- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsExactly, which is why that programming of life video is rendered moot. They present probability figures for leaps, not tiny gradual steps. What creationists always seem to not accept is that during an evolutionary process where the environment depends on the organisms and the organisms depend on the environment, tiny changes to one or the other will ripple through the whole, or be stopped by the whole (depending on the nature of the changes). It's not a matter of highly improbable events taking place, such as a modern cells taking shape independent of the surrounding environment, with all its parts in place. When you have a gradual process the improbability values presented in the video become irrelevant. Consider this. If you have a dice with 200 sides on it, the probability that you will get a value larger than 190 and less than 200 on a single throw is unlikely. However, if you have a dice with six sides, and you keep throwing it, eventually you will land at a sum value of between 190 and 200 guaranteed. By that I don't mean to say that evolution is like throwing dice to reach a goal, but merely that when each step is small, the likelihood of it happening naturally is probable, as small changes happen all the time. And since whatever changes happen will produce the conditions for what further changes can succeed, you essentially have a selection process in place almost immediately, only allowing changes to propagate if they produce viable results within the selection framework, which is determined by the environment, which is affected by the organisms (and of course other natural events), which in turn affect the organisms, and so on, building ever more complex and stable inter/intracellular relationships.
Yes I understand what you believe. You believe evolution of life is a bottom up procedure in which life begins in its simplest form and additional parts and information gradually increase to form more and more complex life systems.
Originally posted by C HessI don't see it that way. I see it having a pair of regular dice in which the maximum total that can be scored each turn is 12, but a score of 100 is required with every roll of the dice. 😏
Exactly, which is why that programming of life video is rendered moot. They present probability figures for leaps, not tiny gradual steps. What creationists always seem to not accept is that during an evolutionary process where the environment depends on the organisms and the organisms depend on the environment, tiny changes to one or the other will ripple th ...[text shortened]... e organisms, and so on, building ever more complex and stable inter/intracellular relationships.
Originally posted by sonhouseI just don't feel like reading a dozen boring books by people with a biased political worldview that I do not agree with. I am sure I have seen enough of that from Youtube videos already. There are scientists on both side of the creation/Intelligent Design verses Evolution debates. I just don't believe the evolution arguments are convincing enough for me.
The proof is in a dozen books that you refuse to read. You don't WANT to read them so you can maintain your false sense of security in your self lobotomized brain.
Originally posted by RJHindsLike I said.
I just don't feel like reading a dozen boring books by people with a biased political worldview that I do not agree with. I am sure I have seen enough of that from Youtube videos already. There are scientists on both side of the creation/Intelligent Design verses Evolution debates. I just don't believe the evolution arguments are convincing enough for me.