Evolution works in mysterious ways

[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

[Matthew Faithfull]

DemonPossessed wrote:

random mutations that we are talking about are not on the scale of a leg or wing.

And if they never reach that scale then those things cannot evolve, making my point precisely. Your insistence that I don't understand you is going nowhere, I comprehend what you're saying perfectly well I simply disagree with it. You conclusions do not follow from your arguments, you're saying I've got 2 and 2 of course I can make 5 and I'm saying no you can't. The fact that 5 exists simply proves it did not come about by the combination of 2 and 2. I do not require a clearer explanation of the process of addition I understand it and its consequences, in this case you clearly don't. :rolleyes:

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

[DemonPossessed]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

And if they never reach that scale then those things cannot evolve, making my point precisely.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: I never said that they cannot reach that scale, just that they cannot reach that scale in one mutation. The fact that you thought that was an argument proves my point.

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

[Matthew Faithfull]

Thomas George wrote:

Any belief system that does not recognize the right of others to hold a different belief is undemocratic.

Agreed. I have no problem with that as religion is clearly more fundamental than democracy and believe me I'm a democrat.

Thomas George wrote:

People with differing beliefs cannot coexist without this imposition

They can as long as the belief systems include that you should treat others as well as yourself despite their lack of a right to behave the way they do and let God be their judge. Hence Christianity can co-exist peacefully for its part anywhere except in a radical post-modernist sciety which imposes it's belief that you should not actually beileve in your beliefs, i.e. you should live a lie and believe nothing. we have not quite reached that situation in the west yet but there are many who would welcome it.

Thomas George wrote:

There cannot be unrestricted freedom for everyone.

I think you mean license and no there can never be unrestricted license for everyone ever, anywhere, even in an entirely post-moderinst belief denying distopia.

Thomas George wrote:

That is exactly the problem with radical Islam

It is one of the problems with radical Islam a close second after it being completely wrong perhaps.

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

[Matthew Faithfull]

No, I said they cannot reach that scale and you failed to provide any argument as to why they can. I never at any stage talked about them reaching that scale in one mutation that was your false assumption. You persist in the 'your an idiot' line of argument entirely at your own expense. It detracts from your already weak argument and just makes you look foolish.

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

[DemonPossessed]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

No, I said they cannot reach that scale and you failed to provide any argument as to why they can.

Yes, I did. 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. And 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.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

. I never at any stage talked about them reaching that scale in one mutation that was your false assumption.

You said it was equally probable 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 Now I could keep on copying and pasting my rebuttals to your same argument that you will no doubt re-word again, but I am going to let you have the last word.

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

[Oakman]

Al Beback wrote:

Does that mean Eve got busy with her own sons

Nope. It turns out that there were some "Sons of men" living nearby for the "Sons of God" to cohabit with. No real explantion of where they came from - but then again there is some kind of a reference to Adam's first wife (Lilith) so maybe she had a litter.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Matthew Faithfull]

DemonPossessed wrote:

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.

Which is nonsense.

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.

Which is also nonsense.

DemonPossessed wrote:

You said it was equally probable

No I did not. I asked you to admit that a long chain of contingent proababilities gets exponentially less likely with each step. You did not because that would mean macro evolution was impossible. There is no last word on this because you cannot accept that your religious faith in a discredited barmy theory is undermined. Say what you will, I have to get dinner. :)

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

[73Zeppelin]

:rolleyes:

[73Zeppelin]

DemonPossessed wrote:

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.

Enjoyable isn't it?

[73Zeppelin]

I know you're trying to be civil. Don't say I didn't warn you when you get a reply.

[Christian Graus]

Well, that's a contradiction, evolution is the default position of an athiest, that goes without saying.

Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )

[Christian Graus]

Oakman wrote:

The quote regarding Giants is directly from the Bible, as I am sure you know.

Yes, I do know that. I meant the young earth bit. My point really, was that I saw in the paper that 'the platypus proves evolution'. It really doesn't. If you accept the basic premise then working within that premise, the platypus does not disprove it, and can be made to fit. The same is true for those who believe in a young earth ( I don't, as I think I made clear ). So, I guess my point was more about the media presenting things that people will blindly accept, that are plainly not true.

Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )

[Oakman]

Christian Graus wrote:

So, I guess my point was more about the media presenting things that people will blindly accept, that are plainly not true.

Absolutely. I have been twitting Mr. Faithful about his limited understanding of Evolution, but in fact the Creationists have no worse an understanding of the Theory of Evolution than the popular media - which seems to think that there is intelligent design, just done by a god named 'Evolution.' Their talk about higher beings and 'top of the evolutionary ladder,' etc. sounds like Revelations.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Christian Graus]

Yes, at the core, the main problem is that most people don't understand evolution at all - a recent issue of Scientific American talked about this at length. I am certain that most creationists are arguing with a straw man, not with what the theory actually states, and as certain that the man in the street thinks that what they argue against is true, that fish decide to grow legs, etc.

Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )

[DemonPossessed]

73Zeppelin wrote:

Enjoyable isn't it?

Absolutely. Ilion and Matthew Faithfull make up ridiculous arguments faster then someone can do the homework to prove them wrong and call rebuttals "nonsense" or "foolish" without any explanation. And they always pretend to be assumed right, and use that as a starting point for most of their "arguments".

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