Re: How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- From: "Iain" <iain_inkster@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Mar 2006 07:10:34 -0800
NashtOn wrote:
johnfromberkeley@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi, I am not a biologist, or a scientist of any type, but I do trust
the integrity of the scientific community at large with regards to
evolution.
Why? It's marred with fraud and hoaxes. I have faith in science when
experimental data is corroborated in different labs and the research
isn't funded by people with a vested interest in the matter.
I also have faith in the science that is actually useful to mankind.
Like th kind of science that helps me and other health care pros in
their daily clinical role of healing and helping others.
So far, the ToE has proved to be useless, which makes the vehement
arguments in this ng between the atheists and the deists quite funny.
My friend, however, believes in "intelligent" design. He believes there
is anomalous math with regards to the number of years required for
species to evolve to their current state of development. I am looking
for opinions on the following assertion:
It's not merely a matter of anomalous math, it's a question of belief
and ideology. If you follow this ng enough, you'll soon realize that
it's infested with xposting to various and sundry atheist forums, so the
lien is obvious and self-explanatory.
Some people see the world around them and use it as proof of a Creator,
some, mostly atheists, wonder at how random mutations were responsible
for the biosphere in its present form.
"to get from a one-celled organism to a human with at least 1 trillion
cells there would have to be many changes. if you limit necessary
mutations to 1000 and half are beneficial the odds against getting them
in the right order is 21000 in decimal form about 10301 this is far
beyond the capacity of the universe to generate during its lifetime so
far. the universe would have to be a trillion quadrillion [9 more
quadrillions] old."
This is strange math, indeed. What most "creationists" have a difficult
time with, as it pertains to the ToE, are the following:
1.Macroevolution and increased complexity.
Increased complexity is no trick. Indeed, your body and mine no doubt
have subtly different degrees of complexity.
If a succession of environments is not purely cyclic, adaptation will
adapt _with_ old adaptation and so complexity is inevitable because of
constant exaptation.
Keeping the adaptation simple would require forethought and
intelligence -- a planned overhaul of some kind. No such thing is
possible -- or evident.
Furthermore, that the complexity is task-oriented is no suprise either,
because pieces of genetic data are sieved in such a way that it is
filling out increasingly-elaborate ways of achieving the task
reproduction.
2.Utter lack of any experimental data.
The paragraph I typed above beginning with "furthermore" talks of
things experimented with ball-bouncingly well.
~Iain
.
- References:
- How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- From: johnfromberkeley
- Re: How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- From: NashtOn
- How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- Prev by Date: Re: How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- Next by Date: Re: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- Previous by thread: Re: How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- Next by thread: Re: How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
