Challenge to Evolutionsts

[Aasimar]

Aren't there really just 2 choices? God and evolution?

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

Send a PM for the link. Gotta have 15 posts before one can add links to their posts.

Question? What is this probability you speak of, the probability that a single cell would magically spring into existance? Or that it would develop from a smaller slightly less sophisticated organism?

 

[Autodidact]

Aren't there really just 2 choices? God and evolution?

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

Send a PM for the link. Gotta have 15 posts before one can add links to their posts.

1. There is no necessity for a choice between these two, or, to put it differently, there is a third choice, God AND evolution.
2. This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of evolution.
3. Chance does not come into the matter.
4. The probability of a single cell having come into existence is exactly 100%.
5. Due to the law of large numbers, even were your calculation correct, which it is not, and even if it had to rely on the sheer chance, which it does not, it could still come about, as this many chemical combinations would likely occur in over a billion years. After all, a billion is 1,000,000.

 

[Autodidact]

The odds are not irrelevant if it never happened the way science says it did.

Science does not yet know how this happened, although scientists are exploring this interesting research area, which is entirely irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution. (ToE) Do you know what the ToE is?

 

[Autodidact]

Willamena,
If it never happened the way science claims then the odds remain relevant. If it did happen the way science claims then the odds become irrelevant because it has already
happened. In other words it's irrelevant because evolution beat the odds. There is really only creation and science. I'll take creation for myself.

Thereby revealing, as I often remark, that creationists are basically anti-science. I do find it ironic though when they use a computer to post these views. Well, ironic is one term you might use.

 

[camanintx]

Aren't there really just 2 choices? God and evolution?

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

Send a PM for the link. Gotta have 15 posts before one can add links to their posts.

No, this may be the probability of a SPECIFIC SINGLE CELL coming about by chance, but since there are virtually an infinite number of single cell configurations possible, the odds of one of them coming about rise to almost 1.

 

[anders]

I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part. . . . (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.

Soon afterwards, you referred to bacteria, which don't have too many "body parts", so I suppose I could as well.

Nylon-eating bacteria have been widely discussed in the context of the creation-evolution controversy. Organizations critical of creationism and intelligent design, such as the National Center for Science Education, and New Mexicans for Science and Reason (NMSR) have made extensive references to this research in postings on their websites, arguing that this research refutes claims made by creationists and intelligent design proponents, specifically, the statement that random mutation and natural selection can never add new information to a genome, and the statement that the odds against a useful new protein such as an enzyme arising through a process of random mutation would be prohibitively high.[6] [7] Creationists have disputed these conclusions, often citing analysis posted on the Answers in Genesis website that says that this phenomenon was evidence that plasmids in bacteria were a designed feature intended to allow bacteria to adapt easily to new food sources or cope with toxic chemicals.[8] NMSR, among others, has responded by saying that gene duplication and frame shift mutations were powerful sources of random mutation.[9] In particular, proof that it was these mutations that gave rise to nylonase, rather than the process based on plasmids suggested by AiG, has been obtained from DNA sequencing.[10]

I say that we've got a beneficial mutation to a bacterium. There's also a case from Italy on a surprising and benevolent change in what blood lipids cause that should be counted as "body parts" mutation. Try Google, I'm too sleepy.

 

[View from Here]

This seems quite incoherent to me, but I am perhaps influenced by an exhibit on Darwin that I recently saw.

 

[Valjean]

Could you explain your confusion, and what impact a Darwin exhibit might have on it?

 

[yossarian22]

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

No, this may be the probability of a SPECIFIC SINGLE CELL coming about by chance, but since there are virtually an infinite number of single cell configurations possible, the odds of one of them coming about rise to almost 1.

It appears that both sides of this debate lack a rudimentary knowledge of probability...

 

[Valjean]

I know that the probability of your particular alarm clock being the color and design it is, set as it is, in the time and location it is, with your particular fingerprints on it, &c, is decillions to one -- yet there it is...

Just about every particular thing is wildly improbable. This is not evidence of its non-existence.

 

[Random]

I know that the probability of your particular alarm clock being the color and design it is, set as it is, in the time and location it is, with your particular fingerprints on it, &c, is decillions to one -- yet there it is...

Just about every particular thing is wildly improbable. This is not evidence of its non-existence.

Excellent. :yes:

 

[Searcher_of_truth]

I dont see your point, you want an example of how one mutation has a benifical effect that causes a species to survive? How is this, during the black death, the most common way to die was due to dehydration, from vomiting and diareah, people whith the single recesive alleal for cystic fibrosis are significantly more resistant to those two symptoms, thus a large percentage of people survives with this alleal, this is why 50000 people in the uk have cysic fibrosis and one in 20 people have the cysic fibrosis gene.

Now you might say how is this a benificial effect, well it's benificial because 1 in 20 people (at least) are alive who wouldnt be had they not had the gene.(it is probaly much much higher because of population growth) while 1/1600 people have cystic fibrosis, this is only the case BECAUSE it is beneficial

 

[astarath]

I dont see your point, you want an example of how one mutation has a benifical effect that causes a species to survive? How is this, during the black death, the most common way to die was due to dehydration, from vomiting and diareah, people whith the single recesive alleal for cystic fibrosis are significantly more resistant to those two symptoms, thus a large percentage of people survives with this alleal, this is why 50000 people in the uk have cysic fibrosis and one in 20 people have the cysic fibrosis gene.

Now you might say how is this a benificial effect, well it's benificial because 1 in 20 people (at least) are alive who wouldnt be had they not had the gene.(it is probaly much much higher because of population growth) while 1/1600 people have cystic fibrosis, this is only the case BECAUSE it is beneficial

You are actually claiming that someone who has cystic fibrosis is blessed. If evolutions latest strain of "improvements" is inseting maladies into the gene pool.

 

[astarath]

Count me out!

 

[camanintx]

You are actually claiming that someone who has cystic fibrosis is blessed.

You don't think it's a good thing to have survived the plague?

 

[astarath]

At what cost. Would you gladly accept getting cancer if it cured aids?

 

[astarath]

As well evolution occurs gradually over extended periods of time if that is my understanding not immediately to specific incidences. Or are you saying eventually every human will evolve the cystic fibrosis gene?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are actually claiming that someone who has cystic fibrosis is blessed.

You may wish to devote more time and effort to reading comprehension.

 

[Aasimar]

As well evolution occurs gradually over extended periods of time if that is my understanding not immediately to specific incidences. Or are you saying eventually every human will evolve the cystic fibrosis gene?

Evolution does not have a goal in mind, you're thinking too much like it has intent. Let's say you live in an African Jungle. Your family has lived there for countless generations, and everyone has about a 20% chance of dying from malaria. Somewhere along the line a mutation occurs (Sickle-Cell Anemia) which makes someone highly resistant to malaria. Their odds of dying from malaria is about 1%. Now that genetic line is much better adapted to survive in that environment, because the chances of dying from Sickle-Cell Anemia are outweighed by the benefit of not dying from malaria. Now remove them from that environment, they still have the anemia but malaria is no longer present. Now they are at a disadvantage due to slightly higher mortality rate due to sickle-cell anemia but no benefit due to there being no malaria to combat. Their family line is dwarfed by the non-sickled celled lines.

Now the actualy Sickle-Cell trait is more complicated then that, this was just for illustration. Evolution does not "Improve you." It just causes those who are best suited to survive in a given environment to thrive. Removed from that environment, the trait can turn negative and wipe out the strain. There is no forethought in it. The process of mutation is random, but the process of evolution is not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are actually claiming that someone who has cystic fibrosis is blessed. If evolutions latest strain of "improvements" is inseting maladies into the gene pool.

Count me out!

Too late. You're already in.

As well evolution occurs gradually over extended periods of time if that is my understanding not immediately to specific incidences. Or are you saying eventually every human will evolve the cystic fibrosis gene?

No. Using the same example (which I hadn't heard about before - thanks, Searcher_of_truth), if the black death were to happen again, lots of people would die, but the rate at which people with the CF gene were dying would be less than the rate at which people without it would be dying (though plenty of people would die in both groups). This would tend to increase the frequency of the CF gene.

If the black death was 100% effective at killing people without the gene and 0% effective for people with the gene, then yes, theoretically, if the black death went on long enough, you might end up with nobody left without the gene. In practice, this wouldn't happen for a few reasons:

- when a disease spreads, some people in the population avoid infection. If you aren't infected by the plague in the first place, what genes you have is irrelevant - you won't die of it.

- some people who get the plague and who do not have the CF gene do survive.

- some people (most, in fact) who get the plague and who do have the CF gene do not survive.

- diseases are limited in scope and duration. Once the plague has subsided, people from non-infected areas would presumably come back in and start inter-breeding with the local population.