Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: drhogan
you may be right that the idea of random mutation is a bias that is not supported by evidence, but i don't even understand what you mean by saying it doesn't work with statistical science, that it's not plausible, and that it's a dead end assumption.

Merely gilding the lily.

Statistical: We have all seen the math regarding the number of mutations necessary for a simple organism to occur by random selection. The numbers exceed the atoms in the universe.

Plausible: If a simple organism can not exist by random selection in the time frame of the known universe, that hypothesis is implausible.

Dead end assumption: This is the same argument used against ID. Random is a process that can not be tested. Only if the system is systemic can it be tested.

At its root, evolution is based on a closed set of ideas that can not be tested and proven. It is a religious belief, albeit nontheistic, not science.

There!

How's that for stirring the pot?

418 posted on 10/01/2005 7:07:02 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (THIS IS WAR AND I MEAN TO WIN IT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies ]


To: Amos the Prophet
"Statistical: We have all seen the math regarding the number of mutations necessary for a simple organism to occur by random selection. The numbers exceed the atoms in the universe."

There is no way to calculate the odds of abiogenesis happening when we don't know the biochemical processes that took place.
The *calculations* you allude to have nothing to do with reality.

"At its root, evolution is based on a closed set of ideas that can not be tested and proven."

Sure it can be tested; it's tested all the time. It can never be proved, for the same reasons no other theory can be proved (outside of pure mathematics).
420 posted on 10/01/2005 7:21:32 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies ]

To: Amos the Prophet

well, that's much more clear.
i'll have to leave it to the biologists to argue this--i never studied evolution at even the college level.


436 posted on 10/02/2005 6:37:35 AM PDT by drhogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies ]

To: Amos the Prophet
We have all seen the math regarding the number of mutations necessary for a simple organism to occur by random selection. The numbers exceed the atoms in the universe.

I've never seen anything but simplistic a priori estimates that assume that proteins came together all at once with a defined single sequence. Know of anything that will take me more than 5 minutes to drive a truck through?

439 posted on 10/02/2005 7:30:24 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson