Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
No, I have it right. Man made cameras can be superior (the word you used above) at detecting X-rays, ultra violet and infra red
Click to expand...
Got it wrong, our eyes were not designed to do that, so that is not a valid argument to use. Plus the fact that we have had eyes long before any camera was invented. So somebody had to design them even before humans existed.
rossum said:
The evidence is there in our DNA
Click to expand...
Right it shows it is full of “information”, so it reinforces the need for the super intelligent being.
Natural Selection CanNatural Selection Cannot
1. Decrease genetic information.1. Increase or provide new genetic information.
2. Allow organisms to survive better in a given environment.2. Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man.
3. Act as a “selector.”3. Act as an “originator.”
4. Support creation’s “orchard” of life.4. Support evolutionary “tree” of life.
 
rossum said:
So, the basic premise of ID is incorrect
Click to expand...
Its perfectly valid, however you are talking about the origin of our super intelligent eternal being. Obviously eternal means nobody else designed Him or even existed before Him. As I said before the buck has to stop somewhere or we would go into an endless loop and end up nowhere.
 
John10 said:
The eye is essentially a living camera of extraordinary sensitivity, yet it is much more superior to any manmade camera.
Click to expand...
The human eye has fewer “pixels” than the best cameras. The human eye can see fewer distinct colours than most cameras can detect. The human eye has a bundle of nerves at the back (which is where we get our blind spot from) that no camera has.

In fact cephalopods have no such blind spot, looks like your god, sorry intelligent creator thought they deserved better eyes than humans
John10 said:
Its perfectly valid, however you are talking about the origin of our super intelligent eternal being. Obviously eternal means nobody else designed Him or even existed before Him.
Click to expand...
“Him?” Then I take it back - you are just using ID as a pseudo-scientific way of saying, “goddidit.”
 
There is nothing I am saying about divinity here. Only a super intelligent being, which you would need to never make a mistake and always get it right.
 
John10 said:
So somebody had to design them even before humans existed.
Click to expand...
Or else they evolved before humans evolved. Where is your independent scientific evidence of any deity creating an eye?
John10 said:
Right it shows it is full of “information”, so it reinforces the need for the super intelligent being.
Natural Selection CanNatural Selection Cannot
1. Decrease genetic information.1. Increase or provide new genetic information.
2. Allow organisms to survive better in a given environment.2. Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man.
3. Act as a “selector.”3. Act as an “originator.”
4. Support creation’s “orchard” of life.4. Support evolutionary “tree” of life.
Click to expand...
You are talking about natural selection there, not evolution. Evolution is random mutation, natural selection, neutral drift, sexual selection and other processes. It is no surprise that the part is less functional than the whole.

You are attacking a strawman here. Is that because you have no valid attacks on evolution as a whole. Natural selection decreases genetic information; random mutation can increase genetic information. See what I mean? You are taking the part for the whole. A very obvious faulty argument.
John10 said:
Its perfectly valid, however you are talking about the origin of our super intelligent eternal being. Obviously eternal means nobody else designed Him or even existed before Him.
Click to expand...
We agree. An extremely complex entity was not designed, hence the basic premise of ID that complexity requires design is falsified by that counter-example.
 
FredBloggs said:
“Him?” Then I take it back - you are just using ID as a pseudo-scientific way of saying, “goddidit.”
Click to expand...
Just following the laws of logic, somebody had to start giving out the information. However there also has to been an “ultimate” and “uncaused” initial source of information, otherwise we would go into an never ending loop which does not make sense.
FredBloggs said:
The human eye has fewer “pixels” than the best cameras.
Click to expand...
Untrue as I have previously stated.
But unlike any camera made by man, the retina can automatically change its sensitivity to brightness over a range of ten billion to one! The retina’s light-sensitive cells (photoreceptors) can perceive a range of light, from bright sunlit snow to a single photon (the smallest unit of light). The eye also has the amazing ability to assemble and repair itself, unlike manmade cameras.
 
It is clear you have an agenda, that is fine with me. However I stick with the scientific and common sense approach.

God bless
 
John10 said:
That does not disprove my point, which is being successful by chance many times is very unlikely, unless a super intelligent being is over seeing the whole process.
Click to expand...
I think this misunderstands how “chance” works. Let me describe a somewhat common business school demonstration because it illustrates my point.

Take a class of, say, thirty-two students. Have them pair off with coins. One person calls the coin flip, and whoever “wins” advances to the next round. Repeat in single elimination tournament fashion until there is only one winner. If you started with 32, the winner will have been on the “right” side of the coin flip 16 straight times. The chance of getting a 50/50 “bet” correct 16 times in a row is about one in 65,000. But the fact is that one of them must be the one left standing. The chance of one of them winning is 100% - not 32/65,000.

Business students do this to learn two lessons. 1. That unusual success is not always the result of unusual skill or unusual effort, and 2. that stats and probability are both more complicated than they first appear.

I think the same idea applies to evolutionary theory. When looking back at an evolutionary tree that yielded a given result, it seems natural to say that it could not be mere chance - look at all the low probability events along the way. But that is looking at it from the wrong direction. Similarly, it sure seems like the winner of the coin flipping contest must be “better” at coin flipping than the others in the class. But he is not.

Reading this back, I’m not sure it is helpful. Its a bit of a complicated point and I have neither the room or the time (or maybe the talent) to explain it better.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Aloysium:
We are talking about a transcendent intelligent mind.
Click to expand...
Then you are, as so often, talking outside science.
Click to expand...
We have to go beyond science, which only tells us of what is, in order to understand how it has come to be, either in the moment or historically. To say that it is all random is an ontological statement about life as much as it is to speak of a Creator. The physical sciences reveal the constants that exist in the relationship between material events, including such variables in time and space, mass and charge. There is nothing in this information that tells us more than how events are interrelated. Let’s take the anatomical structure and physiology of the eye, which it should be remembered is part of the brain. One may say that it came to be through a series of random events. Those events are random to the laws and forces that govern the physical world, but are ordered by a more comprehensive set of principles. The way I see things, all these various manifestations of being are brought forth within a loving relationship that exists between the Creator and His creation. This creation includes ourselves and the angels, who as spiritual beings, are blessed with a free will, thereby enabling us to participate in the Beatific Vision, wherein we ceasesly praise God in all His glory. If we want to discuss reality, we must consider what is most real.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
Take a class of, say, thirty-two students. Have them pair off with coins. One person calls the coin flip, and whoever “wins” advances to the next round. Repeat in single elimination tournament fashion until there is only one winner. If you started with 32, the winner will have been on the “right” side of the coin flip 16 straight times. The chance of getting a 50/50 “bet” correct 16 times in a row is about one in 65,000. But the fact is that one of them must be the one left standing. The chance of one of them winning is 100% - not 32/65,000.
Click to expand...
So for the sake of the argument, assuming similar odds with evolution, where are the 64,968 losers, or poorly formed eyes?
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
So for the sake of the argument, assuming similar odds with evolution, where are the 64,968 losers, or poorly formed eyes?
Click to expand...
The “odds” in evolution are much higher, of course, but there are also many, many more “coin flips” over billions of years. The “losers” don’t exist. They either never came into being, or (like the “losers” in the coin flip contest) they failed and went away.

All natural processes are a system of probabilities. Many of them are shockingly small. If you look at each post-hoc, it seems impossible - just as the one student’s victory in the contest seems impossible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top