Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kei said:
No, that’s conflating with abiogenesis, but I think it’s now that you’re supposed to imagine a lightning bolt hitting the soup at the same time that a meteorite lands near which just so happens to have complex enough genetic code or something near a volcano underwater. and then also other stuff we don’t understand as well.
Click to expand...
Good old abiogenesis… the achilles heel of Darwinism .
 
buffalo said:
Indirect routes just increased the odds against it.
Click to expand...
Indirect routes slow down the process, but do not block it. After Professor Behe realised that indirect routes to IC systems were possible, he produced a paper calculating the timeline for the development of a simple IC system in a population of bacteria: Behe and Snoke (2004) Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.

Behe’s result showed that such a simple IC system could evolve, via indirect routes, in a small population of bacteria in about 20,000 years. This is the paper that Behe talked about at the Kitzmiller trial.

The short answer is that Irreducibly Complex biological systems can evolve, by indirect routes, in a geologically short time. Professor Behe agrees that this is the case, and did so under oath in the witness stand.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
Programs by definition are goal oriented.
Click to expand...
No. It is easy enough to write a program with no goal:
begin
x <- 0
repeat
x <- x + 1
if (x > 9) then
x <- 0
endif
until (x > 20)
end

Is your omnipotent God/designer incapable of writing a similar program?

rossum
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
Good old abiogenesis… the achilles heel of Darwinism .
Click to expand...
Be very careful here. Creationism cannot explain the origin of life either. Both Darwin and creationism assume the pre-existence of life.

rossum
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s a wonderful dodge.
 
Techno2000 said:
And we are supposed to envision a lighting bolt hitting the primordial soup and creatures coming alive ?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter to me exactly what you envision, as long as you accept that something envisionable must have occurred. Elephants are not metaphors or illusions, and I think it behoves creationists to face the physical events surrounding their appearance. This, I think, most of them find impossible to do. With the exception of yourself, it seems, people who don’t accept evolution can’t really face spontaneous creation either, except in theological or metaphorical terms. And if Genesis can only be understood in theological or metaphorical terms, then evolution seems as good a way of explaining it physically as any. Don’t you think? (Well, not you, Techno2000, because you have faced the problem boldly and clearly, but some of your fellow anti-evolutionists)
 
rossum said:
Be very careful here. Creationism cannot explain the origin of life either. Both Darwin and creationism assume the pre-existence of life.
Click to expand...
Creationism doesn’t. It assumes that living things were created from nothing at all, or as we have recently read, clay, or clouds of atoms. If living things were created out of other living things, well bless me, that’s not creation, that’s evolution!
 
Hugh_Farey said:
This, I think, most of them find impossible to do. With the exception of yourself, it seems, people who don’t accept evolution can’t really face spontaneous creation either, except in theological or metaphorical terms.
Click to expand...
I don’t really see how they would have a problem, because it would kinda be in the same vein as a new glorified /resurrected body.
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
Technically evolutionary thought proposes the first elephants looked a lot more like pigs than they do now.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that they’d technically or otherwise, be elephants. To make that sort of determination, would require some idea of their social interactions. Additionally, it should be noted that the use of a trunk enables them a way to manipulate things in their environment and to communicate that a pig-like creature would not possess, which would be reflected in their instinctive cognitive capacities. That said, pigs do have many redeeming qualities. There was an uproar recently somewhere I read over a man adopting a pet pig only to eat it. Pigs do not become elephants except in some people’s imaginations. Most definitely, no animal can become human.
 
Last edited:
That’s the plan. Pull the plug, cut the feeds, etc. Only limited AI’s will be built. I’m sure DARPA has seen the Terminator movies.
 
Aloysium said:
40.png
Techno2000:
n the same vein as a new glorified /resurrected body.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

Adding this bit on to meet the required word count takes away from the emphasis.
Click to expand...
Lol, or you can hit period button a bunch of time to meet the criteria and only three will show up in the post…
 
Last edited:
Evolution, Yeah
Evolution Yeah

Is the only solution.

Evolution, Yeah
Evolution, Yeah

Is the only conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top