Entropy contradict Evolution

[MacM]

MacM,



So "true intelligence" occurs if one sees that Darwins evolution could make sense,

No actually Einstein said it quite well. A sign of intelligence is being able to change ones mind about major issue during their life. 786 has shown an ability to realize perhaps he should look further before coming to such a conclusion that he expressed.

whether or not there are facts to support it?
I doubt that very much.

Only because you choose to not consider the evidence and mathematics. You are still looking at the unimaginable complexiety without looking at the even greater number of opportunities to have fullfill those results based on mutation, etc.

There's nothing to convert to.
You believe Darwins idea.
Then what?

I don't see your problem here. If one has a workable concept what conversion would you want?

 

[James R]

Jan:

The thing is, [Creationists] don't have any reason to promote propaganda (some anyway).

Of course they do. The theory of evolution threatens their stance that every word of the bible is the literal truth. Obviously, they are going to fight any idea which goes against their fundamentalist beliefs.

There is no reason to support Darwins ideas, because it has no effect upon the human psyche.

Forget the human psyche; what about defending the truth? Would you rather live with a comfortable delusion, or know the truth?

Taking another tack, I do not agree with you that the theory of evolution has no effect on the psyche. It was one of the pivotal steps in human beings learning their place in the universe, rather than thinking they are the most important thing there is.

Darwins theory of evolution serves a different purpose, and that is to act as an opposition to God.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not in opposition to God. It says nothing about God.

 

[MacM]

Forget the human psyche; what about defending the truth? Would you rather live with a comfortable delusion, or know the truth?

Now this statement should be applied more broadly I would think.

Taking another tack, I do not agree with you that the theory of evolution has no effect on the psyche. It was one of the pivotal steps in human beings learning their place in the universe, rather than thinking they are the most important thing there is.

The problem is the fundalmentalist and creationists have never learned that.

They still believe that in all this enormous universe, our non-descript galaxy of Brillions of galaxies, our insignifigant solar sytem among the billions of stars in our galaxy (with enumberable other planetary systems), our earth as an insignifigant speck in the universe and man one of millions of living organisims here and surely in untold trillions of other places in the universe, that man and man alone is Gods purpose.

What is that purpose? To please him of course. Some plan. Indeed.

Darwins theory of evolution serves a different purpose, and that is to act as an opposition to God.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not in opposition to God. It says nothing about God.

Just who told you that God isn't still in the creating business via evolution? Are you so bent on thinking you know Gods mind that we therefore must have come from Adam and Eve.?

Do you believe in Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, Sandman, Tooth Fairy and Boggyman as well?

 

[b0urgeoisie]

b0urgeoisie,Where did i go?

You were on another thread. And, yes you were losing that debate too.

Of course he's smart, just see how he's got your backs up.

Who's back is up? I know that the truth can't be changed by what people say. I know the truth. So if you, or any other person, get out of line, it won't bother me. I'll tell you the truth if you want it. But, if you want to stick your fingers in your ears, go right ahead.

Please demonstrate what qualifies you to make this statement about progressiveness!

Do your homework. "I don't have time to teach you separate from the rest of the class."

Hmmmm! Mountain of knowledge heh? You mean like the mountain of knowledge you laid down with regards to the evolution of the eye?

Exactly! I answered the question about the eyes. If you don't like the answer, then I can't help that. But, I showed exactly how the eye evolved.

It is a good thing to have a high opinion of oneself, but it is only of value if the opinion is actually warrented. Let that be your lesson for today.

I'm smarter than you. I'm OK with it. You should learn to be OK with it too. Judging from how you have handled yourself, I would guess that you are not even very smart. So our relationship should come very natural to you.
(Psst. Don't look now but... you should run a spell check when you are trying to look smart.)

There is nothing wrong with asking questions and expecting answers to them, which is all he has done, but has yet to get any serious answers.

He got serious answers. He was flooded with serious answers. He was surprised by the avalanche of answers and has decided to rethink his position. He may decide the same as before. But, he is too smart to stay wrong forever.

That is a silly assumption to make.
If the eye evolved and you know it did, then show it, don't blame someone for not reading.

I tried to show you. But, you could not understand what you were looking at. So you must read!

Remember, not everyone can read. Or don't they count?

Please let me know if you can't read. If you are here in this forum and can't read, let me know now. ... ... ... ... ... ... Anybody? ... ... ...
Jan I think we can all read here. So, try something else.

Statements like this does nothing for your self-opinion

Does anybody know what that means?

I suppose you mean "creationists" sites.
The thing is, they don't have any reason to promote propaganda (some anyway). There is no reason to support Darwins ideas, because it has no effect upon the human psyche. The human still has to believe in something that is real to him, in his wholeness, and evolution may just as well not exist whether he sees it as fact or not.

I "mean" propaganda. Learn the facts from a good source.

Darwins theory of evolution serves a different purpose, and that is to act as an opposition to God.

Darwin's work was not in contrast to creationism. It only says that god didn't wave a magic wand and *poof* the world was full of life.

The evolutionist always says, there is no better theory, and they are right, there is no better theory/idea that can trick people into thinking that God does not exist.

It is not a trick. Evolution is not a plan to undermine religion. Most of my professors were, either, religionists or agnostic. They are not out to trick anybody. I am a religious. I think evolution is an eternal principle. I believe we look like god. I believe our looks are the result of evolution. What does that say about god?

God=1, evolution=0.

If evolution is a team, then God is the coach.

 

[spidergoat]

On the probability of favorable mutations: Doesn't it increase with the number of cells and animals in which it can occur?

What about this analogy: if the probability of me getting caught robbing my neighbor is 2%, and I try it twice, doesn't the probability increase to 4% that I will get caught? And if I try it 6 times, the probability increases to 64%! And if I try it 10 times, the probability that I will get caught is 100%!!

Given the number of times a favorable mutation could occur, I think it is obvious that the odds quickly rise to 100%.

 

[MacM]

On the probability of favorable mutations: Doesn't it increase with the number of cells and animals in which it can occur?

What about this analogy: if the probability of me getting caught robbing my neighbor is 2%, and I try it twice, doesn't the probability increase to 4% that I will get caught? And if I try it 6 times, the probability increases to 64%! And if I try it 10 times, the probability that I will get caught is 100%!!

Given the number of times a favorable mutation could occur, I think it is obvious that the odds quickly rise to 100%.

I'd say that is a fair summary of the issue. A billion trillion trillion mutations beats the odds given for such evolution at a trillion trillion by a factor of a billion. That says the odds are actually a billion to 1 that evolution is fact.

 

[786]

I really don't want to say much about Mutations. But let me say one last thing, hopefully.

You stated that the odds are billion to 1. Maybe you are right. But lets label them.

1 billion "mutations" to 1 "favorable mutation". Bad odds for "favorable" mutations.

The odds are not on evolution's side.

I don't have anything else to say.

 

[MacM]

I really don't want to say much about Mutations. But let me say one last thing, hopefully.

You stated that the odds are billion to 1. Maybe you are right. But lets label them.

1 billion "mutations" to 1 "favorable mutation". Bad odds for "favorable" mutations.

The odds are not on evolution's side.

I don't have anything else to say.

You have misinterpreted the odds. As presented any number over unity favors evevolution as being valid. The Billion to 1 odds is an enormous favor to evolution. It is virtual certainity.

Also while the numbers used are not based on scientific research, I do feel they were conservative based on the choosen numbers of living cells at the outset and the number of years and mutatins which should have occured - using your odds against favorable mutations.

You are certainly free to explore other aspects but don't alter the billin to 1 ratio by saying it now must look for favorable mutations. They are already in that figure.

 

[786]

You have misinterpreted the odds. As presented any number over unity favors evevolution as being valid. The Billion to 1 odds is an enormous favor to evolution. It is virtual certainity.

Also while the numbers used are not based on scientific research, I do feel they were conservative based on the choosen numbers of living cells at the outset and the number of years and mutatins which should have occured - using your odds against favorable mutations.

You are certainly free to explore other aspects but don't alter the billion to 1 ratio by saying it now must look for favorable mutations. They are already in that figure.

This is what I was trying to explain to you earlier, but I guess I didn't do a good job. Let me try 1 more time.

Only "beneficial" mutations are in favor of Evolution, NOT all mutations.

The number I gave you was beneficial mutation.

Then you argued that you must look at it at its entirety (all the mutations). Here is your problem. You don't need to look at all the mutations, because the only mutation that will help the process of "Evolution" is "beneficial mutations", that is the number I gave you.

But I see your point. So let me explain it you, using your numbers.
You tried to show us the "number of Mutations" that occur. If I am not correct, please address this in your post. You did showed us all the 'mutations' not ONLY 'beneficial mutations'. All Mutations cannot help the process of Evolution only 'favorable' mutations can help. Right, so far? The number that you presented included ALL mutations. Now let me ask you this. Are harmful and neutral mutations included in that number? If I'm right, then I expect you to answer "YES". The total number of harmful and neutral mutations do not advance the process of Evolution. The number and the percentage I provided shows us only the "beneficial mutations". Because that is what we need for Evolution to advance.

Let me try to give you an analogy. (although I'm bad at giving analogies)

There are 100 pizzas. 1 of them is pineapple. A kid is sick and the only thing that will cure the disease is the pineapple pizza. All the pizzas are in a bag. What are the chances that the kid will take out the pineapple pizza. 1/100 right. The probability is 1%. Right? This is what I told you. But now lets see what your response was like.

Your respone:If you look at all of them then the probability is 100/1. It is inevitable.

My reaction: This is just utter nonsense.

Here is the number again

1/1000000000000000 (Label would be 1 favorable mutation : All mutations)
in percentage this would be.

.000000000000001% This is "beneficial mutations"

I suspect that I still didn't do a good job explaining, but hopefully you will see what I am talking about.

Peace be unto you

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I thought I would add some comments to a couple of initial assertions.

As a consequence, the current amount of energy in the universe has been in existence for a long time. Natural processes cannot create energy, thus this energy could have been produced only by a force outside our universe.

Well, I am not sure if the interpretaion of Law is being expressed correctly.
In all the 'empty' areas of space there is a ton of vaccum energy. The
universe expanding at an accelerated rate (hence the volume of space
is getting bigger). This could not happen unless the vaccum energy increased
as well. Thoughts?

According to evolutionists, complex organisms evolved from simpler ones. Simple organisms were formed from matter and energy. They state that matter and energy appeared from nothing. This contradicts the First Law.

Technically matter is energy... it's simply compressed. I think evolution
is being confused with concepts concerning unversal inflation. The claim
is not that something came from nothing. The universe (before inflation)
is theorized to have been compact. A compact universe does not qualify
as nothing. I know, I know, where did the compact universe come from?
The answer is simply nobody knows (at least not yet). It's quite possible
that the concept of nothing only applies to the perception of sentient life
on earth and that it really does not exist outside our universe.

 

[MacM]

Only "beneficial" mutations are in favor of Evolution, NOT all mutations.

The number I gave you was beneficial mutation.

Then you argued that you must look at it at its entirety (all the mutations). Here is your problem. You don't need to look at all the mutations, because the only mutation that will help the process of "Evolution" is "beneficial mutations", that is the number I gave you.

If you go back and look carefully I posted a number for total mutations BUT I then reduced that number by the odds you gave for getting a beneficial mutation.

The final number becomes the number of beneficial mutations. A number that compared to the number of beneficial mutations required is much larger than unity "1". It was infact a Billion times as many beneficial mutations as would be required that makes the odds 1 Billion to 1 in favor.

 

[786]

Your numbers are of the population. My number was for ONE animal. Then it would only be fair if you changed my given number by the number of animals in the population that you used.

 

[MacM]

Your numbers are of the population. My number was for ONE animal. Then it would only be fair if you changed my given number by the number of animals in the population that you used.

Not sure what you mean by one animal and how that plays any part. A mutation in one animal that becomes reproduced, over and over which has a crucial benefit will soon be representative of the group of animals.

But I initially ran a calculation starting with only one breeding pair but subsequently pointed out the same scenario starting with (what I think is conservative) of the number of living enities in the initial organic formation in the oceans.

The number of beneficial mutations that would occur within a group of animals of identical species will increase in proportion to the size of the population.

That is starting with one mutation in one animal that reproduces such that after a few generation might have 1,000 offspring carrying that beneficial mutation. Now you could get 2 different additional mutations from that group and they would propagate, etc. Before you know it it is like the old "Pay me 1 penny the first day and 2 pennies the 2nd day. Continute to double my pay for a month under contract.

How much do you think you will have paid your employee at the end of the month? About $43 million dollars!

 

[786]

Man how sure are you that the animal which recieves the beneficial mutation, will not recieve a harmful one?

 

[MacM]

Man how sure are you that the animal which recieves the beneficial mutation, will not recieve a harmful one?

Not sure of that at all but when (and you would) after you have a population where there are more than one mutation per generation but millions and not all mutations are killers but most are neutral, you find that you will have an ongoing chain of positives that survive and reproduce.

If not the species dies out and many have.

 

[786]

You see that there are many species that exist to this day. Some hundred's of millions of year old turtle, has the same structure found in modern turtles. What are the possibility that the "ancient" turtle recieved, lets say, 10 harmful mutations or maybe hundred? Very likely don't you think. Even ONE harmful mutation can be deadly, wouldn't you agree?

This again all depends on HUGE CHANCES.

I have said this many times, and I think people would just say that I am repeating myself, which I am. But "HUGE CHANCE" is really the ultimate answer.

I would not discuss this anymore, because in the end we will reach "nothing".

So I suggest to leave it. If you continue I'll stay with you in the debate. But I don't think we should.

Again I recommend reading the data of the expiraments done on "Fruit Flies".

To everyone- how did the eye come into being (existence)?

 

[(Q)]

To everyone- how did the eye come into being (existence)?

You can shut up any time now, thanks.

 

[786]

To everyone- how did the eye come into being (existence)?

You can shut up any time now, thanks.

LoL. I expected an answer. Anyways the question still remains.

"how did the eye come into being (existence)?"

 

[(Q)]

That explanation has been given to you and you now insult those who took the time to explain it to you by ignoring their answers and repeating the question.

If the only answer you will accept is, "God did it," then accept that and give it a rest.

 

[James R]

786:

There are 100 pizzas. 1 of them is pineapple. A kid is sick and the only thing that will cure the disease is the pineapple pizza. All the pizzas are in a bag. What are the chances that the kid will take out the pineapple pizza. 1/100 right. The probability is 1%. Right? This is what I told you.

That's right. But in evolutionary terms, we're never talking about one animal. We talk about whole populations. So, to use your example, what happens when we have 100 kids, and each one gets a pizza? Answer: 99 kids die of the disease, but 1 kid lives due to the pinapple pizza. Now, who is going to pass on their pizza to the next generation? Answer: the one kid who survived. And after that, everybody has a pineapple pizza.