiogenesis is unknown on what is the author basing the improbability?

The possible scenarios based on what is know about genetics. This is an argmument from what is know, not what is unknown.


This will not help, because the process of abiogenesis is unknown, the current understanding of genetics may have little relevance to a process that has no genetics in it.


The author is very much mistaken, the purpose of the analogies is to make the idea explainable with small numbers, but as the numbers get larger, there will be times when there will be no lottery winner.  Would you play a lottery game where you pick 8 numbers out of 100?  Lottery is designed to allow, on average, a couple of big winners each week, and the pool size is representative of the population of players.


But as you said, the lottery is designed to produce winners, so there will be a winner.


yes it is, because the sample size is matched to the population, make it 8 out of hundred and see the jackpot grow. It is very possible to get no winners.

The author is missing an important evolutionary point i.e. the pattern that results in abiogenesis only need to happen once, lets say that’s the equivalent of getting 4 aces, once that arrangement has happened the 4 aces glue together, the pattern is not lost, and can’t be unshuffled.


Whaaaaaa!!!! Can't be unshuffled? How do you know that????? Living organisms die, and a supposed 1st organism that formed could just as easily die as survive... You sit here an expound all day about how science does not know about abiogenesis, but your sure that if it did happen, that you know what the charactersits, circumstances and outcomes would be. Give us all a break please.....


Perhaps I did not make my point very clear. What I was attempting to explain was the unique nature of replication in life (i.e. once started it can’t be stopped) even if we take the YEC POV my analogy stands, i.e. there is an unbroken chian of DNA making more DNA all the way back to Adam and Eve, the only difference is the origin of this replicating process. E.g. Abiogenesis only need to happen once it then self runs, or God creates Adam and Eve only once, then the processes self runs.


wow!! This is pushing the boundaries of credibility, Science is the exploration of the natural world, it wasn’t “redefined”.

That's your materialistic interpretaion of science. Its not necessary to end up with 100% materialistic causes from scientific investigations, and as its been pointed out to you many times, is an excersize in futility to attempt it.


I think I can defend this argument. propose another thread be used.

Well perhaps to the author, but as DNA is further understood it seems a very haphazard sort of thing with vast areas of inactivity, and a sort of history of evolution recorded in it (reference The recent Documentary “DNA”).

DNA has information, and thus intelligence written all in it. Denying it is willfull ignorance.


I have yet to see any evidence of this ‘information’, but respectfully request that this is getting a little off topic as there are thread better to discuss this.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users