(March 20, 2016 at 10:47 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

Quote:So what is the statistical probability that random mutations of the DNA would end up coding for the 676 proteins found in the aqueous humor? That would be (on average) one in twenty multiplied by one in twenty, 450 times for each protein, multiplied by 676 for the total number of proteins. Since 10 to the power of 50 is considered absurd, and the chances of correctly constructing each of the 676 proteins by chance is vastly more than 10 to the power of 50, this equates to zero probability that the aqueous humor proteins could develop by random chance.

I suck at math, but clearly this is a very, very, very, VERY long argument from personal incredulity.  You could have just said, "the human eye is just fucking craaaaazy, you guys!"  Would have conveyed the exact same point, and saved all of us a lot of time.

if you want the shortened version, it goes more like this;

Analyzing the random DNA mutations required to produce the proteins that form the eye reveals it to be not just unlikely but a statistical impossibility.

---

(March 20, 2016 at 11:26 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: You're going with the eye to support your creator, eh? Ok then, why does your creator love Octopi more than humans? It gave them a far superior eye.

I'm simply demonstrating the statistical impossibility that the eye evolved through DNA mutation. You should address this.

---

(March 20, 2016 at 11:54 pm)loganonekenobi Wrote: the complexity of life logic for the existence of a deity is good but it stops at logic.  This is still not true evidence. The religious say "god" and often "my particular god" but a true scholar of the facts would simply says "I dont know for sure"

Of the two claims one is teetering on the edge of falsehood and arrogance. The other is on solid ground and humble.

One does not need belief to say "I don't know" and still be within the observable facts.

Can we stick to the issue, which is evidence for design? By showing you that random mutations of the DNA cannot produce the necessary structures to produce the eye, it leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that it has been designed.

"Random" mutations of DNA are not truly random.... they're still bound by chemistry.... so your numbers are most likely wrong by excess...

Also, how many generations of life forms capable of sensing light have there been on this planet?

It's funny our eyes don't work so well with such a clever designer, he wouldn't last five minutes as a designer in this day and age.
Dont get me started about the wisdom teeth.

(March 19, 2016 at 1:16 am)AJW333 Wrote: The Neanderthal narrative has changed a lot over the years. Initially he was very ape-like and couldn't speak since he didn't have the necessary physical attributes. That's all changed and it is now considered that Neanderthals were able to speak and in many other ways were much closer to humans than previously considered. So is it correct to consider them a different species to human beings? Probably not.

No, it wouldn't be correct, but only because individuals of the species Homo neanderthalensis were human beings - for the same reason that ostriches are birds. Every species of the genus Homo is human. Thus it would be and indeed is perfectly correct to consider Neanderthals a different species to Homo sapiens sapiens. You really need to be more precise in your use of language when talking about these subjects.

(March 21, 2016 at 12:23 am)JuliaL Wrote: Here's another probability calculation.
If average, your father produced on the order of  two trillion (10^12) sperm in his lifetime exactly one of which produced you.
Your mother started with about two million eggs exactly one of which produced you.
These probabilities are multiplicative.
So the probability in one generation, of you being genetically roughly who you are is on the order of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (ignoring mutations here.)
Going back one more generation: the probability of your father being genetically who he was is also ~1 in 10^18 same for your mother.
So the chances of them just having the right genetics for you to be exactly you is
1/10^18 times 1/10^18 times 1/10^18 or one chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Go back more generations and the string of zeros gets longer quickly.  You get to 1 in 10^50 pretty much right away.

This represents a complete distortion of the mathematics. When fertilizing an egg cell with a sperm cell, it makes no difference which sperm fertilizes which egg. Any combination will do. This is not so with the sequencing of the amino acids in proteins. They must be in the correct order to create the correct protein. And since the chances of getting the correct sequence of approximately 450 AAs in each protein is 1 x 10^500, it is mathematically deemed impossible to achieve this by chance. If it does occur, it would be by design.

---

(March 21, 2016 at 5:58 am)pocaracas Wrote: "Random" mutations of DNA are not truly random.... they're still bound by chemistry.... so your numbers are most likely wrong by excess...

Also, how many generations of life forms capable of sensing light have there been on this planet?

If the DNA mutations aren't random, what controls them?

(February 27, 2016 at 3:31 am)Kitan Wrote: They ignore logic.  Not only that, they ignore it to the detriment of reason so that they can create these silly counter arguments that are not even logical.  

Oh, forgive me, their arguments are logical to them and their perpetually damaging delusion.

Christians only create, as they did their imaginary friend since the beginning of time, apologetics because they know they are on the loosing end, and they think they can somehow cling to something meaningful if more idiots follow their brand of idiocy.

The  problem isn't just Christians, the problem is human logic that leads humans to gap fill and create ALL religions. There is not one Umbrella religion that does not have it's competing sub sects and different interpretations of the same writings. ALL religions lead to competition within the same label as well as competing with other labels. It isn't that you can force religion out of existence, but more people need to accept this in order to make the world more civil.

(March 21, 2016 at 1:24 am)Cecelia Wrote: Actually the complexity of the human eye is a good argument against design.  Why would a designer make something more complicated than necessary?  The only reason a designer would make something so complicated is because they have limitations.  This goes against the Christian God who is said to have made man from Dirt.  That's magic.  It doesn't state that he created the human eye with intricate precision.  It doesn't say that he had limitations.  Yet if there were a designer, they would have to have limitations in order to have done things the way they did.  

The argument from complexity doesn't work when your God doesn't have limitations.  A designed eye from a creator without limitations, who could make man out of dirt and woman from rib would not have such limitations.  He would have created the very laws he's working with.

Then you have to consider: The Bible states we were made in his image.  If he looks like us, and we appear designed, then he too must appear designed.   So who designed him?  If he wasn't designed, why is his eye less complex than ours?  Was he restricted by laws he didn't create?  Or does his eyes work the same as ours, and thus give an appearance of design?

None of this deals with the numerical impossibility of creating an integrated, multi-part visual system that requires the precise assembly of huge numbers of amino acids in precise sequences. I wouldn't mind discussing your objections but you would be better to start a new thread.

(March 21, 2016 at 6:44 am)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 5:58 am)pocaracas Wrote: "Random" mutations of DNA are not truly random.... they're still bound by chemistry.... so your numbers are most likely wrong by excess...

Also, how many generations of life forms capable of sensing light have there been on this planet?

If the DNA mutations aren't random, what controls them?

My boy... is anything random?

And did I not say "bound by chemistry"?

(March 21, 2016 at 6:44 am)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 12:23 am)JuliaL Wrote: Here's another probability calculation.
If average, your father produced on the order of  two trillion (10^12) sperm in his lifetime exactly one of which produced you.
Your mother started with about two million eggs exactly one of which produced you.
These probabilities are multiplicative.
So the probability in one generation, of you being genetically roughly who you are is on the order of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (ignoring mutations here.)
Going back one more generation: the probability of your father being genetically who he was is also ~1 in 10^18 same for your mother.
So the chances of them just having the right genetics for you to be exactly you is
1/10^18 times 1/10^18 times 1/10^18 or one chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Go back more generations and the string of zeros gets longer quickly.  You get to 1 in 10^50 pretty much right away.

This represents a complete distortion of the mathematics. When fertilizing an egg cell with a sperm cell, it makes no difference which sperm fertilizes which egg. Any combination will do.

Yes, it does matter in the sense that you are you, exactly as you are, which I think was Julia's point. But anyway...so where your Nobel Prize? Hell, where is your Templeton Prize? I mean since you, AJW333 of AF.org possess the scientific holy grail of proof of design. Oh wait...don't answer that yet...let me know when I can expect the deluge of conspiracy theories; I'd like to put my galoshes on.

(March 21, 2016 at 5:43 am)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 20, 2016 at 10:47 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I suck at math, but clearly this is a very, very, very, VERY long argument from personal incredulity.  You could have just said, "the human eye is just fucking craaaaazy, you guys!"  Would have conveyed the exact same point, and saved all of us a lot of time.

if you want the shortened version, it goes more like this;

Analyzing the random DNA mutations required to produce the proteins that form the eye reveals it to be not just unlikely but a statistical impossibility.

---

(March 20, 2016 at 11:26 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: You're going with the eye to support your creator, eh? Ok then, why does your creator love Octopi more than humans? It gave them a far superior eye.

I'm simply demonstrating the statistical impossibility that the eye evolved through DNA mutation. You should address this.

---

(March 20, 2016 at 11:54 pm)loganonekenobi Wrote: the complexity of life logic for the existence of a deity is good but it stops at logic.  This is still not true evidence. The religious say "god" and often "my particular god" but a true scholar of the facts would simply says "I dont know for sure"

Of the two claims one is teetering on the edge of falsehood and arrogance. The other is on solid ground and humble.

One does not need belief to say "I don't know" and still be within the observable facts.

Can we stick to the issue, which is evidence for design? By showing you that random mutations of the DNA cannot produce the necessary structures to produce the eye, it leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that it has been designed.

The point i'm trying to make is that even if you could inference a designer you cant identify said entity. We cannot look beyond the petri dish at the designer. We are in a situation that one bacteria is saying to another "something must be beyond us and I am stating that it must be in accordance to my idea." The other bacteria says "I don't know but I'm not going to accept your idea of this until that entity communicates with me because that is the only way to know for sure." The real difference between this scenario and the god idea is that we cannot communicate with bacteria but it is claimed that a god can communicate with us. I'm sorry but i cannot concede to such arrogance, if such a being did in fact exist, that it would care if we believe in it or not or that it "loves" us.
It is still much more humble and noble to say "I don't know so I keep looking."