Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

Problem is also as that evolutionists think that the longer the time , the better/higher the changes become.
Any good statistical book will learn you that that is false!
And nothing could be further from the truth.

Your statement is what is false. I doubt you can present one statistical book to back up your statement.

Quote:

Because a change let's call it P(x) is always between 0 and 1. Always, always, always.
If you add all the changes over trilion of years then P(x) > 1, which is an impossibility, an absurdity.
You see, you don't add changes in this case, you MULTIPLY them!~
and because you multiply a number between 0 and 1, after being multiplied the number is SMALLER!
So, with time the changes become smaller and smaller and smaller.

Wow. You really don't understand probability. According to your way of doing things the chances of getting a royal flush in poker have gone down over the years and the longer I play without getting one the less of a chance I have to get one.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

the likelihood of at least one outcome occurring is 1

parados, please, please, please, study some statistics before you come with this bullshit! promised?

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Maybe stat reading up on statistics. what you are claiming is extremely wrong indeed.
And while you are at it, try some reading up to evolution as well.!

are you realy claiming now that evolution is not random???
Do you even know what you wrote and what the implications are??
I think you are getting very scared of the statistics.
You seem to be in denial.

where is this one coming from?

Of course evolution isn't random. Are you going to argue that all random changes in DNA have an equal chance of being passed down to progeny? That would be required for evolution to be completely random.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Quote:
the likelihood of at least one outcome occurring is 1

parados, please, please, please, study some statistics befoe you come with this bullshit! promised?

ROFLMAO..

I tell you what Q. Throw a 6 sided die. I guarantee the likelihood of there being an outcome every time you throw the die is 1. The likelihood of throwing a 6 is 1 in 6 but the likelihood of you throwing a number or having the dice cocked is 1 in 1.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Of course evolution isn't random

Ok then, enlighten me and tell me than what it is if not random!

Good luck!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

quahog says:

Quote:

are you realy claiming now that evolution is not random???

No, you idiot, I'm not. YOU read up on statistics and probability and evolution.If you had read the reply, you might have understood what I was saying was that, after four billion years of life on earth, DNA DOES NOT OCCUR AS A RANDOM JUMBLING OF 300,000,000 BASE PAIRS. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT, IF A VIABLE OFFSPRING IS PRODUCED. If a pair of humans reproduce, the probability is essentially 1 (one) that the offspring will have a genome consisting of half the father's DNA and half the mother's (with a very, very small probability of a mutation or two). You simply do not get Herald 's (and your) jumble of random base pairs. That's what DNA is all about. What Herald SHOULD have been calculating, if he could, was the probability of cxhemistry and physics producing some much simpler structure that will self-replicate and eventually after millions of years produce a more cojmplicated structure . Which he didn't. Which you haven't. Rather than back=project what has happened AFTER 4 billion years as if it were what happened four billion years ago.

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Of course evolution isn't random. It requires several things that are not random.

First of all, every random mutation is not viable. Then every viable mutation is not beneficial or neutral. Only those mutations that allow viability and are not harmful to survival can ever be passed on. Hardly random at all when it is selective as to which ones are passed on.

Which then leads us to the basic tenet of evolution which you want to ignore, survival of the fittest. A change in the environment can make a certain trait be more beneficial and thereby lead to all progeny having that trait because those without the trait can't survive. Once again, we see evolution isn't truly random.

Then as MJ pointed out, atoms don't randomly become molecules. It follows rules. DNA follows chemistry rules. The 4 building blocks of DNA are chemistry which is why they only combine in certain ways. To use a number that allows for any combination is false since A, T, C and G can't combine with all the other bases. That means the number Herald was attempting to use is complete nonsense since it isn't even close to the actual number of possible combinations that can occur and then ignores that most of those new combinations would create millions of new species because the basic genes would be so changed from humans.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

What Herald SHOULD have been calculating, if he could ...

No, I can't do such calculation mumbo-jumbo because it is missing the justification for plausibility. At first you have to prove then when you stir up in a barrel of stainless steel, for example, a mixture containing 65% O, 18.5% C, 9.5% H, 3.2%N, 1.5% Ca, 1.0% P, 0.3 S, 0.2% Na, 0.2% Cl, 0.1 Mg and add to this Cr, Co, Cu, F, I, Fe, Mn, Mo, Se, Si, Sn, V and Zn as trace elements, you are able to make a human out of that, and I immediately after that I will start calculating the probability. The key-phrase is: 'hardly after that and not before'.

MontereyJack wrote:

... was the probability of chemistry and physics producing some much simpler structure.

It doesn't matter how much simpler the biological structure might be - you cannot make it by 'chemistry and physics' ... and if you think that the bacteria are 'much simpler structure' why don't you think again. We have a nano-bio-motor drive (of the flagella) with dimensions of nanometers. Can you make a motor drive with that dimensions - out of whatever you like ... and without using any intelligence.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

No, you idiot, I'm not. YOU read up on statistics and probability and evolution.If you had read the reply, you might have understood what I was saying was that, after four billion years of life on earth, DNA DOES NOT OCCUR AS A RANDOM JUMBLING OF 300,000,000 BASE PAIRS. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT, IF A VIABLE OFFSPRING IS PRODUCED. If a pair of humans reproduce, the probability is essentially 1 (one) that the offspring will have a genome consisting of half the father's DNA and half the mother's (with a very, very small probability of a mutation or two). You simply do not get Herald 's (and your) jumble of random base pairs. That's what DNA is all about. What Herald SHOULD have been calculating, if he could, was the probability of cxhemistry and physics producing some much simpler structure that will self-replicate and eventually after millions of years produce a more cojmplicated structure . Which he didn't. Which you haven't. Rather than back=project what has happened AFTER 4 billion years as if it were what happened four billion years ago.

Idiot? The one lacking in understanding is really you!

I asked you if evolution was not random, that what is it, and you seem not be able to answer!!!!!!

Npw, idiot what does it say here? :

Quote:

Mutations are Random

The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml

WHAT IS IT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT, IDIOT?????

sorry to say but you started being insulting!!!

0 Replies

Here is another one:

Quote:

Homo sapiens did not appear on the earth, just a geologic second ago, because evolutionary theory predicts such an outcome based on themes of progress and increasing neural complexity. Humans arose, rather, as a fortuitous and contingent outcome of thousands of linked events, any one of which could have occurred differently and sent history on an alternative pathway that would not have led to consciousness.

Scientific American (v. 271, pp. 84-91) The Evolution of Life

That is to say:random!

0 Replies

Quote:

Described in its simplest terms, evolution is easy to understand. Due to mutation, organisms undergo random changes, some of which are beneficial, while others are not. The organisms with beneficial changes enjoy a competitive advantage, and these changes are passed on throughout the population and become common; those with deleterious changes are at a disadvantage, are less likely to reproduce, and do not pass these changes on, causing them to disappear out of the population. This is natural selection in a nutshell. Within the scientific community, there are debates about topics such as the level at which selection operates or the relative rate of evolutionary change, but the simple principles outlined above lie at the heart of all versions of evolutionary theory.

Now, what is NOT RANDOM about this?!

And, as I have showed, if it is random, it doesn't work!!

It very simply can't according to statistics!

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Quote:
Described in its simplest terms, evolution is easy to understand. Due to mutation, organisms undergo random changes, some of which are beneficial, while others are not. The organisms with beneficial changes enjoy a competitive advantage, and these changes are passed on throughout the population and become common; those with deleterious changes are at a disadvantage, are less likely to reproduce, and do not pass these changes on, causing them to disappear out of the population. This is natural selection in a nutshell. Within the scientific community, there are debates about topics such as the level at which selection operates or the relative rate of evolutionary change, but the simple principles outlined above lie at the heart of all versions of evolutionary theory.

Now, what is NOT RANDOM about this?!

And, as I have showed, if it is random, it doesn't work!!

It very simply can't according to statistics!

You seem to purposely miss very important parts of the process.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

And, as I have showed, if it is random, it doesn't work!!

It very simply can't according to statistics!

No, you haven't shown anything. I have asked and yet you haven't presented any "******* EVIDENCE" to support your specious claim.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

You seem to purposely miss very important parts of the process.

well, not purposely. I am emphasing the randomness now

BUT, we have to be very clear on the fact if it is RANDOM or NOT!?

Because if randomness plays a role, and it seems it does, it can't be done!!!!!

SO, is randomness playing an important role with evolution or not?????

we have to be clear on that, because if it doesn't then WHAT ELSE DRIVES EVOLUTION?

I really think people here are in denial.

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

Because if randomness plays a role, and it seems it does, it can't be done!!!!!

Is this based on your ridiculous argument that there is no outcome over time?

0 Replies

Ever hear of survival of the fittest. That's intelligent design.

1 Reply

@MWal,

who are you talking too and what are you trying to say?

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

mutations are a random process , natural selection is NOT.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

... mutations are a random process , natural selection is NOT.

FM, you cannot have an equation in which some of the variables accept probability values and to claim at the same time that although some of the variables may take probabilistic values, the equation as a whole has nothing to do with probability.
Absolutely the same concerns the formal model of representing a given theory, but the things are more implicit. You cannot have formal model based on probability and to claim that the theory in principle has nothing to do with probability.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

... accept the truth of the Big Bang and evolution.

     Mister Mastermind of the Universe, may I, may I: Everything depends on the definition of truth
     Merriam Webster's about the Df.of truth: 1. The real facts about something; 2. A judgement, proposition or idea that is logically true
     What are the 'real' facts of the Big Bang 'theory': Gravitational Continuum (that nobody could even imagine); zero-D space (with infinitely great temperature and energy equal to the energy of the known Universe); above the law (a physical theory that is 'released' from complying with the laws of physics ... and math); etc.
     What about the 'logical truth': in contradiction with the laws of physics; in contradiction with the laws of math logic; in contradiction with itself - zero-D space, with zero dimensions that equals 3D space with 3D dimensions, measured in cu.m. How does that happen?
     Why don't you explain us the metrics? How can metrics in cu.m equal zero metrics with zero dimensions?
   What about time and Time-Space Continuum - how much faster runs the Cesium clock in the vicinity of the Great pyramid in comparison to the state of being far away from it?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know