(September 20, 2011 at 2:16 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Evolution is a well known mechanism that preserves useful traits. Evolution has had so much coroborating evidence that it is considered fact.
You are committing equivocation here; you are using the word evolution to mean two different things within the same discussion. Here you are using it to mean natural selection which is something even creationists support. Later when you ascribe some imaginary probability to it you are using it to mean “common descent” which is something creationists disagree with. You need to be consistent if you want to prove anything.
Quote: As social behaviour is a useful trait it would tend to have imparted survival value and therefore evolution would have favoured the more social creatures.
Then why are there non-social creatures? Let me guess, because evolution favored them for being non-social?
Quote: Chances evolution is responsible 99.99999999%
How did you calculate this figure? I want to see this calculated out so I know it is not just your opinion.
Quote: This is versus the other "explanation" that a magic man that there is no proof for did it.
Who said anything about a magic man?
Quote: Chances an impossible magic man did it 0%
How did you calculate this? I want to see this calculated out so I know it is not just your opinion. Thanks.
(September 20, 2011 at 2:27 pm)Shell B Wrote: No, he didn't. Unlike goddidit theories, we do not assume evolution is infallible. In cases where evolution didn't work out or work out fast enough for rapidly changing environmental conditions, animals die out. He did not contradict himself. You took meaning from his post that was not even implied.
I still disagree, he specifically said that instinct evolved, it was a product of evolution. However, the explanation he gave did not make it a product of evolution at all. I’ll will give you a similar scenario, let me be the selective pressure for a minute, say that I have 100 animals. 50 of the animals have instincts the other 50 do not. I kill off the 50 who did not and allow the other 50 who did to survive. Did I produce instincts? No way! I merely acted upon what was already there. So you can’t say that natural selection produced anything because it only acts upon what is already present in the organism.
Quote: Let's put it this way, if you said god created man and animals, but some of his creations didn't work out, so he let some die off and others continue to evolve, that would go against everything about your belief in god.
Why? I suppose that depends on what you mean by “evolve”.
