is TIME a problem? Or is this guy retarded?
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, May 26, 2007 14:33
VIEWED: 10984
PAGE 3 of 10
Quote:
posted by Fredgiblet- If you consider that some of the mutations were assisted by natural selection or sexual selection and also consider polyploidy (where entire chromosomes double) then the mutations add up very fast.
yet id venture to guess that this hypothetical species remained within its 'archetype', and didnt evolve into something different altogether. we all plainly see micro evolution, but the other two(macro/abiogenesis) require a burden of proof that i dont feel has been delivered. now please correct me if im mistaken, but we should at the least have thousands of examples available from the fossil record to support all these alleged billions of species successfully and unsuccessfully evolving and mutating. there should be a pretty sizeable gap between non life(billions of years ago), to present day.. i would think that we'd have more fossil evidence of every species progressive evolution from microscopic organisms to their current states. i am left with the impression that cats have always been cats, without any of these extreme biological deviances to its archetype. now i accept that this then poses the question 'then where did it come from'?.. to which id suggest it was uniquely designed that way. but then thats the flaw of ID, its either obvious or its not(apparently)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
yet id venture to guess that this hypothetical species remained within its 'archetype', and didnt evolve into something different altogether.
I've heard this argument before, and I find it a little confusing. It sounds like you're imagining one complex creature 'turning into' another, like a cat turning into a horse or something. But that's not the way it works. Animals evolve through mutation and natural selection - I'm assuming this is what you mean by 'micro evolution'. Each individual organism will carry minor changes forward, some in one direction, some in another. If those lines evolve separately for a long enough period of time they might be considered two different species. It's a largely arbitrary distinction anyway.
I'd say that evolution isn't about creatures morphing into new creatures, it's more about life from common sources diverging as it reproduces.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
It sounds like you're imagining one complex creature 'turning into' another, like a cat turning into a horse or something. But that's not the way it works.
the way ive heard it explained is that life began in the oceans, as proteins, and from there progressed over vast, inconceivable amounts of time, from an amphibious life form, to a land bound species, and from there into all the different forms of life we see today(overly simplified of course). to me, this is an enormous leap in logic.. and maybe you can explain it better, but i dont feel we have anything remotely resembling evidence to support this contention
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
... to me, this is an enormous leap in logic.
To me, it seems like an inevitable conclusion. Once you buy the idea of genetic change and natural selection, how could you not end up with a bunch of radically different creatures after millions and millions of years?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
If there are 10^80 electrons in the universe.
This is where I call bullshit. This number could not possibly be known. And since everything is dependent on this, his house of cards get blown down.
I believe looking up straw-man and red herring arguments would shed some light on what this guy has done.
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
To me, it seems like an inevitable conclusion. Once you buy the idea of genetic change and natural selection, how could you not end up with a bunch of radically different creatures after millions and millions of years?
well, thats if you accept the premise that the earth is billions of years old. i think if we're honost with ourselves, we'll admit that we have no real way to establish a date on the earth(at this point). it seems baffling to consider where the earth came from... i can see why we'd assume its old beyond imagine, but i dont neccessarily know that to be the truth. someone above made a fair observation when he asked what the mathematical possibility would be that random change would produce everything in existence, with its intricate design, in such abundance... and you really have to wonder- are we here by accident, or by design? its really a pretty fundemental question
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sigh. You know, it's posts like this that really make me sad for the human race. The fact that we live in a society with (mostly, let's not turn this into a different debate here) free education and we still have posts like Antimason's convinces me that we will never get off this rock alive (as a species).
Look, it's -admittedly- hard for me to not be insulting in replying to this post, but for Pete's sake, if you're this deliberately obtuse in your way of thinking there's no hope for you left. You're obviously either retarded or trolling, and at this point I'm not sure which.
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
well, thats if you accept the premise that the earth is billions of years old. i think if we're honost with ourselves, we'll admit that we have no real way to establish a date on the earth(at this point).
Yes, we do. There are lists of scientific methods a mile long that have given us an accurate picture of the age of the universe, and of the Earth itself. Radiocarbon dating. Isotopic decay. Mathmatics on the speed of particles (light, other radiation). Seriously, what more do you want? You're holding out such hope for God to come down from the Heavens and say, "I created the world on Sept. 5th at 3 am 6000 years ago" that you're losing your ability to grasp the rational. The problem isn't "we" aren't honest with ourselves, it's "you" aren't honest with yourself - you're so desperate to be a believer that you've given up any train of rational thought.
Quote:
it seems baffling to consider where the earth came from... i can see why we'd assume its old beyond imagine, but i dont neccessarily know that to be the truth.
This is what I mean by deliberately obtuse. How can you not know it? It takes a supreme act of mental blindness to ignore the evidence for the age if the Earth in 2007.
Quote:
someone above made a fair observation when he asked what the mathematical possibility would be that random change would produce everything in existence, with its intricate design, in such abundance... and you really have to wonder- are we here by accident, or by design? its really a pretty fundemental question
I think it's your choice of terminology that sends you into the downward mental spiral. "Accident." Why not "realization of a possibility?" Is random chance really that bad? In fact, I think that if it were true that we came about randomly, it would in fact make us more likely to care about one another and the planet we lived on. We too often don't worry about our planet or each other because of a belief in the supernatural, which is frightening. Besides, what difference does design make to the age of the universe? I believe that the universe was set in motion by God, and yet I have no problems believing in science and evolution. I can separate faith and reason in my brain. Why can't you?
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Well, just trying to figure out how I climbed out of the primordial ooze to be come kaneman..........
Judging by some of your posts, I'm not sure you made the climb.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Are you a teacher Seven? And if so does this tone of lecture go over well with your students?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Antimason,
"he way ive heard it explained is that life began in the oceans, as proteins, and from there progressed over vast, inconceivable amounts of time,"
Actually, the earth is about 4.567 billion years old. This guy used the age of the universe for his stats, which is 30 billion years. And still came up with zero chance. There is a link above from Fredg that shows how statistics can be misleading, however
there is a link at the bottom of that forum that brings you to another site That states http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
"The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20)32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040. This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10390 of the standard creationist "generating carboxypeptidase by chance" scenario, but still seems absurdly low."
Now that seems better if using 30 billion as time frame, the problem I am having is the earth is not that old making even the smaller number improbable.
Then for conclusion:
"The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies.
At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.
However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping."
Not sure if he is saying... "at the present time evolution can't be proven"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME