R
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
I am pointing out that is is always possible to ask questions about unimportant details. Did a process take 999,999 steps or 1,000,000 steps?
The important point is that there is a continuous series of steps between point A and point B. The exact number of steps is almost the least important thing.
rossum
The important point is that there is a continuous series of steps between point A and point B. The exact number of steps is almost the least important thing.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
The point I’m try to make is that all these steps will add up to an impossible number, when you have to factor it in for every plant and creature on the planet .If it was true there should be plenty of evidence.
“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous”. -Origin of Species, Darwin
Last edited:
Unless you want to determine how long something took.
If you want evolution to be true, not only must it be shown to happen, it also must happen within the time available.
How many genetic variations between microbe and man?
How long does each take?
How many years has this process been going on?
Just my educated guess, the process to go from microbe to man takes longer then the earth has been here.
R
rossum
Guest
I would need to see your calculations for that. Have you included population size in your calculations? Mutations can arise simultaneously in different parts of the population and then combine later.
Unless you can produce some actual calculations all you have is personal opinion, which does not count for much in science.
rossum
E
edwest211
Guest
That is also the impression I have. These changes across millions of years on a dynamic planet could mean any “progress” could be wiped out in a natural disaster and then It’s back to square one.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
All these assessments of impossibility are based on wishful thinking rather than science. It is admittedly true to that to demonstrate impossibility is extremely difficult, and demonstrating possibility much easier, which is why all the experiments related to evolution indeed suggest that it is possible, not impossible. That is, of course, not the same as ‘proof’ that it is God’s way (Science doesn’t do proof), but it leads to a detailed and coherent explanation for observed phenomena that no form of creationism can match.
B
buffalo
Guest
What? ID is deductive. Evolution is abductive.
E
edwest211
Guest
ID works. “In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion.”
B
buffalo
Guest
Exactly and why we see neo Darwinism falling. The top evos all know it, but few here will admit it even though I have shown it over and over.
Why do they cling to it so?
Why do they cling to it so?
No, I base mine on the fact that no one will tell how long the process takes.
But I do keep getting told that it takes a long time.
B
buffalo
Guest
Science is not done by court case or consensus. It is absurd to prevent researchers from inquiry because a judge said so? Ridiculous and not scientific at all. For you to even bring it up is a weak argument. I would think you would know better.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
I’m with you on some of evolution. For example, we let’s say we’re talking about the evolution of consciousness. But you can’t even see consciousness as you and I understand it. Here’s the process of dodging, and I too find it very annoying:
No scientist can see a mind. However, he CAN measure brain waves, blood flow, etc. So he measures a brain of a conscious person, and then says, “Consciousness is when the brain lights up like this.”
This is called a “neural correlate of consciousness,” i.e. it happens whenever there is consciousness. He then says, “Okay, we’ve established that studying the brain is studying consciousness.”
This is fine in a sense. Scientists can now find what brain parts a paraplegic person is using when he thinks about moving his legs, and they can build a system that will move in response, even though the spine is damaged.
However, it does NOT explain why there is such thing as subjective consciousness. Why can any physical system, including the brain, have something so mysterious as an actual experience of what it’s like to be itself?
This is where evolution kicks in with the BS narratives: “Well, of course. Consciousness is just a high level of awareness of the environment, and any animal which is more aware will have a better chance to survive, and this trait will be passed on to future generations.”
Philosophical issue successfully dodged. The question was never about animals’ behavior or interactions with the environment. It was about whether they think and feel, and how. This is completely unknown to science. 100% unknown, really. Zilch. So the evolutionary narrative, which makes perfect sense in giraffes developing longer necks, really fails hard when it comes to the mind. It annoys me, really vexes me even as an agnostic, that people cannot accept that there’s a difference between brain function (which is a chemical electric process) and the actual experience of things. I mean-- one is objective and one is subjective; how could any two things be more different than that?
That being said, I really feel you have to be a bit dense to look at the physical similarities among species in the same families of animal, and not believe that their high level of genetic similarity comes from a long line of interactions among individual members and the environment. To me, it’s so patently obvious that it’s hard even to understand what you’re saying if you can’t see that.
No scientist can see a mind. However, he CAN measure brain waves, blood flow, etc. So he measures a brain of a conscious person, and then says, “Consciousness is when the brain lights up like this.”
This is called a “neural correlate of consciousness,” i.e. it happens whenever there is consciousness. He then says, “Okay, we’ve established that studying the brain is studying consciousness.”
This is fine in a sense. Scientists can now find what brain parts a paraplegic person is using when he thinks about moving his legs, and they can build a system that will move in response, even though the spine is damaged.
However, it does NOT explain why there is such thing as subjective consciousness. Why can any physical system, including the brain, have something so mysterious as an actual experience of what it’s like to be itself?
This is where evolution kicks in with the BS narratives: “Well, of course. Consciousness is just a high level of awareness of the environment, and any animal which is more aware will have a better chance to survive, and this trait will be passed on to future generations.”
Philosophical issue successfully dodged. The question was never about animals’ behavior or interactions with the environment. It was about whether they think and feel, and how. This is completely unknown to science. 100% unknown, really. Zilch. So the evolutionary narrative, which makes perfect sense in giraffes developing longer necks, really fails hard when it comes to the mind. It annoys me, really vexes me even as an agnostic, that people cannot accept that there’s a difference between brain function (which is a chemical electric process) and the actual experience of things. I mean-- one is objective and one is subjective; how could any two things be more different than that?
That being said, I really feel you have to be a bit dense to look at the physical similarities among species in the same families of animal, and not believe that their high level of genetic similarity comes from a long line of interactions among individual members and the environment. To me, it’s so patently obvious that it’s hard even to understand what you’re saying if you can’t see that.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
And it has many times. The fossil record is discontinuous and the achilles heel of Darwinism.
B
buffalo
Guest
Common design and adaptation is a better explanation.
B
buffalo
Guest
…mostly made up of atheists. 
B
buffalo
Guest
Baloney! The higher the number of steps the more time it takes and the odds go down of it happening.
B
buffalo
Guest
I see it. It can be explained better by front loaded programming, common design and adaptation.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
You really should read On the Origin of Species.
Darwin very much acknowledges that there are problems with his theory. In fact, Chapter 6 of the book is titled “DIFFICULTIES ON THEORY,” and one of the sections is called “Absence or rarity of transitional varieties.”
He was much more neutral and thoughtful than most of the people in this thread seem to believe.
Darwin very much acknowledges that there are problems with his theory. In fact, Chapter 6 of the book is titled “DIFFICULTIES ON THEORY,” and one of the sections is called “Absence or rarity of transitional varieties.”
He was much more neutral and thoughtful than most of the people in this thread seem to believe.
B
buffalo
Guest
Because of the a priori bias of not letting the divine foot in the door, storytelling will continue about consciousness. Once a materialist admits consciousness cannot be explained by evolution the gig is up and they have to rethink the entire thing. They cannot allow themselves to go there, so they will continue with the nonsense.
- Status