Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[RDK]

If atoms have an intelligent reason to assemble themselves into useful things, it can only be since they are under intelligent control. Odds are great for stupid atoms to create nothing at all. They are just as likely to create as to un-create, a 50/50 proposition. I'll say they can just as quickly un-create anything they manage to create, certainly with no pro-life agenda.
I live in Reno,NV,USA. I am not interested in Biblical dogma which so many people espouse. I look at things simply, and show the flaws of goofy beliefs whenever I get the chance. You guys react to me the same way the church people do. This must be some new church service which hasn't worked out so well. Most of them don't like obvious answers either.

[pocaracas]

If atoms have an intelligent reason to assemble themselves into useful things, it can only be since they are under intelligent control. Odds are great for stupid atoms to create nothing at all. They are just as likely to create as to un-create, a 50/50 proposition. I'll say they can just as quickly un-create anything they manage to create, certainly with no pro-life agenda.
I live in Reno,NV,USA. I am not interested in Biblical dogma which so many people espouse. I look at things simply, and show the flaws of goofy beliefs whenever I get the chance. You guys react to me the same way the church people do. This must be some new church service which hasn't worked out so well. Most of them don't like obvious answers either.

Your "obvious answers" are pre-ingrained answers and, as such, worthless.

Look at the Universe... Basque in the known ~92 Billion light years across... and how many places are known to harbor life...
Present your statistics only after you take into consideration how large the whole Universe is.... and also how large Avogadro's constant is, too.


How unlikely is it to get 1.000.000 1's when I cast 100 billion 6-sided dice?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You guys react to me the same way the church people do.

To the majority of people, that would tell them something.

To you, though, I suspect it goes right over your head.

[Chas]

Populations of organisms do not change collectively, but individually. One animal will be born with a minor change to it's body that can be passed on genetically to it's children. These adaptive changes brought on by environmental conditions can't alter it's ability to mate or the change will not continue onward. The species doesn't change, only it's form and/or function.

No, changes are not brought on by environmental conditions. You not only don't understand evolution, you profoundly misunderstand it.

Please go read a book by an actual evolutionary biologist. Until you have, just shut the fuck up about evolution.

[RDK]

Absolutely so unlikely! Self replication involves the transfer of information from one place to another, in this case, from one cell to another. Information came from somewhere, transferred through an unproven medium to another place with the ability to decode the info and build a duplicate copy. Who said that any of that was simple? The processing of information technology by that process is still light-years ahead of any computer that we have. The DNA sequencing alone is a lock pickers nightmare. How many years did it take to just locate the genomes there, more importantly, we are just approaching the understanding what each one does, and how this info' process takes place. How long would it take for you to pick a combination lock with just three variables? Now multiply that by ten thousand. Too many combinations to accidentally transfer any good information by chance.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

RDK, do you answer anything? Or is Jesus guiding your hand every time you put your impressive intellect to use?


I'll ask again. Which discarded cigarette packet did you learn about evolution from?

Because it forum goers and lurkers alike, it seems like you might be posting from a padded cell.

Hey, do you know enrico?

[Chas]

The ideas that am presenting here are not difficult to comprehend. In order to understand what is happening to us now, we have to understand how it started.

No, actually we don't. It doesn't matter at all to evolution how the first replicating organism came about.

Consider a single cell organism that doesn't require a mate to propagate. Out of the ooze of non life comes a living creature. IMPOSSIBLE!

You seem to think things have to happen all at once or not at all.
Your argument from personal incredulity is unconvincing.

You must consider that each of the component parts that make up that creature had to be working from the start, SIMULTANEOUSLY!

You seem to think things have to happen all at once or not at all.

If a cell could live with half of it's necessary parts missing, how did it manage to live years later while waiting for the needed ones to evolve? It couldn't. All of those NECESSARY parts are needed TOGETHER, AT THE SAME TIME, in order to be ALIVE!

There are many kinds of cells - some very simple ones, and some more complex. Did you know that?

Most all animals around us are complete LIVING units that can't wait for new life altering parts to arrive. They simply had to be assembled as complete working mechanisms, not collections of un-aggregated pieces waiting to be assembled so that they can live.

They evolved from simpler animals to become complex ones. How is that difficult to understand?

[pocaracas]

Absolutely so unlikely! Self replication involves the transfer of information from one place to another, in this case, from one cell to another. Information came from somewhere, transferred through an unproven medium to another place with the ability to decode the info and build a duplicate copy. Who said that any of that was simple? The processing of information technology by that process is still light-years ahead of any computer that we have. The DNA sequencing alone is a lock pickers nightmare. How many years did it take to just locate the genomes there, more importantly, we are just approaching the understanding what each one does, and how this info' process takes place. How long would it take for you to pick a combination lock with just three variables? Now multiply that by ten thousand. Too many combinations to accidentally transfer any good information by chance.

Are you dense on purpose, or for real?
I can't tell....

[Chas]

A living cell is required to have a collective, communicative cooperation of all of it's parts functioning together to provide for it's (symbiotic), life providing relationship to occur. In order for future alterations to occur (future animal designs), extra parts that are under consideration would have to be attached to this creature for use at a later time. Does the animal know what these parts will be, as they should have some appropriate rightful fitment within the integrity of the creature. If this is the way that animals change, then we should all have hundreds of experimental appendages all over us as these chance extra parts make their way into our future life.
Do you think that extra time is all that's required for these things to finally find their way onto a completed animal. NO WAY! Time is not a variable for the design of creatures. Most every animal is fully complete to use every available part to it's fullest advantage. Not only are we considering the modification of individual body parts, but we have to consider all of the "hard-wiring" of these components parts as well. There would have to be constant planning for connections such as nerve networks, blood supply, waste removal, regeneration of damaged tissues, inter-cellular communication, ETC.ETC.
To imagine that non-intelligent elements gathered themselves together with order to form anything at all makes no sense. The number of useful connections between these things would be truly astronomical, and this all happened by chance? NO WAY!!!

You must have been repeatedly told lies and been misinformed to be so very, very wrong about what evolution is.

[RDK]

If odds are so far against the chance production of life by accident, why not consider an alternate. I have not tried to fill you with religious ideas at all, just trying to refute ideas which have no useful place in science.
I believe that animals change for a reason, to improve their useful life here on this planet. If life is something beyond just a collection of physical parts, then we have to pursue that in a non-mechanical way. Is there intelligence which directs outcomes, or is life just a combination of mistakes with a profitable result? The odds against accident is so overwhelming that I gave up that useless method. I began to ask that intelligence what it is doing and I got answers. If you have not tried another way, you will not see the sense of trying. I am not angry at any of you for the challenges I have given. I didn't think that I would get a happy response-I am challenging all of your previously valued beliefs. I am excited that I get a chance to share a new way of analyzing information. Odds are in your favor that you will get the same results I have.