Question for Evolutionist's

Originally posted by dudeawesome
I havn't seen this anywhere in the thread...random mutation.com

This page goes on about how random mutation just can't do the things that are attributed to it, and I find it very compelling. This is a fundamental principal of evolution, so it is easy to make the assumption that science is going on faith with a oversight like this.

pleiotropy.fieldofscience.com... -idiotic-random.html

Enter a sentence and mutate it by changing one or more letters at a time, and wait until a new sensible sentence appears.

That it doesn't work is his proof that "the notion of Random Mutation as a source of evolutionary progress is utterly false and absurd."

The sensible counter argument is that just mutating and waiting for a new sentence to appear is akin to evolution in a flat fitness landscape. The generator does not differentiate between gibberish and meaning, even though we are sitting there waiting for meaning. But inside the computer there is no information about which kind of sentence is fitter - like in nature, if the landscape is flat, there is no selection, and we only observe neutral evolution. Marshall then explains that when a fitness function is supplied by a person, then it's design (since an intelligent person designed it with a specific goal in mind).

promotedprofits.com...

Marshall got his master’s degree in Physics and worked as an electrical engineer for 10 years. He is a very technical guy himself and has interests in various other fields as well. Industrial automation, health, religion etc., are few of the other areas of his expertise, and he even goes on to write quality article on them for readers to read and benefit from. He delivers lectures to the students across and writes articles which are by means very potent tools for the success.

reply to post by dudeawesome


The trick on that site is based on a false premise. A sentence is changed randomly and after many steps it becomes clear that you this will not lead you to another coherent sentence. This is taken as an indication that random mutation can't lead to coherent evolution.

It's wrong for two reasons, and both of them are related to natural selection. First, mutations are selected for based on their effect on the reproduction rates of the individuals with the mutations. If the mutation increases the individuals number of offspring, and those offspring have the mutation, the mutation will propagate and be found in greater and greater proportions of the population. There's no analogues mechanism in the website's sentence mutating tool. Secondly, mutations that decrease an individuals reproductive success - or kill the organism - are selected against. If the mutation causes them to have less children and their children have the mutation, the proportion of the population with the mutation will decrease. The sentence mutation tool has no comparable mechanism to this.

Consider that if "bad" mutations were selected against in the sentence mutator, as they are in real life evolution, then no mutations that made the sentence less meaningful would persist. The only mutations that would occur would change words into other words. It is clear that making the sentence mutator more realistic in this way would almost certainly resolve the problem of producing coherent sentences.

reply to post by UniverSoul


It's called holy water!

I'm not so educated in evolution, but I'm sure we're all watching devolution in this thread. I have actually learned a lot of interesting things and some questions have been answered.

I want to thank the people who are contributing to this thread with real, sincere information, even if the OP is in denial, I learned at lot. Keep it coming. I want to know more about dinosaurs and birds. What was the age of mammals, after the extiction of the dinosaurs?

I think this a fascinating thread, inspite of the OP, he's here for laughs. My laughs!

reply to post by windword

I want to know more about dinosaurs and birds. What was the age of mammals, after the extiction of the dinosaurs?

what exactly do you mean?
i think from the top of my head birds evolved from dinosuars and this is anatomicaly quite obvious..
mammals and birds were around with the dinosaurs if im not mistaken

reply to post by Sailor Sam


No one has spoken a word about God on this forum but you...obviously you know other threads the op makes...trolling at its best.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Youji69

 

So there's nothing actually observable? We have to just believe that one fossil became another without seeing it happen? I know its supposed to take "millions and millions of years" but if that's the case wouldn't we see animals even today evolving and becoming a knew kind? How come we never see this? I think it takes alot of faith to believe one animal genus became another with no one ever seeing it happen.

Exactly! If we evolved from apes or fish, why are there still fish and apes and even better if it took millions of years to happen...obviously the millions of years have already passed so we would still be seeing evolution take place. So revelation the answer your lookin for is no there is no such thing as evolution.

Originally posted by UniverSoul
reply to post by windword

 

I want to know more about dinosaurs and birds. What was the age of mammals, after the extiction of the dinosaurs?

what exactly do you mean?
i think from the top of my head birds evolved from dinosuars and this is anatomicaly quite obvious..
mammals and birds were around with the dinosaurs if im not mistaken

The first thing I thought of when I read the OP's question, was that some dinosaurs evolved into today's birds. The OP shot that down, early in the thread, so nobody bothered to explain or provide that proof. I would love to learn more about which birds from which dinosaurs, pics, links, you know......

Then I started thinking about the era after the demise of the dinosaurs, and all those very wierd animals, moles like creatures and platipi, and what they evolved into. When did the big aminals emerge , like the saber tooth tiger, mammoths, etc. Why do whales have legs and arms....? ! ! :puz

Fascinating stuff. I know, go look it up, but this thread is so informative, I hate to see it derailed by the OP!

LOL Wow, a whole lot of posts, but not one single real answer!

Oh yeah, I forgot... it's hard to provide proof for something that isn't true.

I always find 2 things funny when a subject like this comes up (sad, but funny):

1.) People still try to use the fossil layers as an actual argument.

2.) Evolutionists are always so quick to anger.

As hard to believe as evolution is, its only made impossible by the fact that a male and female evolve at the same time, and that their respective sperm and egg are in synch.
Only those with a faith far outstripping that of a creationist, could accept that happened.

you prove yours and i'll prove mine


314769911046513 = the truth

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by UniverSoul
reply to post by windword

 

I want to know more about dinosaurs and birds. What was the age of mammals, after the extiction of the dinosaurs?

what exactly do you mean?
i think from the top of my head birds evolved from dinosuars and this is anatomicaly quite obvious..
mammals and birds were around with the dinosaurs if im not mistaken

The first thing I thought of when I read the OP's question, was that some dinosaurs evolved into today's birds. The OP shot that down, early in the thread, so nobody bothered to explain or provide that proof. I would love to learn more about which birds from which dinosaurs, pics, links, you know......

Then I started thinking about the era after the demise of the dinosaurs, and all those very wierd animals, moles like creatures and platipi, and what they evolved into. When did the big aminals ermerge , like the saber tooth tiger, mammoths, etc. Why do whales have legs and arms....? ! !::puz

Fascinating stuff. I know, go look it up, but this thread is so informative, I hate to see it derailed by the OP!

edit on 15-9-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)

well the velocoraptor was a lot like a bird of prey as im sure many of you know (jurassic park)
but i know they had birds around when the first dinosaurs appeared, that was a very dry and hot time so they may have been similar to vultures, but from remains we know a lot fiecer.
once again mole like creatures or rodents were around near the first sign of dinosaur. platapi are australian and i think they have similar species in asia.
sabers and mammoths can in around the ice age..saber was much earlier tho. not sure about the tiger, id say later ice ago tho..

haha but why do whales have legs and arms..ill hazard a guess and say something like they possibly left the water and returned for some reason??? probably some faster large large animal emerged, or something evolved a group technique to kill them.
i believe that life started in the water. but its possible they started on land and went into the water which would be fairly amazing i think.
www.edwardtbabinski.us...
just found that link, i still think they started in the water, went to land, then back to water.

but you can see just as many weird animals alive today..

reply to post by iterationzero


Nice try, but it was still a plant.

Originally posted by boony
As hard to believe as evolution is, its only made impossible by the fact that a male and female evolve at the same time, and that their respective sperm and egg are in synch.
Only those with a faith far outstripping that of a creationist, could accept that happened.

thats simply not true
mutations are passed down from one parent to the baby not both. if you look at how chromosomes work youll understand.

we all saw how ATS's poll on evolution vs. creationism went so lets just be happy that the majority of us aren't stupid.

this is an endless argument that will never be satiated. even if we showed 100% undeniable proof of evolution im sure creationists would still not believe it.

so let the dummys be dumb and let the smart ones continue to learn and grow and we will continue improving this world through our understanding and they will continue leeching off of the science they disagree with

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by iterationzero

 

Nice try, but it was still a plant.

I think I found the plant you're looking for!
Proof positive of evolution!!!!! Case closed.
youtu.be...

Originally posted by jeramie
LOL Wow, a whole lot of posts, but not one single real answer!

Oh yeah, I forgot... it's hard to provide proof for something that isn't true.

I always find 2 things funny when a subject like this comes up (sad, but funny):

1.) People still try to use the fossil layers as an actual argument.

2.) Evolutionists are always so quick to anger.

there are plenty of answers your just not taking them seriousls because religion is a form of self delusion.

to understand these things you need to look at it from a perspective free from society, emotion and really comprehend the facts. its hard to explain but im sure atheists or people of a similar nature will understand.

1. whats wrong with fossils?
2. yes, just like christians. its because to us its so obvious we really cant understand what your thinking.

religion: ther smartest marketing ploy ever.

Originally posted by Evanzsayz

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Youji69

 

So there's nothing actually observable? We have to just believe that one fossil became another without seeing it happen? I know its supposed to take "millions and millions of years" but if that's the case wouldn't we see animals even today evolving and becoming a knew kind? How come we never see this? I think it takes alot of faith to believe one animal genus became another with no one ever seeing it happen.

Exactly! If we evolved from apes or fish, why are there still fish and apes and even better if it took millions of years to happen...obviously the millions of years have already passed so we would still be seeing evolution take place. So revelation the answer your lookin for is no there is no such thing as evolution.

haha this is an extremley ignorant answer..
who are you to say that we are the more evolved creature. other animals have amazing skills and once again your not disproving evolution because its about adapting to your environment..we started of scavengers and were going to ruin the world as scavengers
this is part of the delusions of religion and modern society: that we are superior and amazing and everything around was created for us?
honestly thats a joke
learn from the ancient people that your religions killed. they respected the earth and lived happily until the devolution of a specises began.
we are smart but that is our downfall in a way because look at the messed up stuff that happens in our world..

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


What you are basically asking to see evidence in the instant, of which occurs over millions of years. Fortunately for you, evolution is readily observable in the witnessing of changes in cellular structure, mutations and the genus of an organism. That organism is the HIV virus.

www.youtube.com...

Heres a video i found with a quick search. there is tons of information, enjoy

Originally posted by ztruthseeker
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

What you are basically asking to see evidence in the instant, of which occurs over millions of years. Fortunately for you, evolution is readily observable in the witnessing of changes in cellular structure, mutations and the genus of an organism. That organism is the HIV virus.

haha exactly if it doesnt effect them directly they dont understand it..just like how we will probably destroy the world before we take action about anything important..