06 Dec 08
Originally posted by PBE6"...plausible explanations on how this could have happened, but you still deny its plausibility (on grounds known only to you). ..."
They're in direct opposition.
But let's recap, because we seem to meander quite a bit. Your original question was about the human eye, with your position being that it was too complex to have been created out of a process based on random mutation. Several posters have provided you with plausible explanations on how this could have happened, but you still d ...[text shortened]... uantify and clarify the relative plausibility discrepancy between the two alternatives above?
Please be specific with me, what do you see as a plausible
explanation I was given over any point that I denied in such a way
that is only known to me?
Kelly
06 Dec 08
Originally posted by PBE6More to come, but it will require more time than I have now to write.
They're in direct opposition.
But let's recap, because we seem to meander quite a bit. Your original question was about the human eye, with your position being that it was too complex to have been created out of a process based on random mutation. Several posters have provided you with plausible explanations on how this could have happened, but you still d ...[text shortened]... uantify and clarify the relative plausibility discrepancy between the two alternatives above?
Kelly
06 Dec 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAGAIN, read this slowly...people and only people in this are making
Again, obviously I wasn’t referring to the [b]process of evolution but rather the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution DOES make predictions AND I have clearly already shown you a link that proves that fact.
Secondly, that doesn’t answer any of my questions:
-do you acknowledge the fact that evolution has some predictability?
-if so, how can the process evolution be a purely random process?[/b]
predictions, you are crediting a theory that people came up with from
actually performing a task, which is make a prediction.
Kelly
06 Dec 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you could program the entire theory of evolution in a computer, it would make the same predictions with no human help, so what is your problem?
AGAIN, read this slowly...people and only people in this are making
predictions, you are crediting a theory that people came up with from
actually performing a task, which is make a prediction.
Kelly
06 Dec 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI can only interpret your refusal to answer my questions as meaning you must know that evolution has some predictability and so is not a purely random process even through you will not say this -I think I leave it at that.
AGAIN, read this slowly...people and only people in this are making
predictions, you are crediting a theory that people came up with from
actually performing a task, which is make a prediction.
Kelly
06 Dec 08
Question 1: "do you acknowledge the fact that evolution has some predictability?"
This is a simple yes/no answer. Yes or no is enough as an answer.
Question 2: "if so, how can the process evolution be a purely random process?"
Here is an more full answer in place, if 'yes' on the question 1.
06 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseUh, okay do that for me I'll agree with you. I want it all, every tid bit
If you could program the entire theory of evolution in a computer, it would make the same predictions with no human help, so what is your problem?
of this is how all various pieces of every life came about, the whole
theory at work.
Kelly
06 Dec 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAgain, evolution is a theory, PEOPLE make predictions, there is a huge
I can only interpret your refusal to answer my questions as meaning you must know that evolution has some predictability and so is not a purely random process even through you will not say this -I think I leave it at that.
difference.
Kelly
06 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnas1. Not really, people can make predictions with or without evolution
Question 1: "do you acknowledge the fact that evolution has some predictability?"
This is a simple yes/no answer. Yes or no is enough as an answer.
Question 2: "if so, how can the process evolution be a purely random process?"
Here is an more full answer in place, if 'yes' on the question 1.
looking at data, it happens all the time.
2. I said no, so you didn't give a place to answer two.
Kelly
06 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayYou've flipped the burden of proof once again.
Uh, okay do that for me I'll agree with you. I want it all, every tid bit
of this is how all various pieces of every life came about, the whole
theory at work.
Kelly
Evolution is a general theory that explains the process by which the variety of life appears over long time periods due to random mutations that are passed along through genetic heritability and pruned through natural selection in an iterative fashion. Theories of this nature are not required to provide a complete description of every possible micro-step in the process in order for the general theory to be correct, much in the same way that the study of turbulent flow in fluid mechanics does not describe the movement of individual particles in the flow (the motion of which is chaotic and inherently unpredictable) but nevertheless describes the overall flow to a degree of accuracy required for engineering projects where public safety is at stake time and time again.
In contrast, the hypothesis of intelligent design (which I must emphasize is not a scientific theory, as it makes no predictions and offers no evidence) states that an intelligent designer designed everything with some intent in mind. Every particle, every quantum of energy, every interaction was thought out and implement at the beginning of the universe (or simply the inception of life), like a giant puzzle. If one piece of that puzzle is missing, the entire picture is incomplete. Therefore, the burden of proof falls to you to demonstrate the existence of this designer, how this designer came to be and why a complex being such as this springing into existence without the benefit of evolution is more probable than the idea that life developed iteratively without the benefit of a prime mover, the nature and extent of this being's power, how it is able to pierce the veil of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to ensure its predictions about particles and energy interactions would be valid more than a few picoseconds into the future and thereby allowing the kind of detailed design posited by the hypothesis, what the designer's intent was, etc...
(To be fair, is you just want to strike down the theory of evolution without replacing it with intelligent design or any other theory, you can try to show that the theory of evolution implies a fundamental impossibility. Good luck on either of these choices, though.)