Evolution works in mysterious ways

[DemonPossessed]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Like evolution but the other way around, species breaking up, loosing genetic information over time, becoming over adapted, over specialized to their environments, less flexible and more vulnerable to environmental change. Think of it as entroy applied to population genetics and you'll see that not only is it inevitable but it's obvious, accounts for all the genuine 'evidence' purported to demonstrate evolution, operates effectively over much shorter time scales and also absolutely rules out the evolution of higher organisms from lower ones.

If it is impossible for "higher" organisms to form from "lower" ones, then why is it that insects and bacteria can evolve resistance to pesticides and antibiotics in such a short time frame because of natural selection? Surely this added complexity could not arise through random mutations and natural selection. Is God sitting up in heaven magically using his Intelligent Design powers as we speak on bacteria and crop pests? If bacteria and insects can evolve changes that help them survive through mutations and natural selection in such a small timescale think what is possible over a timescale of hundreds of millions of years.

I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion

[Matthew Faithfull]

The universe and everything in it is the creation of an intelligent God who designed it. The clear marks of his design are written all over it for any and every open eye to see, 'so that no one may have an excuse'. These are the facts of intelligent design, it is a basis for science not a product of it or a theory dervied by it. It is theology and philosophy and should be taught as such.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Matthew Faithfull]

DemonPossessed wrote:

why is it that insects and bacteria can evolve resistance to pesticides and antibiotics in such a short time frame

They cannot, no evolution is involed as discussed elsewhere in this thread. They must contain wihtin them the necessary information to enable the resistance beforehand, there is no opportuinity to evolve it by any mechanism ever propoed as evolutionary. They'd all take too long apart from just plain not working. If your code doesn't contain a DrawLine Function that can handle differing screen resolutions you're not going to get one by waving a magnet over your hard disk, not even if you wave it for a million years over a billion hard disks simultaneously, even if you do throw away a random selection of those that don't work every now and again. :)

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Oakman]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Take no notice of my concept of God, it is inadequate, as am I, to begin to describe what the almighty is like.

'Twould be easier to ignore if you spent less bandwidth posting about it, end without end.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Much the same was no doubt said by the Pharisees who knew their scriptures at least as well as you

They had less to study.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

understood them even less

You need to spend some time studying the history of Judea.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

There is clearly John the Baptist and Moses gets a mention but who is this word he talks about?

We really should refer to "Logos" which doesn't exactly mean "word" (Could that be an error???) but is what the Greek author of John used. This is, of course, the section of the New Testament that was used to place Yeshua as an equal the Yaweh. Yaweh was also identified with Logos and so we had the start of the triple-headed god.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[DemonPossessed]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

If your code doesn't contain a DrawLine Function that can handle differing screen resolutions you're not going to get one by waving a magnet over your hard disk, not even if you wave it for a million years over a billion hard disks simultaneously, even if you do throw away a random selection of those that don't work every now and again.

This is a typical creationist error. And one of the most ridiculous misunderstandings of evolution. Evolution does not deal with impossibly improbable single step changes. It deals with cumulative small changes over an extremely long time frame. Extremely small random changes in the offspring of each generation, such as the ones in bacteria that give them resistance to antibiotics allow natural selection to "select" the best suited ones to survive and produce the next generation of offspring. And over an extremely long time scale, this produces big changes, but in a small time scale, it produces small changes.

I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion

[Lost User]

It is called belief, not fact. Different people believe different things. You accept on faith that God created everything; another person may not accept it.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

The clear marks of his design are written all over it for any and every open eye to see, 'so that no one may have an excuse'.

Lots of people have a different opinion. All I have to say is this. You can believe in anything you want. You don't have the right to force it on anyone else. You force it on people, when you ask it to be taught as fact in schools. Teaching christian beliefs have an appropriate means -- Catechism, Sunday school, maybe a religious studies class in school. I hope you understand my point of view.

[Matthew Faithfull]

So you agree that the Logos referred to is the Christ as verse 17 clearly implies. Now in order to then reject the divinity of Christ you must tear apart the entire new Testament, writing off all the bits you don't agree with, reattributing parts to different times and authors and coming up with complex justification for choosing far out interpretations in one place and orthodox ones in another where this choice seem entirely arbitrary. :sigh: Everyone form the Gnostics to the JW's to Steve Chalke has been there before. It all amounts to 'I don't like what the Bible says so I'll write my own'. Which in turn amounts to 'I know better than God', hardly original and its kind of obvious where that road leads. Just for fun why don't you tell me how you take apart ' I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except by me' using 16 different translations, 3 language, 9.5 feet of rope and a fish hook to empty it of meaning and cast doubt on where the comma should go. I can't say I look forward to it fire away.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[leckey 0]

All arguments I have heard against evolution end up revolving in a higher being and religion. So if I can find someone who does not believe in a higher being and they can disprove evolution, then I would consider hearing the argument.

I have a blog for those with a sense of humor. The codeword is "scuttlebutt." http://craptasticnation.blogspot.com/[^]

[eggsovereasy]

Your mom is an infant...

[Al Beback]

Oakman wrote:

Al, Adam and Eve didn't have any daughters.

:omg: Does that mean Eve got busy with her own sons? (I don't care enough to look it up.)

- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus

[Matthew Faithfull]

That if I may say so is a typical pseduo scientific error. Firstly I am not a typical creationist, secondly I'm well aware of the how the theory of evolution is supposed to work i.e. not coming form a position of ignorance as you assume so no need to preach its tennets to me and thirdly as discussed elsewhere in this thread it's wrong. As in, does not work.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Patrick Etc]

I don't understand why you don't just give up. You're the unarmed savage against a well-equipped, advanced Roman army. What is your professional training that might give you even the slightest bit of knowledge in the fields of chemistry and evolutionary biology? It's getting kind of pathetic watching this go on. You're talking about things you know absolutely nothing about, against someone who does this for a living and has extensive education on the subject. First year biology students know more about this subject than you are demonstrating. You believe all sorts of things about how genes behave, except all of them are demonstrably false by repeated proven experiment. Really, this is getting pathetic.

---

It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein

[Matthew Faithfull]

Thomas George wrote:

You don't have the right to force it on anyone else.

Pehaps according to your belief system I don't but what about if according to my belief system I do? Then by doing so I'm doing right and by complaining you're wrong by your own measure as you're trying to force your beliefs on me. This is the fundemental insanity inherant in post-modernist thought. It's not up to me to resolve it, I actually believe what I believe and I believe it universally and consistently so it applies equally to you as to me. If your belief system is discontinuous or inconsistent then applying it in a rational universe is going to present you with some challenges. :)

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Paul Watson]

She grew up. You should too.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

[DemonPossessed]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

That if I may say so is a typical pseduo scientific error.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

As in, does not work.

Are you going to provide any support for your statements or just do like Ilion and pretend that you are assumed to be right?

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

I'm well aware of the how the theory of evolution is supposed to work

Obviously you are not or you would not make the gross error of thinking that the improbability of single step change is evidence against evolution, which deals with cumulative change.

I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion

[Matthew Faithfull]

So you say and yet not one argument I have made has been shot down, the great mountain of hard evidence for the magic information generating mechanism of evolution has turned out to be non existent, most of those claiming expertise have turned out to know less than I do and I never claimed that was very much. Evolution has been dimissed and we have moved on to more interesting topics. you cling to your primitive beliefs if you wish but they will produce nothing but technical dead ends, philosophical black holes and social disintegration. I understand fully why you post empty insults but it doesn't make you any less wrong.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Matthew Faithfull]

As you're clearly an expert tell me now, if a single step has a probability of X and another subsequent step a probability of Y. How do you calculate the probability of X occuring and then Y occuring. I look forward to seeing how this comes out as more probable than just X occuring Feel free to be as cumulative as you like in your answer if that's the magic you believe in :laugh:

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Tim Craig]

73Zeppelin wrote:

I can add you the list of morons on here that aren't worth acknowledging.

You have way too much tolerance, John. :laugh:

2 75 22 6

[DemonPossessed]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

As you're clearly an expert tell me

I don't pretend to be an expert in evolution.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

tell me now, if a single step has a probability of X and another subsequent step a probability of Y. How do you calculate the probability of X occuring and then Y occuring. I look forward to seeing how this comes out as more probable than just X occuring

The way I understand it is this, as the number of genes mutated increases, the number of possible mutations increases exponentially, and only a very small number of these possible mutations is going to give the organism an advantage. Most of the possible mutations will result in lowered chances of survival or death. So given the rate of mutations, it is extremely unlikely that an organism will manage to evolve a very many positive mutations in one generation. But given the exponentially better odds of developing a small change that will be helpful, it is much more likely that this will happen. And by taking small steps this way, one small positive mutation "selected" by natural selection at a time, it is exponentially more likely that X will be reached then by one extremely lucky random mutation.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Feel free to be as cumulative as you like in your answer if that's the magic you believe in [Laugh]

Wow, your understanding of evolution is woefully inadequate for you to be trying to argue against it. Applying a principle (natural selection and cumulative change) that we can observe to explain big changes over long time frames is magic, but believing in a creator speaking everything into existence is logical? :laugh:

I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion

[Ilion]

leckey wrote:

All arguments I have heard against evolution end up revolving in a higher being and religion. So if I can find someone who does not believe in a higher being and they can disprove evolution, then I would consider hearing the argument.

The assertion shows either that you're intellectually dishonest or that you didn't look very hard. And, since you have no clue what you mean by "evolution," how would you know that you'd ever encountered a "disproof" of it? And, have you ever *really* encountered a proof of "evolution?" Or are you *assuming* it, circularly?

modified on Thursday, May 8, 2008 3:58 PM