Evolution works in mysterious ways

[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

[Lost User]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

but what about if according to my belief system I do?

Good for you. You defend yours, I will defend mine. But, most democracies are based on the premise that governments must not favor one belief system over the other. Attempting to impose one's belief system on another will cause disharmony that may manifest as violent outbursts.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

If your belief system is discontinuous or inconsistent then applying it in a rational universe is going to present you with some challenges.

I have not professed my religious beliefs in any of the posts. I have also not denounced your beliefs. I was just pointing out that democratic systems attempt to reconcile conflicting belief systems (atheism and agnostics included) by not favoring one over another and providing space and opportunity for all to profess their beliefs. A basic requirement for that is not to teach any religious belief as fact in public schools (ones that are funded by tax revenues).

[Matthew Faithfull]

DemonPossessed wrote:

it is extremely unlikely that an organism will manage to evolve a very many positive mutations in one generation.

In fact it is extremely unlikely that an organism will evolve any positive mutations in one generation and then the probability of them surviving is reduced in every generation by the chance of their effect being undone by far more common negative mutations. The chances of two single mutations, both positive and cumulatively positive accumulating in one organism are exponentially less and then even less likely to survive because the target for random damage is now twice as big and so on and so on until you find that the few hundred tiny differences supposed to exist between a pliocence era horse and modern one are so unlikely you're talking 1/number-of-atoms-in-the-universe and then some. In fact so unlikely that spontaneous generation of the whole horse at once through quantum fluctuations is actually more likely. And that just to get a horse form un ugly horse in a hundred million years. To get a full blown mammal even a tiny one from a single celled proto organism, well you'd be writing zero's on every quark in the universe and you'd run out.

DemonPossessed wrote:

but believing in a creator speaking everything into existence is logical?

No its fundamental, which entirely trumps logic which is always derivative

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

[Matthew Faithfull]

On the operation of a peaceful democracy I agree with you. That you haven't let slip a belief is I think doubtful, you just don't acknowledge it as such. "You can't impose your beliefs on others" is not different in its imperative or restrictive nature from "Thou shalt not kill". The main difference is that it is internally contradictory as by stating it you are denying it, clever that. There ought to be a term for statements that explicitly or implicitly deny themselves. :)

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

[DemonPossessed]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

In fact it is extremely unlikely that an organism will evolve any positive mutations in one generation and then the probability of them surviving is reduced in every generation by the chance of their effect being undone by far more common negative mutations.

This is disproven because we can observe bacteria and insects evolving resistance to pesticides and antibiotics because of evolutionary processes on a small scale.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

The chances of two single mutations, both positive and cumulatively positive accumulating in one organism are exponentially less and then even less likely to survive because the target for random damage is now twice as big and so on and so on until you find that the few hundred tiny differences supposed to exist between a pliocence era horse and modern one are so unlikely you're talking 1/number-of-atoms-in-the-universe and then some.

Wrong. If organisms with a certain small positive change are more likely to survive then ones without that change, over time organisms with that small mutation will be the norm in a species, then from there organisms with another positive change will be selected by natural selection the same way as before. It is not two random steps in the dark. For instance, using the bacteria example again, if natural selection was truly random, which it is not, what are the odds of bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics?

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

In fact so unlikely that spontaneous generation of the whole horse at once through quantum fluctuations is actually more likely. And that just to get a horse form un ugly horse in a hundred million years. To get a full blown mammal even a tiny one from a single celled proto organism, well you'd be writing zero's on every quark in the universe and you'd run out.

Once again, you fail to understand that cumulative change by natural selection is not random.

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

[Ilion]

Paul Watson wrote:

Reason is what we base everything on.

This isn't actually true as a general rule; quite opposite, in fact. And, on a personal level, I've encountered only one atheist trying to be reasonable and rational ... and his fellow 'atheists' would have none of it ... and I encountered him personally precisely because I "went out of my way" to register at Internet Infidels (or, as I like to call it, "Invincible Ignorance") so that I could try to give him a spot of encouragement to act as a counter to the visciousness of his fellow 'atheists.'

Paul Watson wrote:

I do admit atheists can be difficult to reason with however as we tend to have been quoted the Bible as valid points against our arguments. We grow weary with scripture and do not always give enough time and respect to every Jesus freak who comes along.

'Atheists' "can be difficult to reason with" precisely because they tend to be irrational and unreasonable persons. The flaw is within the 'atheists' themselves; it has nothing to do with the local concentration of Jesus Freaks. For example, I *never* throw the Bible at you people ... but you all continuously claim I do. All the arguments and claims I make are drawn entirely on what you people claim to "base everything on" ... and you all still act like vampires encountering garlic. Or crosses.

[73Zeppelin]

That's good to know, I thought I had basically none! He did accuse me of berating people unnecessarily... :-\

[73Zeppelin]

Patrick S wrote:

I don't understand why you don't just give up.

Are you kidding? Did you see the exercise in momentous frustration I had to endure before the Grand Idiot finally shut up about the origin of atmospheric oxygen? I don't particularly like to swear, but it was absolutely fucking ridiculous that I had to go through that to prove something that was obvious from the beginning. Understand that these two don't understand reality the way you and I understand reality.

[Matthew Faithfull]

DemonPossessed wrote:

This is disproven because we can observe bacteria and insects evolving resistance to pesticides and antibiotics because of evolutionary processes on a small scale.

No we do not, where do you get the idea that these traits are evolved?

DemonPossessed wrote:

Wrong. If organisms with a certain small positive change are more likely to survive then ones without that change, over time organisms with that small mutation will be the norm in a species, then from there organisms with another positive change will be selected by natural selection the same way as before. It is not two random steps in the dark.

Wrong, you can't take the good wihtout the bad, every surviving organism however selective you are will always carry more detrimental mutations than positive ones however many positive ones it has, by the time your fly has evolved a leg it will have lost its wings and be blind in one eye. No good saying then it will be selected out because there goes your half eveolved leg, selecte dout with it. no good saying there'll be another fly along wiht the same positive mutations because it will carry its own overload of negative mutations. In practice of course by the time you've go this sort of large scale change by mutation you've wrecked the species and its gone extinct.

DemonPossessed wrote:

Once again, you fail to understand that cumulative change by natural selection is not random.

:laugh: So you add random to random and get not-random now that would be magic indeed if it wasn't nonsense. The non random nature of the selection does not reduce the randomness of the mutation. Every time it occurs it's random. Every time it occurs you're firing a bullet at your mechano construction, 1 in many millions it sticks and makes it stronger but by the time you've fired that many bullets there's nothing left to stick to. If you throw out every structure when it start to get badly damaged you just run out structures, however many you've got, because you can't make any less damaged than the previous generation.

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

[Paul Watson]

Ilíon, please don't think that because I am an aethist that I am part of some greater movement or that I have fellow atheists around me or that I go to gatherings or visit atheist websites or any such thing. I barely got through the God Dellusion. I dislike radical atheists and dislike what many atheists are doing; repeating the mistakes of religion (radicalism, vitriol, arrogance, ignorance etc.) In the context of this thread Matthew said that I cannot be moral as I have no God to give me moral guidance. That is insulting and arrogant. If you believe that too then you are also arrogant and you are insulting me (not aethiest, you are just insulting me. If other aethiests want to be insulted by it then fine but I don't claim they are.) Another thing, as I am soon to be a father; your belief is overt while what I believe is not. My children won't be brought up as atheists, just good people. If they choose faith over reason then fine. But in a Christian household children are brought up as Christians and have to choose to get out. Opt out vs. opt in. And you cannot refute this; Christian children are christened at an age where they do not understand what is going on. That is so wrong I find it hard to tolerate. And I am not "you people" just as you are not "you people." We're both guys trying to live the best lives we can in the way we see fit.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

[73Zeppelin]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

So you say and yet not one argument I have made has been shot down,

Dear God, I'm having flashbacks... :omg: :wtf: :wtf: :omg: :omg: X|

[DemonPossessed]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Wrong, you can't take the good wihtout the bad, every surviving organism however selective you are will always carry more detrimental mutations than positive ones however many positive ones it has, by the time your fly has evolved a leg it will have lost its wings and be blind in one eye. No good saying then it will be selected out because there goes your half eveolved leg, selecte dout with it. no good saying there'll be another fly along wiht the same positive mutations because it will carry its own overload of negative mutations. In practice of course by the time you've go this sort of large scale change by mutation you've wrecked the species and its gone extinct.

You are just re-wording the same argument that I have addressed several times and getting more and more ridiculous. The random mutations that we are talking about are not on the scale of a leg or wing. :rolleyes: Clearly, you don't want to really try to understand what I am explaining and most every scientist and science book author can explain much better.

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

[Matthew Faithfull]

73Zeppelin wrote:

Understand that these two don't understand reality the way you and I understand reality.

Hey, you said something true, take a bow. :rose: :laugh: :rose:

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

[Lost User]

My point is simple. Any belief system that does not recognize the right of others to hold a different belief is undemocratic. People with differing beliefs cannot coexist without this imposition. There cannot be unrestricted freedom for everyone. On the other hand, if you do not see much value in such co-existence, or if imposing your beliefs on others is very important to you, you are free to do that too. But, people will try to stop you from stepping on them. That is exactly the problem with radical Islam -- they cannot tolerate people who do not agree with them.

[DemonPossessed]

73Zeppelin wrote:

Understand that these two don't understand reality the way you and I understand reality.

Obviously, I have been talking to Matthew Faithfull for a over an hour now and he still can't (or refuses to) grasp that natural selection is not random and that evolution does not deal with impossibly improbable single step changes.

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