Zero probability for Evolution

[tas8831]

You are missing the big picture. How can an ant design anything if it's not designed itself? Or a beaver? Nothing that operates with that level of precision came about by accident.

Cool assertion devoid of evidence - but do tell us who 'designed' your creator deity of the Hebrews...

 

[Polymath257]

You are missing the big picture. How can an ant design anything if it's not designed itself? Or a beaver? Nothing that operates with that level of precision came about by accident.

The opposite of 'designed' is not 'accidental'. perhaps that is your basic mistake. The opposite of 'designed' is 'not designed'. The opposite of 'accidental' is 'intentional'.;

The ant can 'design' because it is a living thing that interacts with its environment to maximize the survival of its genes. That inevitably leads to patterns and structures because the laws of mathematics and physics show certain structures are optimal and others are not.

Not to mention that the laws of the universe are necessary for life to exist. But they aren’t sufficient to explain how life came about. The origin of life requires a massive infusion of information, which can only be explained by intelligent design.

Wrong again. What is information? think about it. It is simply the result of causality on some event. The later, caused, event is then information about the previous, causing, event. Information is made all the time all around you. There is no 'conservation of information'.

The information required for life is inherent in the 'information' that comes along with the structure and properties of the atoms that make up the molecules of life. So, for example, the hydrogen atoms that attach to the oxygen atom in water promote what are called hydrogen bonds (go figure) and those bonds are what give the nice properties of water, including the high boiling point and the fact that ice floats. The information is inherent in the structure of the water molecule.

In the same way, the information of life is in the chemistry of the molecules that make up life. And those molecules obey *exactly* the same laws of chemistry as every other atom and molecule in the universe. The information of life increases every time there is survival of one line versus another. That is the nature of information.

And then there's your own body.

"T]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.… Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts."
(U.S. National Academy of Sciences Bruce Albert)

Yes, it is a good metaphor (or simile). But, there are many aspects of the 'machines' in biological systems that show them NOT to have been designed. For example, in a designed system, each part has exactly one or two roles that it specializes in. In biological systems, the same molecule can play multiple roles, even different ones in different cells. This is the result of the way evolution tweaks and plays with what is already there, as opposed to completely inventing new systems, like would happen in a designed system.

It *is* possible to distinguish design and lack thereof. And, when looked at closely, the structures and patterns of biological systems are clearly NOT designed by an intelligent designer. At best, they are cobbled together by a tinkerer that modifies what is already there: evolution does exactly that.

 

[tas8831]

"T]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.… Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts."
(U.S. National Academy of Sciences Bruce Albert)

Weird...

[T]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.… Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.

(Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell, 92 (February 6, 1998): 291–294)​

It is almost as if you tried to hide your copy-pasting plagiarism of Casey Blumpkin be changing the accolades at the end and deleting but 1 of the square brackets.

I have to wonder if creationists are incapable of coming up with their own material at all, or are most of you just lazy and ignorant...

 

[tas8831]

Either this applies equally to your god, you'll need special pleading, or we're off into an infinite regress.



You really should give this plagiarism up. It's blindingly obvious now when you're not using your own words (they show slightly more sophistication and understanding than you've shown yourself). Changing a few words doesn't help.

The laws of the universe are necessary for life to exist. But they aren’t sufficient to explain how life arose. The origin of life requires a massive infusion of information, which can only be explained by intelligent design.

-- The Top Six Lines of Evidence for Intelligent Design​

And you got this quote from the same page.

This thread is a gold mine for finding dishonest and likely incompetent creationists plagiarizing (i.e., breaking the forum rules) left and right. Their Deity must be so proud.

 

[Polymath257]

Lol, that makes morality completely subjective. If my tribes survival is ensured by killing you, it would be the moral thing to do. If you are weak, this is especially true because we would not want your weak genes to weaken the entire tribe.

OK, so morality is subjective, to some extent. That is no surprise.

But it has an objective component: survival is an objective thing. Those rules of society that promote survival over the long term are moral.

Weakness is a complex thing, just like strength is. So, a member might not be a good hunter, but they might be an excellent fire starter. Someone may be weak physically but quite strong mentally. It isn't just physical strength that is relevant; it is anything that can help the survival of those in the society.

True weakness comes from those unable to contribute in any way. And yes, those members tend to get thrown out: in today's society, they get sent to jail, or mental institutions. Or you see them out on the street. But those who are completely unable to contribute are quite rare: usually a bit of education and some help will allow them to do something.

 

[tas8831]

It's pointless to have a conversation with people who are already programmed to reject anything a creationist says. Your evolution religion makes you close minded.

Maybe if you people could be honest and stop copy-pasting the thoughts of your professional propagandist heroes while trying to pass it off as your own arguments.... maybe that could be a start.

 

[Jose Fly]

Since my parents were staunch fundamentalist Protestants, they were not at all happy at first when I married a very devout Catholic-- until they got to know her. However, they never bought into the anti-science agenda of their church.

Well that's good. My folks pretty much believed all of it.

Thank you.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You really should give this plagiarism up. It's blindingly obvious now when you're not using your own words (they show slightly more sophistication and understanding than you've shown yourself). Changing a few words doesn't help.

Lol, so that's your answer? Because I don't see an answer.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The information required for life is inherent in the 'information' that comes along with the structure and properties of the atoms that make up the molecules of life.

Which doesn't and can't happen without someone supplying the information to create the structure and properties. You're using circular reasoning. You're saying the information comes from the structure which creates the information.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, it is a good metaphor (or simile). But, there are many aspects of the 'machines' in biological systems that show them NOT to have been designed. For example, in a designed system, each part has exactly one or two roles that it specializes in.

Not necessarily. If I can create a computer program that can do a thousand different tasks that just adds to the evidence that it was created.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I have to wonder if creationists are incapable of coming up with their own material at all, or are most of you just lazy and ignorant...

If you have nothing constructive to add feel free to take a hike.

 

[Wildswanderer]

OK, so morality is subjective, to some extent. That is no surprise.

But it has an objective component: survival is an objective thing. Those rules of society that promote survival over the long term are moral.

Weakness is a complex thing, just like strength is. So, a member might not be a good hunter, but they might be an excellent fire starter. Someone may be weak physically but quite strong mentally. It isn't just physical strength that is relevant; it is anything that can help the survival of those in the society.

True weakness comes from those unable to contribute in any way. And yes, those members tend to get thrown out: in today's society, they get sent to jail, or mental institutions. Or you see them out on the street. But those who are completely unable to contribute are quite rare: usually a bit of education and some help will allow them to do something.

Why don't you just go ahead and admit that there's nothing inherently wrong with murder or rape in your world view?
It would all depend on the circumstances.

 

[tas8831]

If you have nothing constructive to add feel free to take a hike.

Sorry, I do not take orders from plagiarist losers who cannot define the terms they use. Or is it that you plagiarize so much you cannot actually define them, since you just copy paste and try to cover your tracks?

 

[tas8831]

Which doesn't and can't happen without someone supplying the information to create the structure and properties. You're using circular reasoning. You're saying the information comes from the structure which creates the information.

Still bluffing on this "information" fluff. Pity that you are too uninformed of general biology and your reliance on copy-pasting the rantings of propagandists that you cannot defend the tripe you paste.

 

[ratiocinator]

Lol, so that's your answer? Because I don't see an answer.

Plagiarism is a kind of dishonesty - do you really find that funny? I thought the Christian god didn't much approve of dishonesty...

Anyway, there's nothing to answer in the bit you copied and pasted - it's just an unsupported assertion. Feel free to elaborate in your own words, if you want to and can. However, note that the page you plagiarised starts with the Kalam cosmological argument, which is laughable. I wouldn't trust it to help you out.

Talking of not having answers, what's your answer to my point about about an infinite regress if you claim that something that designs things must have been designed?

 

[tas8831]

Lol, so that's your answer? Because I don't see an answer.

FORUM RULES:
7. Quotations and Citations/References
Plagiarism is illegal. All quotations, whether to posts of other members or to material external to RF, should be properly referenced or cited. When quoting other members, use the forum's quote feature so the person and material you are responding to are easily referenced (see Rules 1 and 3 for additional guidelines regarding quoting other members' posts). When quoting material external to RF, even if it is your own, always provide a citation and limit your quotation to a paragraph or two rather than quoting the entire content (see Rule 4 for additional guidelines).

 

[Wildswanderer]

Still bluffing on this "information" fluff. Pity that you are too uninformed of general biology and your reliance on copy-pasting the rantings of propagandists that you cannot defend the tripe you paste.

Like I said, if you have nothing constructive to say...

 

[tas8831]

Why don't you just go ahead and admit that there's nothing inherently wrong with murder or rape in your world view?
It would all depend on the circumstances.

Says the plagiarist "Christian."

 

[tas8831]

Like I said, if you have nothing constructive to say...

So you cannot define the terms you use, Got it.

 

[tas8831]

Just a few points about the now discredited Urey-Miller experiment.

"1 They cheated. They designed the apparatus to separate amino acids from the mix once they were formed. If they hadn’t done that as soon as an amino acid was formed, the next electrical spark may have rearranged the atoms into some other form.

2. The amino acids they did produce were half left-handed and half right-handed, just like you would expect from a random process like electrical sparks in a gas mixture. The trouble is, only left-handed amino acids are used in organisms.

3. Additional molecules were formed other than amino acids. Namely, formaldehyde and cyanide, which are destructive to life".
LETTER: Science shows flaws in Miller-Urey experiment

Wow - added the source you plagiarized from! Pity that you didn't bother to read anything else on the subject...