beliefs

Yes, it takes a lot of random events to get anywhere at all. But do you know how long it takes even a single species to diverge into two? There has been an awful lot of time pass for this to take place in.

Originally posted by speaker
darkside:
The point of the dragon breathing fire example is that evolution is attempting to explain how we got from stage 2 to stage 3, without any attempt to explain stage 1. Rather it makes a huge assumption on the state of affairs in stage 2 (Dragon's exist) and treats it as gospel.

if by stage 1 you mean the origins of life, then no evolution does not explain it. Abiogenesis does.

d60944:
So, random changes implies that evolution relies on the second ridiculously unlike course of events I mentioned earlier happening countless times over and over. How many unsuccessful cycles of random mutations have to occur before a successful one occurs? 100?, 1,000?, 1,000,000?, 1,000,000,000? How many successful cycles are required for the evolution theory to come to fruition? 1,000,000?, 1,000,000,000?, 1,000,000,000,000? These must be the longest odds ever overcome.

you can't witness evolution on our small timescale in multicellular organisms. But we see virus's evolve each year... why do you think you need a new vaccine against the flew each year? if evolution wasn't possible and lifeforms never changed one vaccine would be good for a lifetime.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by DarkSide]

Originally posted by d60944
Yes, it takes a lot of random events to get anywhere at all. But do you know how long it takes even a single species to diverge into two? There has been an awful lot of time pass for this to take place in.

I understand that, which just increases the unlikelyhood of this happening doesn't it?

Originally posted by DarkSide
you can't witness evolution on our small timescale in multicellular organisms. But we see virus's evolve each year... why do you think you need a new vaccine against the flew each year? if evolution wasn't possible and lifeforms never changed one vaccine would be good for a lifetime.

So I'm told, but more complicated animals don't multiply as fast as bacteria. Their DNA doesn't mutate as easily as bacteria. Successful DNA mutation in more complicated animals does not occur as often as bacteria. I think I brushed upon the likelyhood of the series of events evolution dictates happening earlier.

Originally posted by speaker
I understand that, which just increases the unlikelyhood of this happening doesn't it?

a larger timescale INCREASES the probablity. and the probability that evolution has occured in multicellular organisms is 100% because we've observed it.

Originally posted by speakerSo I'm told, but more complicated animals don't multiply as fast as bacteria. Their DNA doesn't mutate as easily as bacteria. Successful DNA mutation in more complicated animals does not occur as often as bacteria. I think I brushed upon the likelyhood of the series of events evolution dictates happening earlier.

Which is why it takes so long for them to evolve, yet they did. You can spend your life calculating odds, it's not going to proof creatures don't evolve.



[edit on 2-4-2007 by DarkSide]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
a larger timescale INCREASES the probablity. and the probability that evolution has occured in multicellular organisms is 100% because we've observed it.

And a larger timescale for one evolutionary transition to occur, as d60944 pointed out, DECRESEAS the probability, and YOU haven't observed anything as a result of this large timescale.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Which is why it takes so long for them to evolve, yet they did. You can spend your life calculating odds, it's not going to proof creatures don't evolve.

Hey, anything is possible, even winning tattslotto every week for the rest of your life. The odds are probably more favourable.

Originally posted by speaker

And a larger timescale for one evolutionary transition to occur, as d60944 pointed out, DECRESEAS the probability

Ummm. I didn't think I said that? I said that the combination of mutation along with with an opportunity to use it were very rare events, but that given the amount of time available it happens... Or I thought I did.

Cheers.

Originally posted by speaker
Hey, anything is possible, even winning tattslotto every week for the rest of your life. The odds are probably more favourable.

how about you give us the odds for a deity magically popping up and creating an entire universe before you start talking about the odds for evolution

Okay... so....

I believe in Evolution, simply because it makes sense. It's just a natural action of dynamic things. Not just Life, but Things in general evolve. And so far I haven't seen the smallest argument to dispute it. Certainly nothing in this thread.

I don't believe in Creationism, simply because it's based around a story in a book that perhaps was never meant to be the literal truth.

I am quite open to hearing any other alternative theory, but whatever it is, it has to simply make sense. No pseudo-scientific or pseudo-religious doubletalk. It doesn't even have to contain heavy scientific detail.
Just logical, *click* yep that could work, sense.

Originally posted by d60944
Yes, it takes a lot of random events to get anywhere at all. But do you know how long it takes even a single species to diverge into two? There has been an awful lot of time pass for this to take place in.

The way I interpret this line is that you are implying it takes a considerable amount of time for a single species to diverge into two. Is that a correct interpretation?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by speaker
Hey, anything is possible, even winning tattslotto every week for the rest of your life. The odds are probably more favourable.

how about you give us the odds for a deity magically popping up and creating an entire universe before you start talking about the odds for evolution

I fail to see why you are connecting me with the creation of the entire universe theory, but I imagine the odds are far more favourable than those required for evolution's explanation. This is the problem with scientist's, they continually rule out possibilities. Why do you think that these two options are the only two possibilities to explain how we got to where we are now? By the way, have you worked out how something came from nothing yet?

[edit on 3-4-2007 by speaker]

but I imagine the odds are far more favourable than those required for evolution's explanation.

no coment

how can you seriously think the odds for a bearded guy creating a static universe higher than those for evolution?

I just have to laugh at all these creationnists that are reduced to calculating odds, because they can't provide ANY evidence that evolution is wrong.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by DarkSide]

I have to laugh at how nobody seems to be able explain how something came from nothing, yet can blindly accept a theory built on the assumption stemming from that dilemma.

Originally posted by speaker

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by speaker
Hey, anything is possible, even winning tattslotto every week for the rest of your life. The odds are probably more favourable.

how about you give us the odds for a deity magically popping up and creating an entire universe before you start talking about the odds for evolution

I fail to see why you are connecting me with the creation of the entire universe theory, but I imagine the odds are far more favourable than those required for evolution's explanation.

Your opinion on whether evolution happens is no basis for fact.

This is the problem with scientist's, they continually rule out possibilities.

Hmmm religionites, they HAVE ruled out all other possibilities - at least science rules out other possibilities and not just deny them totally.

Why do you think that these two options are the only two possibilities to explain how we got to where we are now?

So by your thinking, because evolution is 'wrong' then creationism is right by default because there is only 'two' explainations?????

By the way, have you worked out how something came from nothing yet?

Whoever said that before the universe existed there was nothing????? It is entirely possible that some form of energy existed which was then converted to the material universe we see around us ( IN fact I would go as far as to say that this is more than a possibility and place 'CLOSE TO FACT' on it)



G

[edit on 3-4-2007 by speaker]

Originally posted by speaker
I have to laugh at how nobody seems to be able explain how something came from nothing, yet can blindly accept a theory built on the assumption stemming from that dilemma.

evolution has NOTHING to do with things coming from nothing.

so again, show the evidence, because there's lots for evolution

Originally posted by shihulud
Your opinion on whether evolution happens is no basis for fact.

When did I say it was?

Originally posted by shihulud
Hmmm religionites, they HAVE ruled out all other possibilities - at least science rules out other possibilities and not just deny them totally.

Religionites are just as bad, for the same reason.

Originally posted by shihulud
So by your thinking, because evolution is 'wrong' then creationism is right by default because there is only 'two' explainations?????

Did you read anything I wrote? Scientists are the ones who rule out possibilities. This is your problem, not mine. There are many possible explanations. Scientists choose to ignore them.

Originally posted by shihulud
Whoever said that before the universe existed there was nothing????? It is entirely possible that some form of energy existed which was then converted to the material universe we see around us ( IN fact I would go as far as to say that this is more than a possibility and place 'CLOSE TO FACT' on it)

Are you kidding? Scientists are forever telling us that there was nothing before the Universe existed. I agree with you, it is entirely possible that some form of energy existed beforehand.


[edit on 3-4-2007 by speaker]

Originally posted by DarkSide
evolution has NOTHING to do with things coming from nothing.

so again, show the evidence, because there's lots for evolution

Really? What's starting point does evolution use? Isn't it a one single celled living organism? How did this originate?

The so called evidence for evolution, are just circumstances that you assume to support your theory. I've already provided alternative explanations for each of the points of so called evidence for evolution presented.

I also cannot show evidence that I will not win tattslotto every week for the rest of my life. By your logic that means it's going to happen?

Really? What's starting point does evolution use? Isn't it a one single celled living organism? How did this originate?

The first "lifeforms" were not cellular , but molecular. I'm talking about organic molecules that were able to replicate themselves hence their nickname of "replicators". Now evolution doesn't have anything to do with how these molecules came about, which is why i'm telling you evolution has nothing to do with how life came about that's called abiogenesis...(and again those replicators did not come from nothing either , just in case )