Zero probability for Evolution

[metis]

There's simply no evidence this works.
In fact, one has to suspend common sense to believe it could.

See above.

Fortunately, science doesn't depend on those who come in with a predetermined opinion based on faith alone. As an anthropologist, we learn that we simply must temporarily put faith off to the side when dealing with the scientific method, but then the best personal thing to do is to take objective evidence and then try to "mesh" the two.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That manipulation by humans. Not evolution. We are doing the selecting not nature.

If evolution weren't a fact of reality, then artificial selection (where humans do the selecting of traits) wouldn't work either. And yet it does.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There's simply no evidence this works.
In fact, one has to suspend common sense to believe it could.
"To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!"

Quote mining is the lowest and most dishonest form of argumentation.
I suggest you stop reverting to it, if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Revoltingest]

If evolution weren't a fact of reality, then artificial selection (where humans do the selecting of traits) wouldn't work either. And yet it does.

From their view (as I understand it), there's a barrier
between species. We can make changes up to a point.
Then something prevents emergence of a new species.
But I've yet to see any non-biblical basis for this claim.

 

[ratiocinator]

From their view (as I understand it), there's a barrier
between species. We can make changes up to a point.
Then something prevents emergence of a new species.

Except that speciation is now so well documented (and there are ring species) that even creationists can't deny it in some cases, so we get the nebulous concept of 'kind' that might be some higher classification that includes more than one species.

Just try asking for a definition, though. As far as I can see, if the evidence of relatedness between two (or more) species is so blindingly obvious that even creationists can't deny it, then they are the same kind, otherwise, they are different and 'obviously' it's impossible for them to be related.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except that speciation is now so well documented (and there are ring species) that even creationists can't deny it in some cases, so we get the nebulous concept of 'kind' that might be some higher classification that includes more than on species.

Anything can be denied....or believed.
And sources can be found to justify beliefs.

Echo chamber example...
My helper here is convinced that people are dying
left & right from Covid caccines, but the danger of
Covid itself is overblown.
Even though his own sister died from Covid, & he
knows no one who died from a vaccine, his rightish
Christian talk radio shows convince him.

 

[Wildswanderer]

When one lets religious faith dominate objective science, it no longer is science. I positively can guarantee you that he cannot use the "scientific method" to establish Divine creation as the latter is a matter of faith, not objectively-derived evidence. If it were the latter, it would have been broadcast every day of the week to prove God exists.

In brief, he simply is no longer working from a scientific paradigm.

And you would be totally wrong.

 

[metis]

And you would be totally wrong.

LOL! Is that why I have a graduate degree in anthropology and taught it for 30 years?

I have shown you several links to prove my points, and yet all you do is to throw out opinions based on 0 scientific confirmations except from one geneticist that sacrificed his science and, frankly, the Truth itself.

Science is about trying to ascertain what the Truth is through objective means, but you are making it abundantly clear that this is not what you're willing to deal with. Thus, this is what is called having a "blind faith". However, I do grant that you do have that as a right.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If evolution weren't a fact of reality, then artificial selection (where humans do the selecting of traits) wouldn't work either. And yet it does.

That's nonsense. You are giving nature the abilities only intelligence beings have.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And you would be totally wrong.

He would be spot on.
You are not operating from a scientific perspective nor are you able to use the scientific method to establish divine creation, or you would have done so by now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's nonsense. You are giving nature the abilities only intelligence beings have.

Your response is nonsense. What I said is a statement of factual reality. In natural selection, an organism's environment does the "selecting" of traits (those animals with best fitted to their environment can survive long enough to pass their genetic information onto their offspring), and when it comes to artificial selection, it's humans doing the selecting of traits. If evolution weren't a fact of realty, then human beings should not be able to select traits and breed animals for those traits. And yet human beings have been doing that with various animals, plants, fruits, etc. for thousands of years.


Read my post again, and think about it this time.

 

[ratiocinator]

Anything can be denied....or believed.

Indeed so, but there's only so many people you can fool when you're way out line with reality. Even well known purveyors of creationist misinformation, Answers in Genesis, have backed off from a kind being a species (in most cases):

Creation scientists use the word baramin to refer to created kinds ... Baramin is commonly believed to be at the level of family and possibly order for some plants/animals (according to the common classification scheme of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). On rare occasions, a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels.

-- What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?​

 

[ratiocinator]

That's nonsense. You are giving nature the abilities only intelligence beings have.

Of course not. Nature does all the work of actually changing the population in artificial selection too. All the people do is choose the traits they like, which is exactly the equivalent of putting the population in an environment and only those with traits that aid survival being able to pass their genes to the next generation.

 

[Polymath257]

That's nonsense. You are giving nature the abilities only intelligence beings have.

Are you saying that survival doesn't depend (in part) on genetics? And are you disputing that if organism dies, it doesn't pass on its genetics?

 

[Wildswanderer]

He would be spot on.
You are not operating from a scientific perspective nor are you able to use the scientific method to establish divine creation, or you would have done so by now.

That sounds like an athiests dream. That way a creationist can never be right about anything even though he is.
You can always claim he was influenced by his religion. But in reality the same applies to athiests refusing to see obvious design in the universe because it might lead them to seeing God's work.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Your response is nonsense. What I said is a statement of factual reality. In natural selection, an organism's environment does the "selecting" of traits (those animals with best fitted to their environment can survive long enough to pass their genetic information onto their offspring), and when it comes to artificial selection, it's humans doing the selecting of traits. If evolution weren't a fact of realty, then human beings should not be able to select traits and breed animals for those traits. And yet human beings have been doing that with various animals, plants, fruits, etc. for thousands of years.


Read my post again, and think about it this time.

But not by random actions! Nature can not select anything. Nature doesn't say: I will keep my horse protected from predators and storms so that it can produce offspring... Nature is luck of the draw.

 

[ecco]

"To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!"

But not by random actions! Nature can not select anything. Nature doesn't say: I will keep my horse protected from predators and storms so that it can produce offspring... Nature is luck of the draw.

You post a cut and paste quote from someone making a strawman argument...

billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt​

...and then you knock it down. Congratulations!

You've been on RF for a month. Do you really think that none of your fellow creationists haven't used that same silly tactic many times over the years?

Your cut and paste is not only a silly strawman it is also a blatant falsehood. No Darwinist accepts that billions of cells randomly arranged themselves into a complex organism.

I'm pretty sure that the source of your copied quote knows he was propagating a lie. Now you also know it is a lie, if you didn't already.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That sounds like an athiests dream. That way a creationist can never be right about anything even though he is.
You can always claim he was influenced by his religion. But in reality the same applies to athiests refusing to see obvious design in the universe because it might lead them to seeing God's work.

Whether it's anyone's dream or not, it appears to be how you are operating here. You are definitely not employing the scientific method, when it comes to your beliefs.

You could be right about a lot of things, if only you could demonstrate them. You could very easily prove that poster's statements wrong by posting evidence and clear demonstrations of the veracity of your claims, you know, like scientists do. So, were you planning on doing that or .... ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

But not by random actions! Nature can not select anything. Nature doesn't say: I will keep my horse protected from predators and storms so that it can produce offspring... Nature is luck of the draw.

You do not understand evolution.
And even worse, it appears that you do not want to actually understand evolution, because I've seen several posters explain this to you in great detail, and yet you're just repeating yourself again.
I do not believe you are arguing this subject in good faith.

 

[sayak83]

But not by random actions! Nature can not select anything. Nature doesn't say: I will keep my horse protected from predators and storms so that it can produce offspring... Nature is luck of the draw.

A deer that, by some genetic mutation, have a sharper hearing that makes it better in sensing a leopard from far off WILL produce more offsprings than others because it will live longer.
That is NATURAL selection.