By chance?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's based on the idea that an organism's reproductive fitness sifts out mutations that are detrimental to reproductive fitness and conserves mutations that are beneficial to an organism's reproductive fitness, causing them to become more frequent in the population of that species. Calling that sheer luck is like saying it's random chance that sediment settles into such orderly layers. Mutations are somewhat random, the 'sifting process' turns that randomness into order.

The fitness evolution theory has been cited  ad nauseum here, but NS is powerless w out lucky mutations. You do understand that right? I’ve said it too many times. If you ended up with a lamp and a bulb ; the bulb having mutated into existence and it works in the lamp, NS could DO NOTHING if you got an Oreo cookie instead of the bulb. POWERLESS
, it’s the luck of the bulb, If you can’t get your head around this, then you continue down the Nile River ~~~~

You're correct - NS is powerless without mutations.  This is what we've been telling you all along.

But in your really, really horribly bad analogy, the light bulb would not have mutated into existence.  There is nothing in evolutionary theory that requires entire systems to mutate into existence all at once.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

The fitness evolution theory has been cited  ad nauseum here, 

Yup because it's true regardless of your willful ignorance 

but NS is powerless w out lucky mutations. You do understand that right? I’ve said it too many times.

Yes yes we know you willfully ignorant

 If you ended up with a lamp and a bulb ; the bulb having mutated into existence and it works in the lamp, NS could DO NOTHING if you got an Oreo cookie instead of the bulb. POWERLESS

We can add false analogies to your list of oft repeated fallacies 

, it’s the luck of the bulb, If you can’t get your head around this, then you continue down the Nile River ~~~~

A man who rejects the consensus of modern biology  and embraces a widely dismissed fringe theory calls us denialists 

---

The fitness evolution theory has been cited  ad nauseum here, but NS is powerless w out lucky mutations. You do understand that right? I’ve said it too many times. If you ended up with a lamp and a bulb ; the bulb having mutated into existence and it works in the lamp, NS could DO NOTHING if you got an Oreo cookie instead of the bulb. POWERLESS
, it’s the luck of the bulb, If you can’t get your head around this, then you continue down the Nile River ~~~~

You're correct - NS is powerless without mutations.  This is what we've been telling you all along.

But in your really, really horribly bad analogy, the light bulb would not have mutated into existence.  There is nothing in evolutionary theory that requires entire systems to mutate into existence all at once.

Boru

Educating the willfully ignorant indeed 

---

None, again, that's the only difference between us.  You believe that one is, I know that one isn't.  

You think that this intelligence has somehow used biological processes, which work, for effect.  I simply note that the biological processes work regardless of whether there is or was a tinker, and that the tinker could have only used them if they did, in fact, work...to begin with.

I do it all the time, but it happens without me as well.  I like breeding plants...but those dirty hookers absolutely will fuck with or without me.  They will be subject to selection, even if it's not me making the selections.  It all works.  I would expect you to agree.....because you believe in intelligently designed giraffes, not giraffes created ex nihilo.

Correct?

The difference between you .You don't reject settled science and aren't an ideologically motivated fanatic .

[The Architect Of Fate]

[Abaddon_ire]

It's based on the idea that an organism's reproductive fitness sifts out mutations that are detrimental to reproductive fitness and conserves mutations that are beneficial to an organism's reproductive fitness, causing them to become more frequent in the population of that species. Calling that sheer luck is like saying it's random chance that sediment settles into such orderly layers. Mutations are somewhat random, the 'sifting process' turns that randomness into order.

The fitness evolution theory has been cited  ad nauseum here, but NS is powerless w out lucky mutations. You do understand that right? I’ve said it too many times. If you ended up with a lamp and a bulb ; the bulb having mutated into existence and it works in the lamp, NS could DO NOTHING if you got an Oreo cookie instead of the bulb. POWERLESS
, it’s the luck of the bulb, If you can’t get your head around this, then you continue down the Nile River ~~~~

Hliarious. You claim that it is impossible that natural selection could poof a giraffe into existence despite that natural selection makes no such claim. No, instead, you think a god poofed a giraffe into existence. And to you, that makes sense.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Lovely progress being made in this thread...reminds me of a song...

'Will It Go 'Round It Circles?'

Indeed seems every thread with an IDiot is an endless cycle of willful ignorance and moronic fallacies

[zebo-the-fat]

Jack still hasn't answered my question "who designed his inteletent designer"

[The Grand Nudger]

He doesn't actually believe that complexity requires or establishes a designer. His god needs no and can have no designer. He just thinks that god made shit, somehow.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Jack still hasn't answered my question "who designed his inteletent designer"

That sort of question generally gets the reply along the lines of;

"AH! The 'Super' Designer is ulta special and so nothing we can know about said thing need apply..... Like pesky things such as 'Beggings', 'Middles' or 'Ends'. The Super Designer is just 'Other' that way, honest."

[Belacqua]

At work.

Jack still hasn't answered my question "who designed his inteletent designer"

That sort of question generally gets the reply along the lines of;

"AH! The 'Super' Designer is ulta special and so nothing we can know about said thing need apply..... Like pesky things such as 'Beggings', 'Middles' or 'Ends'. The Super Designer is just 'Other' that way, honest."

Creationists who haven't studied evolution sometimes ask "oh yeah, if people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? (check mate, atheist!)" The question reveals that they haven't studied the subject. 

The questions "what caused the first cause?" or "who designed the designer?" are the equivalents in the field of theology. They show that the person asking doesn't understand the argument.

To be fair to atheists who don't understand theology, though, it's true that the majority of Christians don't understand it either. They are using a children's-level Sunday School version, and a lot of atheists assume that's all there is. 

It's frustrating. It's like hearing an Ayn Randian and a Creationist debate Darwin, and neither one knows what they're talking about.

[Peebothuhlu]

Creationists who haven't studied evolution sometimes ask "oh yeah, if people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? (check mate, atheist!)" The question reveals that they haven't studied the subject. 

The questions "what caused the first cause?" or "who designed the designer?" are the equivalents in the field of theology. They show that the person asking doesn't understand the argument.

To be fair to atheists who don't understand theology, though, it's true that the majority of Christians don't understand it either. They are using a children's-level Sunday School version, and a lot of atheists assume that's all there is. 

It's frustrating. It's like hearing an Ayn Randian and a Creationist debate Darwin, and neither one knows what they're talking about.

Yes, that first part is frustratingly true Bel. Which is why, when it's trotted out, it's pointed to be erroneous and fallacious.


As for 'The first cause'? Well we know that there are uncaused causes within our own universe... So having them occur 'Outside' our universe would seem to be plausible as well. Though the whole 'Outside' our universe raises more thoughts, issues etc.


As for "Who designed the Designer" ? That is kind of a valid question, is it not? If some one is, actually, postulating such a thing/being?


I'm happy to admit I understand neither theology, nor philosophy but so far Yukon_Jack has done little more than to rant on at the equivalent level of 'Sunday School biology'.


Your last sentence has left me confused. Why couldn't some one who's partial to Ayn Rand's philosophical school also be a student of history and sociology? The same for some one who likes the creation mythos? Why can't people of such back ground hold meaningful discussions as to the character of Darwin?


By all accounts her was quite a progressive man/thinker for his time?


Cheers.

Not at work.