|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
"The Darwinian theory of evolution is the phlogiston of our day, festooned with a myriad and growing number of patches. Evolution is slow and gradual, except when it’s fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful, and some boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs. And what is the result of all this speculative ingenuity? Like the defunct theory of phlogiston, it explains everything without explaining anything well. (pp 198-199)" Matt Leisola, Finnish Research Biologist who lost his faith in evolution. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/t...new-book-by-matti-leisola-jonathan-witt/That pretty much sums up what we have seen here. Evolution refuses intelligence except when it needs it for its selective processes. It denigrates faith except for when it asks you to believe its basic theory without question. It defines faith as the absence of evidence but then asks you to believe what is statistically impossible in the name of science. Your "statistical impossibility" is every thinking man's statistical certainty, simply because you don't understand the first thing about probability and hence the word "random". But of course that is blatantly and laughably false. No one thinks that statistically neo-Darwinism is a certainty which is why materialists have had to posit the possibility of multiple universes to tame the long odds. It is the statistical improbability than convinced Antony Flew, one of the world's leading Atheist philosophers and defenders of neo-Darwinism, that the theory simply cannot explain the emergence of life. It is literally impossible. It is the long odds that convinced Francis Crick that aliens must have seeded earth with life! That is how bad the odds are. It is the statistical impossibility that moves DBT to invoke fallacy after fallacy in his attempts to defend Neo-Darwinism from attack. Its comical. You are quite mistaken, which shows me that you really do not understand evolution and think of it as something is questionable rather than absolutely unavoidable (which it is). You don't know a fallacy when it emerges from your own keyboard. That is a problem you and Thunderstruck have in common. And then there is Ringman... A whole other can of worms there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,926 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,926 Likes: 2 |
Once again, since we have identified the human genome, and can now read the genes of archeological remains many thousands of years in age. We have identified multiple cases of beneficial mutations causing increased brain capacity and survival oriented physiology.
The most recent and glaring occasion being the rise of lactose tolerance. In several places, in several locations in Africa, The Middle East, And in Europe, over the last 20,000 years different mutations have arisen. Each mutation produced a different gene, but each time the gene caused the body to produce Lactase through adulthood.
Lactose tolerance turned out to be a very important survival factor, and quickly spread through continental populations.
Meyer seems to claim the chance of such a beneficial mutation occurring once is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. So how did it happen three different times in three discrete populations?
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,487
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,487 |
All random means is unpredictable. Your computer can generate "random" numbers. Actually pseudorandom numbers as they are generated by an algorithm and are therefore predictable. But if the algorithm is unknown it's just as good as any other "random."
(Can anything in this universe be unpredictable - random - or is it we simply don't know the algorithm?)
And distribution is not relevant as it is defined by the user. Do I want a Poisson distribution? No, for this use a Gaussian would be better. yes most probability programs use random number generators, but your statement ------ (Can anything in this universe be unpredictable - random - or is it we simply don't know the algorithm?) is certainly the center of the argument. Intelligent design, At what degree of complexity is it considered intelligent?
Most people don't have what it takes to get old
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
"Intelligent design, At what degree of complexity is it considered intelligent?"
Up to you - you set the odds. Like the odds of the universal gravitational constant being such that life is possible from the possible values is minuscule. But it proves nothing unless you decide it does.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Once again, since we have identified the human genome, and can now read the genes of archeological remains many thousands of years in age. We have identified multiple cases of beneficial mutations causing increased brain capacity and survival oriented physiology.
The most recent and glaring occasion being the rise of lactose tolerance. In several places, in several locations in Africa, The Middle East, And in Europe, over the last 20,000 years different mutations have arisen. Each mutation produced a different gene, but each time the gene caused the body to produce Lactase through adulthood.
Lactose tolerance turned out to be a very important survival factor, and quickly spread through continental populations.
Meyer seems to claim the chance of such a beneficial mutation occurring once is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. So how did it happen three different times in three discrete populations? I think your example is not the case which is in question. There is no dispute about a specie adapting to its environment. The evidence lacking is for a situation where mutations are required to -- say evolve the ape into a man.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
You are quite mistaken, which shows me that you really do not understand evolution and think of it as something is questionable rather than absolutely unavoidable (which it is). You don't know a fallacy when it emerges from your own keyboard. That is a problem you and Thunderstruck have in common. And then there is Ringman... A whole other can of worms there. Another non substantive response.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/23/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
Once again, since we have identified the human genome, and can now read the genes of archeological remains many thousands of years in age. We have identified multiple cases of beneficial mutations causing increased brain capacity and survival oriented physiology.
The most recent and glaring occasion being the rise of lactose tolerance. In several places, in several locations in Africa, The Middle East, And in Europe, over the last 20,000 years different mutations have arisen. Each mutation produced a different gene, but each time the gene caused the body to produce Lactase through adulthood.
Lactose tolerance turned out to be a very important survival factor, and quickly spread through continental populations.
Meyer seems to claim the chance of such a beneficial mutation occurring once is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. So how did it happen three different times in three discrete populations? I think your example is not the case which is in question. There is no dispute about a specie adapting to its environment. The evidence lacking is for a situation where mutations are required to -- say evolve the ape into a man. You continue to insist on this ape into man thing, even when you have been told that is not what happened. Explaining things to you is a complete waste of time.
Last edited by LeroyBeans; 08/23/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
While the usage of the word "primate" may be more palatable it makes no difference in what evolution cannot prove. A primate is any member of the biological order Primates, the group that contains all the species commonly related to the lemurs, monkeys, and apes, with the latter category including humans. https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/primate.htm
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/23/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20 |
Once again, since we have identified the human genome, and can now read the genes of archeological remains many thousands of years in age. We have identified multiple cases of beneficial mutations causing increased brain capacity and survival oriented physiology.
The most recent and glaring occasion being the rise of lactose tolerance. In several places, in several locations in Africa, The Middle East, And in Europe, over the last 20,000 years different mutations have arisen. Each mutation produced a different gene, but each time the gene caused the body to produce Lactase through adulthood.
Lactose tolerance turned out to be a very important survival factor, and quickly spread through continental populations.
Meyer seems to claim the chance of such a beneficial mutation occurring once is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. So how did it happen three different times in three discrete populations? We gained lactose tolerance into adulthood about ten thousand years ago but sadly lost the ability to synthesis vitamin C about ten million years ago. Our ancestors used to be able to make it just like we do vitamin D. Due to the abundance of fruit in our food supply when that mutation first appeared, the mutation persisted. That abundance of dietary C caused it to spread to the entire population of our direct ancestors when they were still swinging from the trees in the African tropics. That would have been a nice capability to retain. We still have the genes for it, but they are turned off by a mutation that occurred before we diverged from gorillas and chimpanzees, so they lost it too, providing yet another proof of our relatedness to the gorillas and chimpanzees. We all three have the very unfortunate mutation that turned off the gene for synthesizing vitamin C, proving a common ancestor for the three of us (i.e., the one in which the gene got turned off by a random mutation). PS Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't function? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altogether?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5 |
PS Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and [bleep]), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't funtion? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altoget Pretty good example of how evolution doesn’t go the way you think it does.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20 |
PS Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and [bleep]), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't funtion? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altoget Pretty good example of how evolution doesn’t go the way you think it does. Sometimes mutations are neutral when they occur, so don't get weeded out of the population. That's what happened here. In an environment rich in foods containing vitamin C, the loss of a functioning C-making gene had no effect good or bad. It was only when we lost that year round access to dietary C that it became a disadvantage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5 |
PS Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and [bleep]), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't funtion? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altoget Pretty good example of how evolution doesn’t go the way you think it does. Sometimes mutations are neutral when they occur, so don't get weeded out of the population. That's what happened here. In an environment rich in foods containing vitamin C, the loss of the C making gene had no effect good or bad. It was only when we lost that year round access to dietary C that it became a disadvantage. You miss the point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20 |
PS Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and [bleep]), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't funtion? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altoget Pretty good example of how evolution doesn’t go the way you think it does. Sometimes mutations are neutral when they occur, so don't get weeded out of the population. That's what happened here. In an environment rich in foods containing vitamin C, the loss of the C making gene had no effect good or bad. It was only when we lost that year round access to dietary C that it became a disadvantage. You miss the point. No I didn't. Your point was wrong, since based on a false premise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5 |
PS Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and [bleep]), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't funtion? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altoget Pretty good example of how evolution doesn’t go the way you think it does. Sometimes mutations are neutral when they occur, so don't get weeded out of the population. That's what happened here. In an environment rich in foods containing vitamin C, the loss of the C making gene had no effect good or bad. It was only when we lost that year round access to dietary C that it became a disadvantage. You miss the point. No I didn't. Your point was wrong, since based on a false premise. Okay, then tell me what it was.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20 |
Okay, then tell me what it was.
Some nonsense about evolution always improving things, or increasing complexity, or only involving loss of genetic information. Most of your typical premises are in error, so it's an easy bet. But why don't you clarify, and I'll tell you how it's false.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 31,428
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 31,428 |
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!"
--- Kid Rock 2022
Holocaust Deniers, the ultimate perverted dipchits: Bristoe, TheRealHawkeye, stophel, Ghostinthemachine, anyone else?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5 |
Okay, then tell me what it was.
Some nonsense about evolution always improving things, or increasing complexity, or only involving loss of genetic information. Most of your typical premises are in error, so it's an easy bet. But why don't you clarify, and I'll tell you how it's false. So, if you claim to be a Christian, exactly when is it that you start believing the Bible? Do you discount the entirety of Genesis? Do you believe in the stories about the patriarchs? Is there a video you could link where your militant atheist and former occultist friend, Aaron Ra, could comment? Perhaps, you could post some more videos where he makes fun of Christians.
Last edited by JoeBob; 08/23/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20 |
Okay, then tell me what it was.
Some nonsense about evolution always improving things, or increasing complexity, or only involving loss of genetic information. Most of your typical premises are in error, so it's an easy bet. But why don't you clarify, and I'll tell you how it's false. So, if you claim to be a Christian, exactly when is it that you start believing the Bible? Do you discount the entirety of Genesis? Do you believe in the stories about the patriarchs? Is there a video you could link where your militant atheist and former occultist friend, Aaron Ra, could comment? Perhaps, you could post some more videos where he makes fun of Christians. That's my only problem with the guy. He's great at explaining evolution, though. He's got lots of series (serieses?) on various topics relating to it. Too bad he doesn't leave out the Christian bashing. But to answer your question, the Bible states that God assigned the bringing forth of the living creatures (of which we are one) to nature. Seems quite clear to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20 |
So, I'll ask again, since you evaded the first time: Why would an intelligent designer give us (humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees), the gene for manufacturing vitamin C, then turn that gene off so it didn't function? If he didn't want us to have that ability, why not just leave that gene out altogether?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20 |
I'll answer for you. Because he didn't design us. Nature did, by the process of evolution, and not particularly intelligently.
|
|
|
|
|
78 members (35, 41rem, 007FJ, 6mmCreedmoor, 444Matt, 7mm_Loco, 10 invisible),
1,506
guests, and
880
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,370
Posts18,488,312
Members73,970
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
