The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

> But I just HAD to pick wicknight as the BEST

Glad we could help -- I was wondering, just to know what level was the best (which is why I made mine quite technical)

BTW, I can't help but note that JC hasn't brought anything to the party. Oh, well

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> But I just HAD to pick wicknight as the BEST

Glad we could help -- I was wondering, just to know what level was the best (which is why I made mine quite technical)

BTW, I can't help but note that JC hasn't brought anything to the party. Oh, well

I would say that if yours was the first to be read, it would have clouded the issue. Psi and wicknight kept it simple. You then took it to the next step, which would create even more questions. Which is really what we like to do, answer one which leads to another, etc, until we either become very learned or totally confused.:o

Teaching is a gift.:)

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Let me point out another thing you keep missing, or can't understand. It takes an intelligent designer to model what has already happened as a result of chance & selection. That has no implications whatsoever for the original process - if it did, we should also rationally conclude that evolution is a computer program, and expect it to generate sentences in the DNA!

Yes, indeed pH’s model “has no implications whatsoever for” evolution – and indeed is PROOF of Intelligent Design being REQUIRED to reduce the ‘combinatorial space’ of 5.8 E+98 down to 9,339.

pH’s programme is actually a demonstration of INTELLIGENCE in action – and shows HOW a rational agent (like pH) was able to programme a computer to constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind, to the point where the odds of something specific happening was reduced from 5.8 E+98 down to 9,339.

However, had he done something akin to what God did during Creation Week and used his intelligence to simply write the words “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” – he could have reduced the odds down to 1 – and saved a considerable amount of computer programming effort!!!!

Like I said - this is something it appears you literally cannot understand.

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Look, this isn’t an argument between Creationists and ‘all the rest’ – it is actually an argument between Atheistic Materialists on one side – and Theistic Evolutionists, Intelligent Designers AND Creation Scientists on the other side.

Scofflaw
Ho ho ho. You wish. You're on your own, I'm afraid,

Ho, ho NOTHING!!!!:)

It is TRUE that ID proponents, Theistic Evolutionists and Creation Scientists believe that life is the result of the appliance of Intelligent Design by God. The only people who believe that ‘intelligence’ WASN’T applied are the Materialistic Evolutionists, whose overwhelming ‘faith need’ to deny God, causes them to believe that “a series of tiny incremental ERRORS, over a period of 3.5 billion years, changed Slime Balls into Eye Balls” (complete with biochemical cascades to match).:D

Theistic Evolutionists, Intelligent Designers AND Creation Scientists may well have intense differences about the THEOLOGY of Creation – but they are UNITED on the fact that an omnipotent and omniscient God used his infinite intelligence to design life.
Whether He did it during Creation Week or over 15 billion years is essentially a question for Bible Study and the forensic scientific investigation of the evidence for Creation – but the FACT that God designed life is beyond all doubt.:cool:

Not at all. There are on one side: (a) those theists who believe that God designed the initial rules, and left it at that; (b) those theists who believe that God guides evolution but does not interfere with it; and (c) those who believe that god had nothing to do with it. On the other side we have those who believe that God designed what we see substantially as we see it - that's Creationists and IDers only.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
You have commited, in your posts, every single schoolboy mistake in the book –

Even a five year old knows that Slime Balls can NEVER evolve into Eye Balls – not in a billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, years!!!!!:eek:

Do you NOT understand the simple MATHEMATICS of what 5.8 E+98 means or what??
Do you NOT understand that there are ONLY 3.29E+90 cubic millimetres in the entire volume of the supposed Big Bang Universe?

Do you not understand the irrelevance of your numbers?

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
You have no idea what you're saying. The exact arrangement of sand grains on any specific beach, giving a smoothly sloping surface to the sea, is impossible to replicate, but even you surely would not claim that each beach is individually designed (and redesigned constantly).

How do random piles of sand grains have ANYTHING to do with organised tightly specified living systems?

The problem is that living systems can ONLY be produced with the tightly specified systems that we observe – just like TV sets can ONLY be produced with the tightly specified systems that makes a TV sets ‘work’.

Why do Evolutionists fully accept that TV sets can NEVER arise spontaneously using random processes – but don’t apply the same LOGIC to infinitely more complex and tightly specified living systems ?

Briefly, because living systems are not as tightly specified as TV sets, don't show the same tight coupling of mechanism to purpose (which we ordinarily call design), come in many many more varieties, etc. For the rest of the discussion, see above in reply to Brian.

As for the relevance of a beach - any given beach has a unique arrangement of sand, which reflects the processes operating on the beach and the initial source material. To replicate such an arrangement is fantastically unfeasible, but a beach is a beach - the sand is there, no matter how unlikely it is that it should be. By your "logic", it cannot exist without a beach designer constantly at work.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
That is exactly how something would evolve, the "locking in" of benefital mutations by natural selection.

You have two parts to evolution, the random mutations and the "selecting" (locking in as you call it) of those mutations that provide benefit to the organism by Natural Selection.

Fair enough, but the problem is that every individual biochemical step in the sight cascade is totally useless on it’s own – so each step cannot ‘lock in’ as beneficial to the organism. These systems are ‘irreducibly complex’ i.e they work in the current configuration – but if any step is missing or in a different place in the sequence they are functionally USELESS.

So, you cannot ‘work up’ to an ultimately useful sight cascade – as all partial cascades are functionally USELESS!!.

See above re. evolution of complex processes.

Feh. Overall, a post full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Unsurprising given the source.

slight regards,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Like I said - this is something it appears you literally cannot understand.

Bit of a theme for his posts on this thread :rolleyes:

I wouldn't mind if he actually understood evolution and was picking holes in established theory, because like any wide ranging theory, there are lots of them

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Bit of a theme for his posts on this thread :rolleyes:

I wouldn't mind if he actually understood evolution and was picking holes in established theory, because like any wide ranging theory, there are lots of them

What's odd is how convinced he is that he does understand it. If I'd never come across this sort of thing in real life I'd be sure he was a troll, but I have met people who simply couldn't get their heads round some concept or other. I remember electron tunnelling making my head feel literally like it was stretching.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> Which is really what we like to do, answer one which leads to
> another, etc, until we either become very learned or totally confused.

The most interesting discussions always take place at the border between understanding and confusion.

> the next step, which would create even more questions.

Fire away. That's what we're here for.

robindch

> What's odd is how convinced he is that he does understand it.

Not really, if you think about it.

Creationism, like religion itself, is all about asserting the truth of conclusions which, in turn, dictate acceptable evidence, rather than the more difficult task of weighing separate strands of evidence to suggest possible conclusions. JC has simply found an answer to the problem and successfully manipulated (to his own satisfaction only, unfortunately) the chain of evidence to lead to the answer that he's already decided upon.

The same back-to-front thought process gives rise to beliefs in astrology, divination, holocaust-denial, UFO's, crystals, moon-hoaxing, homeopathy, 9/11 conspiracies, spoon-bending and many more unsupported beliefs.

GuanYin

J C wrote:

However, had he done something akin to what God did during Creation Week and used his intelligence to simply write the words “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” – he could have reduced the odds down to 1 – and saved a considerable amount of computer programming effort!!!!

If you're talking about probability, your sample size is one so I don't see how you could do any such thing.

The fact of the matter is, we have no idea how mathematically probable the rise of life on a planet is. It could be extremely rare or it could be extremely common. As we have only observed a few planets and studied how one habitat has produced life, such a statement is pretty bold.

It is TRUE that ID proponents, Theistic Evolutionists and Creation Scientists believe that life is the result of the appliance of Intelligent Design by God. The only people who believe that ‘intelligence’ WASN’T applied are the Materialistic Evolutionists, whose overwhelming ‘faith need’ to deny God, causes them to believe that “a series of tiny incremental ERRORS, over a period of 3.5 billion years, changed Slime Balls into Eye Balls” (complete with biochemical cascades to match).:D

Errors is a misnomer. Genetic mutation, while arising from a mistake in the copying process of DNA, isn't actually a mistake. Safeguards exist to ensure that by and large the bulk copying process of the original DNA is adhered to. But those same "errors" are what give us our individuality, which, I believe, is something held dear by the creator.

Strictly speaking, anyone who thinks genetic mutations in population diversity is down to errors, doesn't understand biology very well.

Even a five year old knows that Slime Balls can NEVER evolve into Eye Balls – not in a billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, years!!!!!:eek:

Actually, all you ar ereally talking about is protein coagulation and a specific arrangement - it is pretty complex, but if the slime had all the right proteins and there was a variation every minute, you'd probably need less than a 100 million years.

As for slime balls to eye balls. THIS willprobably be an interesting read for many of you.

It shows how an evolutionary model (random best fit chip arrangement) applied to circuit design led to a functional circuit designed to distinguish between two sound inputs. The most notable outcomes were that (A) it took 4100 generations to have a perfectly working device, (B) the final model was so unconventional, that not only would the enginers not have designed it, but they're not entirely sure how it works, (C) The researchers used a physical 10x10 logic gate array system, rather than a computer model, this proved an inspired choice because it looks that one critical component of the circuit is a magnetic field generated by an arrangementof chips that aren't actually attached to the main circuit gates (and thus theoretically shouldn't have any use - yet if you remove them, it stops working) and (D) most startlingly, the evolutionary model used only 32 out of the 100 chips in the final model - the best human design attempted before the experiment used around 50-60. So the random model was better!

It's not quite human evolution, but it is an excellent example of how random changes can lead to a complex system from a basic one.

How do random piles of sand grains have ANYTHING to do with organised tightly specified living systems?

I kind of agree here, the analogies used are pretty poor and I find them pretty difficult to follow at the best of times.

Why do Evolutionists fully accept that TV sets can NEVER arise spontaneously using random processes – but don’t apply the same LOGIC to infinitely more complex and tightly specified living systems ?

Actually, Adrian Thompson (from the above link) has pretty much shown that TV sets can arise spontaneously using random processes. He's currently working on it now, he's hoping that the evolutionary design system will allow the creation of smaller circuits (as above) which will mean smaller microchips etc (TV in watches and cool stuff like that).

So you couldn't have made a more incorrect baseless statement had you tried.

Fair enough, but the problem is that every individual biochemical step in the sight cascade is totally useless on it’s own – so each step cannot ‘lock in’ as beneficial to the organism. These systems are ‘irreducibly complex’ i.e they work in the current configuration – but if any step is missing or in a different place in the sequence they are functionally USELESS.

So, you cannot ‘work up’ to an ultimately useful sight cascade – as all partial cascades are functionally USELESS!!.

the word you're looking for is harmless. If ther eis a change that doesn't kill the organism, it sits there and does nothing. It doesn't need to benefitthe organism, it just needs not to do it harm. This may then be a precursor step to a further change that may benefit the organism.

Molecular Biology also confirms that the gradual Evolution of useful biological structures is an impossibility. For example, the discovery of Critical Amino Acid Sequences means that a biologically active Peptide becomes totally useless when ANY changes are made to it’s sequence – thereby effectively making it a ‘prisoner’ of it’s own sequence. Even if it could blindly 'search around' in it’s immediate Amino Acid ‘combinatorial space’ it is unlikely to EVER ‘discover’ another useful Peptide chain by undirected processes such is the vastness of the 'combinatorial space' and the observed rarity and specificity of the sequences for useful Peptides.
There is no simple stepped advantage between one useful Peptide and another one – so undirected processes cannot follow some ‘yellow brick road’ of increasing utility to reach the next biologically useful Peptide. The possible number of intermediates are literally ‘astronomical’ and because the intermediates are ALL equally USELESS, they can offer no signal of progress or 'advantage' towards the next useful Polypeptide for Natural Selection to ‘follow’ or select.
It is analogous to a useful Peptide bobbing about in an ocean of useless Polypeptides, trying to blindly locate another useful Peptide on the far side of the ocean. It is literally like trying to find a 'needle in a haystack’ the size of the Universe while blindfolded.

It is also like trying to blindly 'crack' open a Safe – you have to try every possible combination. You could be within one digit of the right combination and would never 'know' it or you might have none of the digits. Either way, the result is phenotypically identical (i.e. biologically useless) – and so Natural Selection CANNOT help, when faced with quadrillions of equally useless intermediaries with NONE of them conferring any advantage.:D

You're working off the assumption that evolution and natural selection have a "goal" they don't. So all of the above is pretty much nonsense.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> What's odd is how convinced he is that he does understand it.

Not really, if you think about it.

Creationism, like religion itself, is all about asserting the truth of conclusions which, in turn, dictate acceptable evidence, rather than the more difficult task of weighing separate strands of evidence to suggest possible conclusions. JC has simply found an answer to the problem and successfully manipulated (to his own satisfaction only, unfortunately) the chain of evidence to lead to the answer that he's already decided upon.

The same back-to-front thought process gives rise to beliefs in astrology, divination, holocaust-denial, UFO's, crystals, moon-hoaxing, homeopathy, 9/11 conspiracies, spoon-bending and many more unsupported beliefs.

Dear me...but he said he used to be a convinced "evolutionist" until he worked out these probabilities, so surely that can't be right!

possibly a bit sarcastically,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

psi wrote:

I kind of agree here, the analogies used are pretty poor and I find them pretty difficult to follow at the best of times.

Ouch. I was only pointing out that any particular arrangement of sand is extremely improbable, but nevertheless the sand on a beach has some particular arrangement.

The article on evolving chips is very good, but I'm afraid I can predict JC's response. He will point out that a human being (aka an intelligent designer) made all the bits and ran the experiment, and that this is therefore just another example of INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!! He can't separate the experiment from the experimenter - not won't, can't.

woundedly,
Scofflaw

GuanYin

Scofflaw wrote:

Ouch. I was only pointing out that any particular arrangement of sand is extremely improbable, but nevertheless the sand on a beach has some particular arrangement.

Whoops, no offence meant. I see the point you are making originally now, I think the debae evolved to a point where it muddled the analogy - not really your fault.

I find alot of analogies for evolution to be poor though (even ones I use when I'm reduced to it), so again, don't take offence

The article on evolving chips is very good, but I'm afraid I can predict JC's response. He will point out that a human being (aka an intelligent designer) made all the bits and ran the experiment, and that this is therefore just another example of INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!! He can't separate the experiment from the experimenter - not won't, can't.

Well to pre-empt my answer to your pre-empted retort, I can equally say, that if we had the technology to randomly evolve the chips, we would most likely see the same result, in fact, if we started with the base chemical elements and allowed them to randomly configure, selecting the configuration that best suited at each goal and reassembling, given a long enough time frame, we would see the same results.

The experiment wasn't even really a shot at evolution, I believe they had a different goal in mind and used the concept of evolution as a tool.

The main difference here is that this is directed evolution. We have a goal in mind so we are the external selection pressure driving towards an end product, in reality it is the chaotic environment around us that selects, but ultimately the mechanism is the same.

woundedly,
Scofflaw

Apologies again, no offence meant!

hairyheretic

robindch wrote:

The same back-to-front thought process gives rise to beliefs in astrology, divination, holocaust-denial, UFO's, crystals, moon-hoaxing, homeopathy, 9/11 conspiracies, spoon-bending and many more unsupported beliefs.

Going OT for a moment, I do divination through the runes, and it's nothing like that. (At least, not as I do it.) I'd be happy to explain in more detail if you're interested.

robindch

> He can't separate the experiment from the experimenter - not won't, can't.

That's about right. Remember that brief discussion a short while ago on some people's tendency to assert the existence of motivation for every event? Well, if you believe that everything happens because it’s motivated to do so, then it's a short leap to believing that there's a universal motivator too. Hence, the experiment and the experimenter are body and mind of the same entity.

What evolutionary benefit is conferred by a belief in universal motivation? Or is it simply the random result of a hyperactive ‘theory of mind’?

J C

Originally Posted by J C
the problem is that every individual biochemical step in the sight cascade is totally useless on it’s own – so each step cannot ‘lock in’ as beneficial to the organism.

Wicknight
It isn't totally useless on its own. A vast number of benefitial mutations have been observed in nature. The nylon bug is one well known example.

….but the problem is that every individual biochemical step in the Sight Cascade REALLY IS totally useless on it’s own – so that each step cannot ‘lock in’ as beneficial to the organism.
These systems are ‘irreducibly complex’ i.e they work in the current configuration – but if any step is missing or in a different place in the sequence they are functionally USELESS.

So, you cannot ‘work up’ to an ultimately useful Sight Cascade – as all partial Cascades are functionally USELESS!!.

The Nylon Bug has NOTHING to do with the Sight Cascade – it merely digests Nylon polymer using PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity placed there by our (very) benevolent (and very patient) Creator God!!!:)


Wicknight
As I explained to BrianC, if you remove any part of your TV it stops working. That doesn't mean a less complicated TV from the 40s won't work because it doesn't have the same parts as a modern day TV.

…….but if you remove ANY part from a functioning TV from the 40’s it ALSO will stop working because it’s configuration of parts is ALSO ‘irreducibly complex’.

Ditto for the Sight Cascade!!!

Equally, if a TV manufacturer leaves out ANY part when making a TV, it won’t work either – so ‘irreducible complexity’ is VALID for BOTH manufacturing/creation/evolution as well as for dis-assembly.:D


Wicknight
Why would God design 40 different eyes, at thousands of different stages, when one would do.

Because He is God!!!!!:D

He also created billions of stars – when one Sun probably would have done!!!!

God doesn’t do things in a ‘half hearted’ way.

Eyes haven’t seen nor minds imagined what God will do for those who love Him!!!

He died in perfect atonement for ALL of our sins – and all He asks in return is that we believe on Him and love Him – not much to ask, is it????


Robin
BTW, I can't help but note that JC hasn't brought anything to the party. Oh, well

……….. but I did bring a ‘six pack’ and two bottles of wine !!!!!

……………..as well as more arguments against Evolution than ‘you could shake a stick at’ !!!!

………………the fact that Materialistic Evolutionists continue to abstemiously refuse to ‘drink’ from the ‘fount of wisdom’ that is the Word of God in Genesis, DOESN’T mean that I didn’t bring anything to the party – it just means that Atheists are ‘teetotal’ when it comes to Science and the Word of God!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
Maybe you missed the part where life took 2.5 billion years to even develop cells

……..and maybe you missed the part about how long something that is dead will remain dead!!!


Scofflaw
There are on one side: (a) those theists who believe that God designed the initial rules, and left it at that; (b) those theists who believe that God guides evolution but does not interfere with it; and (c) those who believe that god had nothing to do with it. On the other side we have those who believe that God designed what we see substantially as we see it - that's Creationists and IDers only.

Theists in categories (a) and (b) do believe that God designed/guided Evolution – and thus they DO believe in Intelligent Design!!!!

One would wonder why a Theist who believed that God “had nothing to do with (life)” would even bother calling themselves a Theist – Agnostic would seem to be a more appropriate description of their ‘faith position’!!!


It is indeed TRUE that ID proponents, Theistic Evolutionists and Creation Scientists believe that life is the result of the appliance of Intelligent Design by God. The only people who believe that ‘intelligence’ WASN’T applied are the Materialistic Evolutionists (and the occasional Agnostic).

Theistic Evolutionists, Intelligent Designers AND Creation Scientists may well have intense differences about the THEOLOGY of Creation – but they are UNITED on the fact that an omnipotent and omniscient God used his infinite intelligence to design life.
Whether He did it during Creation Week or over 15 billion years is essentially a question for Bible Study and the forensic scientific investigation of the evidence for Creation – but the FACT that God designed life is beyond all doubt.:D


Scofflaw
a beach is a beach - the sand is there, no matter how unlikely it is that it should be. By your "logic", it cannot exist without a beach designer constantly at work.

A random assemblage of sand logically DOESN’T require a designer.

A simple ‘sand castle’ requires a Human Designer.

……..and a complex living organism requires a God Designer !!!!:D


Wicknight
I wouldn't mind if he actually understood evolution and was picking holes in established theory, because like any wide ranging theory, there are lots of them

Indeed there are so many ‘holes’ in Evolution that the biggest problem is trying to decide where to begin.

….and we have spent the past 3,675 posts trying to make this decision!!!!:eek:

......and with a considerable degree of success, I might add!!!:D

Robin
The most interesting discussions always take place at the border between understanding and confusion.

Evolutionists certainly seem to regularly visit this particular ‘twilight zone’!!!!

Some seem to be permanently stuck there!!!!:eek:


psi
Strictly speaking, anyone who thinks genetic mutations in population diversity is down to ERRORS, doesn't understand biology very well.

Wicknight
like all processes, ERRORS occur during the replication. These ERRORS can result in a wide range of effects. If the effect benefits the molecule it willl lead to the molecule replicating better than others

psi talk to Wicknight.

Wicknight talk to psi.


psi
the evolutionary model used only 32 out of the 100 chips in the final model - the best human design attempted before the experiment used around 50-60. So the random model was better

Scofflaw
The article on evolving chips is very good, but I'm afraid I can predict JC's response. He will point out that a human being (aka an intelligent designer) made all the bits and ran the experiment, and that this is therefore just another example of INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!!

Yes, to a degree, you predict correctly, Scofflaw.

However, I also accept the existence of 'electronic serendipity' which seems to occur in electronic systems (that have been intelligently created and designed by Humans).

For example, I personally find it far easier to ‘de-bug’ a new computer programme by simply running it and identifying the ‘bugs’ from the problems that turn up - rather than by ‘breaking sweat’ and poring over thousands of lines of code to check them and their inter-actions.


Scofflaw
He (J C) can't separate the experiment from the experimenter

……a bit like an Atheist can’t separate the Creator from the creation, perhaps !!!!

BTW, I actually CAN separate the experiment from the experimenter - it just the INTERPRETATION of the results that I sometimes question!!!:D

GuanYin

J C wrote:

Yes, to a degree, you predict correctly.

However, there are some very interesting aspects to this ‘electronic evolution’ (which seems to occur in systems intelligently created by Humans).

For example, I personally find it far easier to ‘de-bug’ a new computer programme by simply running it and identifying the ‘bugs’ from the problems that turn up, rather than ‘breaking sweat’ by poring over thousands of lines of code and trying to anticipate their inter-actions.

Well I've pre-empted your agreement.

Coding and de-bugging code aren't the same thing at all.

BrianCalgary

psi wrote:

Well I've pre-empted your agreement.

Coding and de-bugging code aren't the same thing at all.

He's not claiming they are.

I think what JC is saying is that you code a program. You then run it to test it. The bugs show up and then you correct the errors.

The other option is never to run the program until you have tested it manually and pored over the thousands of lines to make sure all input is correct and every line is in th eright order.

(Then you run it and are surprised that there really are bugs:o , no matter what you do)

Zombrex

J C wrote:

….but the problem is that every individual biochemical step in the sight cascade REALLY IS totally useless on it’s own – so that each step cannot ‘lock in’ as beneficial to the organism.

But they don't function "on their own", they function as part of a system, so you point is well pointless. A protein "on its own" does nothing at all, designed or otherwise.

Read up on evolution. And biology while you are at it.

J C wrote:

These systems are ‘irreducibly complex’ i.e they work in the current configuration – but if any step is missing or in a different place in the sequence they are functionally USELESS.

As evolution would predict.

A non-working system would die off quite quickly.

What part of "only changes that are not harmful to the organism survive" do you not understand. The mutation has to still work inside the current system to be benefitial. If the mutation causes the system to stop working the organism stops working.

J C wrote:

So, you cannot ‘work up’ to an ultimately useful sight cascade – as all partial cascades are functionally USELESS!!.

How do you get from saying that you can't randomly remove parts to saying that you can't randonly add parts. The two aren't connected.

Here are two expamples for you

If I have part A,B,C that all are necessary for the system to function. If I remove any of the three the system stops working. But if C mutates to D they system can still work, so long as D still carries out the function of C. You now have A,B,D doing the same as A,B,C but slightly better. To "de-evolve" the system you don't remove D. That would be stupid, and cause the system to stop working, since it needs all three to function. To "de-evolve" the system you change part D back into part C. The system still works.[/b]

Another example is this. You have A,B,C that work perfectly fine. Through mutation D is introduced that has no bad effect on the system of A,B,C, but it adds a helpful advance. The system would still work without D but gradually A, B and C evolve as well and become dependent on the advance of D to function. 100 million years, after ABCD have developed into a closely coupled system. Now to de-evolve the system you don't remove D. You first have to move A,B and C back to the state they were 100 million years ago, and then you can remove D safely without disturbing the system.

This is very very basic evolutionary theory. Why after 180 pages are we explaining what evolution is to you JC. Why can't you be arse to just go read up on the thing you are conviced cannot work?

J C wrote:

The Nylon Bug has NOTHING to do with the Sight Cascade – it merely digests Nylon polymer using PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity placed there by our (very) benevolent (and very patient) Creator God!!!:)

The nylon bug is the result of a mutation that created the systems necessary to digest nylon. These systems do not exist in non-mutated bugs. A new system is generated by the re-arranging of the genetic material. The genes are just a blue print JC, you still need to make the system itself.

J C wrote:

Because He is God!!!!!:D
He also created billions of stars – when one Sun probably would have done!!!!

Well that would be another reason not to believe God made the universe.

You argument seems to be God can do anything he likes, even stupid silly things that are unnecessary, because he is God.

J C wrote:

God doesn’t do things in a ‘half hearted’ way.

Apartently he does, since life is a very "half hearted" design if it was designed by an all powerful, all knowing intelligence.

J C wrote:

……..and maybe you missed the part about how long something that is dead will remain dead!!!

Define "dead".

The molecules from the dead cow you ate for lunch 3 days ago are now living inside you body. Dead matter is converted to living matter all the time

J C wrote:

psi talk to Wicknight.

Wicknight talk to psi.

Groan .. maybe you should bother to understand what Psi means. Mutation is an error in replication. Evolution due to natural selection is not an error, it is a design

The problem you have is you don't understand the difference between mutation and natural selection.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
the problem is that every individual biochemical step in the sight cascade is totally useless on it’s own – so each step cannot ‘lock in’ as beneficial to the organism.

Wicknight
It isn't totally useless on its own. A vast number of benefitial mutations have been observed in nature. The nylon bug is one well known example.

….but the problem is that every individual biochemical step in the sight cascade REALLY IS totally useless on it’s own – so that each step cannot ‘lock in’ as beneficial to the organism.
These systems are ‘irreducibly complex’ i.e they work in the current configuration – but if any step is missing or in a different place in the sequence they are functionally USELESS.

So, you cannot ‘work up’ to an ultimately useful sight cascade – as all partial cascades are functionally USELESS!!.

I'm going to draw your attention once again to my post outlining how complex cascades develop. It makes you arguments irrelevant.

J C wrote:

The Nylon Bug has NOTHING to do with the Sight Cascade – it merely digests Nylon polymer using PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity placed there by our (very) benevolent (and very patient) Creator God!!!:)

No, you lackwit - it's an observed mutation. The mutation that produced the nylon-digesting enzyme has been fully studied - it's a frame shift mutation that displaced the reading of the DNA by one-third of a base pair, producing an entirely new protein.

I know you don't like it, because it blows away your "all mutations bad" and "huge odds against random protein generation", but it's an observed fact. It's not pre-existing genetic diversity, it's a mutation.

Really, you are an appalling cretin or a liar - there was several pages of discussion on the subject, and all your contribution amounted to was saying "it isn't so". It is so, and anyone can read the papers that show it to be so.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
As I explained to BrianC, if you remove any part of your TV it stops working. That doesn't mean a less complicated TV from the 40s won't work because it doesn't have the same parts as a modern day TV.

…….but if you remove ANY part from a functioning TV from the 40’s it ALSO will stop working because it’s configuration of parts is ALSO ‘irreducibly complex’.

Well done - you completely failed to get the point.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Why would God design 40 different eyes, at thousands of different stages, when one would do.

Because He is God!!!!!:D
He also created billions of stars – when one Sun probably would have done!!!!

God doesn’t do things in a ‘half hearted’ way.

Eyes haven’t seen nor minds imagined what God will do for those who love Him!!!

He died in perfect atonement for ALL of our sins – and all He asks in return is that we believe on Him and love Him – not much to ask, is it????

Maybe, but I wasn't aware he asked it of the possessors of the other 39 types of eye...

J C wrote:

Robin
BTW, I can't help but note that JC hasn't brought anything to the party. Oh, well

……….. but I did bring a ‘six pack’ and two bottles of wine !!!!!

……………..as well as more arguments against Evolution than ‘you could shake a stick at’ !!!!

………………the fact that Evolutionists continue to abstemiously refuse to ‘drink’ from the ‘fount of wisdom’ that is the Word of God in Genesis, DOESN’T mean that I didn’t bring anything to the party – it just means that Atheists are ‘teetotal’ when it comes to Science and the Word of God!!!!:eek:

It's from observing the stupidity of those who are intoxicated with the word of god.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
There are on one side: (a) those theists who believe that God designed the initial rules, and left it at that; (b) those theists who believe that God guides evolution but does not interfere with it; and (c) those who believe that god had nothing to do with it. On the other side we have those who believe that God designed what we see substantially as we see it - that's Creationists and IDers only.

Theists in categories (a) and (b) do believe that God designed /guided Evolution – and thus they DO believe in Intelligent Design!!!!

One would wonder why a Theist who believed that God “had nothing to do with it” would even bother calling themselves a Theist – Agnostic would seem to be a more appropriate description of their ‘faith position’!!!

What you think of other theists is essentially irrelevant.

J C wrote:

It is indeed TRUE that ID proponents, Theistic Evolutionists and Creation Scientists believe that life is the result of the appliance of Intelligent Design by God. The only people who believe that ‘intelligence’ WASN’T applied are the Materialistic Evolutionists (and the occasional Agnostic).

Theistic Evolutionists, Intelligent Designers AND Creation Scientists may well have intense differences about the THEOLOGY of Creation – but they are UNITED on the fact that an omnipotent and omniscient God used his infinite intelligence to design life.
Whether He did it during Creation Week or over 15 billion years is essentially a question for Bible Study and the forensic scientific investigation of the evidence for Creation – but the FACT that God designed life is beyond all doubt.:D

No, JC. You have simply used the word "design" as if it included "evolved".

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
a beach is a beach - the sand is there, no matter how unlikely it is that it should be. By your "logic", it cannot exist without a beach designer constantly at work.

A random assemblage of sand logically DOESN’T require a designer.

A simple ‘sand castle’ requires a Human Designer.

……..and a complex living organism requires a God Designer !!!!:D

Ho hum. Well, I didn't really expect you to understand that one.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
I wouldn't mind if he actually understood evolution and was picking holes in established theory, because like any wide ranging theory, there are lots of them

Indeed there are so many ‘holes’ in Evolution that the biggest problem is indeed trying to decide where to begin.

Your biggest problem is that you have no idea where to begin, because you don't understand the theory anyway.

J C wrote:

psi
the evolutionary model used only 32 out of the 100 chips in the final model - the best human design attempted before the experiment used around 50-60. So the random model was better

Scofflaw
The article on evolving chips is very good, but I'm afraid I can predict JC's response. He will point out that a human being (aka an intelligent designer) made all the bits and ran the experiment, and that this is therefore just another example of INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!!

Yes, to a degree, you predict correctly.

However, there are some very interesting aspects to this ‘electronic evolution’ (which seems to occur in systems intelligently created by Humans).

For example, I personally find it far easier to ‘de-bug’ a new computer programme by simply running it and identifying the ‘bugs’ from the problems that turn up, rather than ‘breaking sweat’ by poring over thousands of lines of code and trying to anticipate their inter-actions.

Ta-da.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
He (J C) can't separate the experiment from the experimenter

……a bit like the Atheist can’t separate the Creator from the creation, perhaps !!!!

PS, I can separate the experiment from the experimenter - it the interpretation of the results that I sometimes question!!!:D

To put it another way, JC, you don't understand the idea of non-random processes that don't have a guiding intelligence.

slight regards,
Scofflaw

robindch

Ah, JC comes back fighting, swinging his cotton-wool boxing gloves wildly about and chucking cream cheese hand grenades at everybody. You gotta love the persistence.

> I personally find it far easier to ‘de-bug’ a new computer programme by simply
> running it and identifying the ‘bugs’ from the problems that turn up - rather
> than by ‘breaking sweat’ and poring over thousands of lines of code to check
> them and their inter-actions.

Sounds like you prefer to let evolution weed out the unsuccessful variations of your software, rather than taking an designer's-eye view!

Nice one, JC.

Sangre

As interesting and informative as this thread is, to the anti-creationists I must ask?

Why do you keep bothering to reply?

Diogenes

Sangre wrote:

As interesting and informative as this thread is, to the anti-creationists I must ask?

Why do you keep bothering to reply?

The overwhelming, desperate hope that JC will evolve and get it?

GuanYin

BrianCalgary wrote:

He's not claiming they are.

I think what JC is saying is that you code a program. You then run it to test it. The bugs show up and then you correct the errors.

The other option is never to run the program until you have tested it manually and pored over the thousands of lines to make sure all input is correct and every line is in th eright order.

(Then you run it and are surprised that there really are bugs:o , no matter what you do)

Bugs are due to errors in a created code working towards a goal. You deliberately arrange the code as you want it.

Exactly how do you apply that to the article I posted above?

Scofflaw

Diogenes wrote:

Sangre wrote:

As interesting and informative as this thread is, to the anti-creationists I must ask?

Why do you keep bothering to reply?

The overwhelming, desperate hope that JC will evolve and get it?

Because they're there? To protect the innocent? Because the war between Intelligence and Stupidity is everlasting? Because when you stare into the Abyss, the Abyss is also staring into you? Because, no matter how many times one swears off, a Creationist will always post a claim so outrageously breaking the bounds of logic, science, and sense that is impossible not to write a response? Because it's so refreshing to argue with someone for whose position you have no respect whatsoever? Because they're a pernicious evil that must be fought on every available battleground? Because they make otherwise obtuse and irritating people seem perfectly sane and rational?

Lastly, because it's so much fun when you're not doing it. Also, they offer regular confirmation of my atheism.

oh yeah, I could stop any time,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Sangre wrote:

As interesting and informative as this thread is, to the anti-creationists I must ask?

Why do you keep bothering to reply?

Personally I do it because I'm always meeting Creationists, or at least being challanged on if evolution works, and having suitablely clear and accurate answers to their "what about this..?" still questions is the best way to tackle it.

This thread is more of learning experience with how to tackle the various questions Creationists throw up. Often (most often) creationists are quite ignorant of the topic they are even challanging, and ironically if you reply with an answer that is too complicated they simply reject that as being scientific mumbo-jumbo. If you are presenting an alternative to "God made man on the 6th day" it needs to be almost at that level to be understood. How to do this while also encapsulating the vastness of neo-darwin evolutionary theory, is as much an art as science.

pH did a great job with his genetic algorthim, which I notice JC has no real answer to beyond saying that it doesn't model evolution (which is understandable from his position since he doesn't know what evolution actually is, and pHs model doesn't model evolution as JC incorrectly understands it)

Also, while I've no great hope that JC will realise evolution is how life developed on Earth (or simply learn what evolution says and doesn't say in the first place), some of the others who read this thread but reject evolution either out of ignorance of what it says and how it works or simply religious beliefs, might learn something.

One can hope.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

I think what JC is saying is that you code a program. You then run it to test it. The bugs show up and then you correct the errors.

The other option is never to run the program until you have tested it manually and pored over the thousands of lines to make sure all input is correct and every line is in th eright order.

Neither of these technics have anything to do with Psi's article, which I'm sure JC knew when he posted.

He was simply trying to dismiss or distract discussion way from something he doesn't have an answer to (ie real world demonstrations of evolution in action, working as predicted and doing exactly what he claims that it is impossible for evolution to do).

Scofflaw

For those who have enjoyed our dips into probability and falsifiability, but don't want to read scientific literature, I can recommend this book:

"Fooled by Randomness" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb

subtitled "The hidden role of chance in life and the markets". The author is an options trader, and a contrarian. A lot of what he discusses relates to the way probability and empiricism are both misunderstood by most people.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Wicknight
What part of "only changes that are not harmful to the organism survive" do you not understand. The mutation has to still work inside the current system to be benefitial. If the mutation causes the system to stop working the organism stops working.

…….and which part of “most mutations are either harmful or useless to the organism and ALL mutations result in a loss of genetic information” do you not understand?

With an observed ratio of hundreds of harmful mutations to every beneficial one and a LOSS of genetic information with each mutation, macro-evolution doesn’t show much POTENTIAL as a mechanism to evolve Man from slime.:)


Wicknight
If I have part A,B,C that all are necessary for the system to function. If I remove any of the three the system stops working. But if C mutates to D they system can still work, so long as D still carries out the function of C. You now have A,B,D doing the same as A,B,C but slightly better. To "de-evolve" the system you don't remove D. That would be stupid, and cause the system to stop working, since it needs all three to function. To "de-evolve" the system you change part D back into part C. The system still works

This is a statement along the lines of the argument that “IF pigs COULD evolve wings they COULD fly”!!!:eek:


Wicknight
This is very very basic evolutionary theory. Why after 180 pages are we explaining what evolution is to you JC

I ‘get’ the bit about the fact “that pigs COULD fly IF they had wings” – it’s the question of HOW the pigs could acquire the wings, in the first place, that causes me problems!!!!!:)


Wicknight
Define "dead".

The molecules from the dead cow you ate for lunch 3 days ago are now living inside you body. Dead matter is converted to living matter all the time

‘Dead’ is the state of no longer being alive or never having been alive – for example, macro-Evolution is objectively ‘dead’!!!

BTW I accept your contention that dead matter is converted into living matter all the time – BUT you forgot to mention that a living organism is ALWAYS required to perform the task of assimilating dead material into living tissue – it’s the point where biogenesis meets biosynthesis actually !!!!!:cool:


Scofflaw
No, you lackwit - it's an observed mutation. The mutation that produced the nylon-digesting enzyme has been fully studied - it's a frame shift mutation that displaced the reading of the DNA by one-third of a base pair, producing an entirely new protein.

Yes, you great “All Knowing One”, it IS a ‘frame shift’ within the enormous CREATED genetic POTENTIAL of bacteria.:D


Robin
Sounds like you prefer to let evolution weed out the unsuccessful variations of your software, rather than taking an designer's-eye view!

My ‘de-bugging’ technique is actually the rational use of Intelligent Design and a form of "Natural Selection" !!!!:cool:


Sangre
As interesting and informative as this thread is, to the anti-creationists I must ask?

Why do you keep bothering to reply?

They reply because, there is a deep yearning in the heart of EVERY person to know the truth about where they have come from and where they are going.
As Jesus Christ so eloquently put it, the Word of God is true and the truth will set you free!!!

What the ‘anti-creationists’ on this thread are actually engaged in, is the (gradual) assimilation of the irresistible TRUTH of Divine Creation!!!


Scofflaw
To protect the innocent? Because the war between Intelligence and Stupidity is everlasting? Because when you stare into the Abyss, the Abyss is also staring into you?

Noble words indeed Scofflaw!!!

Your reference to the ‘Abyss’ is indeed very apt.
The Abyss is another name for Hell, and it is indeed a very uncomfortable feeling to contemplate what an eternity in the Abyss would be like.


Wicknight
Personally I do it because I'm always meeting Creationists, or at least being challenged on if evolution works,

So Ireland is ALSO full of Creationists!!!:D

I came across an interesting article in the Scientific American recently which claimed that 60% of US Republican voters and 70% of American Evangelical Christians are Creationists.

.......and US Democrats are also quite sceptical about Evolution with only 44% accepting it.

A Zogby poll released earlier this year revealed that 69% of Americans believe that Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution along with the scientific evidence against it.
Just 21% felt that only evidence supporting evolution should be taught.

Zogby also discovered that almost 89% of those who were in high school within the past ten or eleven years (ages 18–29) believe that science teachers should present evidence for and against evolution.
Evolutionary activists are alarmed that the numbers are so high, and especially the fact that ‘Creationist leanings’ are 20 percentage points HIGHER amongst the UNDER 29 years age group — the very people who have received the most information about Evolution.

It seems that the more people know about Evolution, the less they believe in it!!!!:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
No, you lackwit - it's an observed mutation. The mutation that produced the nylon-digesting enzyme has been fully studied - it's a frame shift mutation that displaced the reading of the DNA by one-third of a base pair, producing an entirely new protein.

Yes, you great “All Knowing One”, it IS a ‘frame shift’ within the enormous CREATED genetic POTENTIAL of bacteria.:D

That's an interesting shift, I suppose. Do you mean to imply that all possible genetic combinations, including those made available by mutation, were effectively designed in at creation?

J C wrote:

Sangre
As interesting and informative as this thread is, to the anti-creationists I must ask?

Why do you keep bothering to reply?

They reply because, there is a deep yearning in the heart of EVERY person to know the truth about where they have come from and where they are going.
As Jesus Christ so eloquently put it, the Word of God is true and the truth will set you free!!!

What the ‘anti-creationists’ on this thread are actually engaged in, is the (gradual) assimilation of the irresistible TRUTH of Divine Creation!!!

Well, that's one answer I definitely wouldn't pick.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
To protect the innocent? Because the war between Intelligence and Stupidity is everlasting? Because when you stare into the Abyss, the Abyss is also staring into you?

Noble words indeed Scofflaw!!!

Your reference to the ‘Abyss’ is indeed very apt.
The Abyss is another name for Hell, and it is indeed a very uncomfortable feeling to contemplate what an eternity in the Abyss would be like.

Frankly, it's a mildly less uncomfortable concept than the idea of nothingness.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Personally I do it because I'm always meeting Creationists, or at least being challenged on if evolution works,

So Ireland is ALSO full of Creationists!!!:D

Aside from the usual leap (of faith?), I will add only that the average IQ is not very high, and many people are below it.

J C wrote:

I came across an interesting article in the Scientific American recently which claimed that 60% of US Republican voters and 70% of American Evangelical Christians are Creationists.

.......and US Democrats are also quite sceptical about Evolution with only 44% accepting it.

A Zogby poll released earlier this year revealed that 69% of Americans believe that Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution along with the scientific evidence against it.
Just 21% felt that only evidence supporting evolution should be taught.

Zogby also discovered that almost 89% of those who were in high school within the past ten or eleven years (ages 18–29) believe that science teachers should present evidence for and against evolution.
Evolutionary activists are alarmed that the numbers are so high, and especially the fact that ‘Creationist leanings’ are 20 percentage points HIGHER amongst the UNDER 29 years age group — the very people who have received the most information about Evolution.

It seems that the more people know about Evolution, the less they believe in it!!!!:D

Interesting - but presenting the evidence for and against evolution is perfectly reasonable, was certainly done in my science classes 30 years ago, and does not imply Creationism. Your point is once again either stupid or mendacious.

Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

…….and which part of “most mutations are either harmful or useless to the organism and ALL mutations result in a loss of genetic information” do you not understand?

All of it because it is a blantent lie.

The vast majority of mutations do nothing, they allow the system to function as normal without adding or subtracting from it. The rest either mutations add useful ability, some destroy that ability. Mutations that actually increase the size of the genetic information have been observed in nature and in the lab.

You have been told this before. So one must only assume you are lying, lying being defined as stating something one knows to be untrue.

J C wrote:

With an observed ratio of hundreds of harmful mutations to every beneficial one and a LOSS of genetic information with each mutation, macro-evolution doesn’t show much POTENTIAL as a mechanism to evolve Man from slime.:)

It isn't hundreds of harmful mutations to every beneficial one, its tens of thousands of harmful ones, and millions of do nothing ones, to every beneficial one

Otherwise life on Earth would have evolved at a much much faster rate than it does. Remember that every 8 hours there are approx 40 trillion cell replications on Earth. Every 8 hours JC. If only a handful produce mutations that is still millions of mutations. If the benefitial mutations were popping up in the majority of those replications life would be evolving so fast it would make your head spin. We would be seeing completely new species every few years.

Instead it takes thousands of years for a new species to develop in a population. This is because benefitial mutations are so rare. But we have had 2 billion years to be doing this JC.

J C wrote:

This is a statement along the lines of the argument that “IF pigs COULD evolve wings they COULD fly”!!!:eek:

Funny you always know when you have JC in a fix because he doesn't reply, he just spouts nonsense.

J C wrote:

‘Dead’ is the state of no longer being alive or never having been alive – for example, macro-Evolution is objectively ‘dead’!!!

That is possibly the stupidest definition I've ever heard. Being dead is not being alive. Well done, next you are going to define being alive as not being dead :rolleyes:

A 5 year old could define it better. Since you aren't a 5 year old I assume that you can also, but are refusing to do so because you know it will be trouble for your original argument (see above about JC in a fix).

Your replies seem to be getting more and more desperate. Are you just going to start calling us names and storming off now?

J C wrote:

BTW I accept your contention that dead matter is converted into living matter all the time – BUT you forgot to mention that a living organism is ALWAYS required to perform the task of assimilating dead material into living tissue

That isn't true.

Organic matter can form out of inorganic matter. This has been observed. I seem to remember telling you this, about 100 times already.

J C

Wicknight
pH did a great job with his genetic algorthim, which I notice JC has no real answer to beyond saying that it doesn't model evolution

But NEITHER algorithm modelled biological macro-evolution.

It is quite clear that pH’s first algorithm was pre-programmed to produce the sentence “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD”.

pH very cleverly ‘worked’ the programme to randomly generate each letter but then locked in each letter as it was randomly generated. It therefore exhibited 'overview' which is an intelligence attribute.


pH’s second algorithm was somewhat closer to evolution but it is RELATIVELY EASY to generate short English words randomly.
For example, in any random line of letters, a two letter English Word will be ‘found’ on average within a series of ONLY about 60 randomly generated letters.

Because of the phonetically close nature of English words, intensive ‘searching’ of the local ‘phonetic combinatorial space’ of one short word, will usually yield other words, as per pH’s programme.
However, proteins don’t exhibit such ‘phonetic’ attributes and they are equivalent to ‘words’ that are hundreds of ‘letters’ long, and therefore their ‘combinatorial space’ is not ‘clumped’ but ‘distributionally random’ in nature and in excess of 10E+100.


Scofflaw
I can recommend this book:
"Fooled by Randomness"

An Evolutionist recommending a book entitled “Fooled by Randomness” !!

The irony of it all, would make a cat laugh!!!!:D


Scofflaw
Frankly, (Hell is) a mildly less uncomfortable concept than the idea of nothingness.

Well, try thinking about Heaven and being saved then!!!!:D


Scofflaw
but presenting the evidence for and against evolution is perfectly reasonable, was certainly done in my science classes 30 years ago, and does not imply Creationism. Your point is once again either stupid or mendacious.

ANY criticism of Evolution is branded as ‘crypto-Creationism’ by Evolutionists – and ALL evidence against Evolution is banned BY LAW in most US Public Schools.

I have no strong views on what should be taught in schools myself, but I think that children should hear both sides of every debate.

Whether they hear it inside school or outside of school is entirely a matter for the school authorities and their parents, as far as I am concerned.

I share your view that presenting the evidence against Evolution is a good idea.
If you TRULY believe what you are saying, I look forward to the day when conventionally qualified Creation Scientists or ID proponents are invited along their local school to ‘assist’ in the delivery of this particular 'module' of the curriculum.
Creation Scientists and ID proponents are, after all, the EXPERTS on the scientific evidence against Evolution!!!

It would also be a nice ‘ecumenical’ gesture!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
With an observed ratio of HUNDREDS of harmful mutations to every beneficial one and a LOSS of genetic information with each mutation, macro-evolution doesn’t show much POTENTIAL as a mechanism to evolve Man from slime

Wicknight
It isn't hundreds of harmful mutations to every beneficial one, its TENS OF THOUSANDS of harmful ones ………………………………………… to every beneficial one

You are of course correct, I just didn’t wish to be accused of over-stating the case AGAINST Evolution!!:eek:


Wicknight
Remember that every 8 hours there are approx 40 trillion cell replications on Earth. Every 8 hours JC. If only a handful produce mutations that is still millions of mutations. If the benefitial mutations were popping up in the majority of those replications life would be evolving so fast it would make your head spin. We would be seeing completely new species every few years.

Instead it takes thousands of years for a new species to develop in a population. This is because benefitial mutations are so rare. But we have had 2 billion years to be doing this JC.

OK, so the chance of producing a specific 100 chain protein to perform a specific function that ONLY this particular protein can perform in a critical biochemical cascade is 10E+180.

Even if EVERY cell mutated every second for a billion, billion, billion years this specific protein probably wouldn’t be formed by undirected processes!!!


Originally Posted by J C
‘Dead’ is the state of no longer being alive or never having been alive – for example, macro-Evolution is objectively ‘dead’!!!

Wicknight
That is possibly the stupidest definition I've ever heard. Being dead is not being alive. ……
……………A 5 year old could define it better.

I can't speak for 5 year olds, but I can quote from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary :
“Dead adj 1 no longer alive > devoid of living things”

If it is good enough for the Oxford English Dictionary to define ‘dead’ that way, why is it not good enough for you?!!!!

Stop ‘shooting yourself in the foot’ Wicknight.:D


Wicknight
Are you just going to start calling us names and storming off now?

Now, why would I do that, especially when I am WINNING the debate?

Evolutionits are the guys that have ‘stormed off’ and summarily shut down THREE threads on this topic already.

In the case of the Sceptics Forum the following was said by the moderator as he shut down the last thread on the topic of Evolution v Creation:-

“So, this discussion is closed again. And if anyone tries to reopen it on another thread I'll regard that as an attempt to troll and ban them.

And don't complain that I'm shutting down free speech. If you can't make your point within 300 posts, tough.”

Not only is 300 posts insufficient, 3,000 posts have also proven insufficient.

‘Roll on’ 30,000 posts – and THEN perhaps ye will believe The Word of God – and be set free, by being saved!!!!:D