Re: Darwin, HIV, stem cells, and evolution
- From: "Steven L." <sdlitvin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:19:12 -0500
hersheyh wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:32 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:TomS wrote:"On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:27:11 -0800 (PST), in articleThat's a ridiculous argument. Without knowing anything about the
<736bddc0-a9dd-4248-8397-c80871cfc...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, wf3h
stated..."
On Feb 22, 11:13=A0am, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:[...snip...]On Feb 19, 1:34=A0pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:now THIS is hysterical!! the creationist REQUIRES that science us HISEveryone here with a brain knows what you are really doing with allYou're the one deliberately lying here. =A0You build this same strawman
your bogus math and slippery meaningless phrases: =A0Trying to present
the lie that evolution works by completely random assembly from
scratch in such a way that the lie is less visible.
misrepresentation endlessly despite constant correction. =A0Evolution
never starts from scratch. =A0It always starts with a viable genome as
its starting point(s). =A0It is just that starting with a viable genome
of a large number of viable starting points doesn't help the mechanism
of RM/NS find novel beneficial systems beyond the 1000 fsaar level of
functional complexity to any significant degree. =A0There simply are no
examples in literature of evolution in action at or beyond this level
and, statistically, the odds of success at this level is essentially
nil this side of trillions of years of time.
Of course, you don't even consider the odds in your just-so stories.
math to prove itself when, if you apply the SAME math to creationism,
it fails 100% of the time
creationism has NEVER been right...even once. yet sean made the
argument that, since it's wrong, and therefore has been tested, it's
right!!
truly orwellian language
What is the probability that intelligent designer(s) would decide
to design humans to be so very much like chimps and other apes?
What is the probability that intelligent designer(s) would decide
to design all forms of life (living and extinct) with the appearance
of being related by common descent with modification?
What is the probability that intelligent designer(s) would decide
to design life on earth with the appearance of billions of years of
history?
Intelligent Designer's approach to designing life on Earth, it's
impossible to estimate these probabilities.
Tell that to Sean Pitman. He apparently thinks that because he can
exclude the possibility that sequences emerge from a completely random
process (which are the only kinds of processes one can apply
probability theory to) that he can say that an Intelligent Designer
did it.
I wish I had seen your post earlier, because it's false.
If you did know the series of mutation events that took place to modify the genetic sequence, you could model it as a Markov process, with each mutation as one step in a Markov chain. But, of course, we don't know that series of events quite yet.
I tend to argue that because one cannot achieve these sequences by
random assembly from scratch that there must be some causal factor
responsible for at least *some* of the observed sequence.
Sure. The laws of chemistry are responsible.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Howard theory - "cannot be computed"
- Next by Date: Re: Howard theory - "cannot be computed"
- Previous by thread: Re: Darwin, HIV, stem cells, and evolution
- Next by thread: www.iofferkicks sell:nike shoes:$32,handbag:$35,NFL:$20,jean:$30,UGG
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
