Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
It's either a very perfect natural snowflake, or a very elegant design where the artist captured the small asymmetries of reality without destroying the overall picture of symmetry.
The point is well made, in other words. :-)
I'm not picking on you personally, but I am questioning your ideas. I have no regard whatsoever for the feelings of your ideas.
I (and most biologists) regard the ID probability calculations as a monumental irrelevancy. At least 20 people on this thread have tried to explain why. You are calculating the probability of something that biology has never claimed happened. You are arguing against something that doesn't exist and never has existed.
What?
IIRC, he thought he was from a TV show.
Goodseed, I'll bet.
Nevermind, that was the strange Jesse whats-his-name!
sequence -> structure -> function -> Survive? if yes continue to next generation.
The sequences that encode for the best functions will be preserved and eventually dominate the population.
Invoking a designer sitting at a work bench whittling away at sequences is superfluous when the struggle to reproduce/survive shapes the sequence over time.
I think I was number 5 (with a bullet).
Awesome site.
Now I invoke a ‘designer sitting at a work bench whittling away at sequences’? These imaginary arguments are… not intelligently designed.
Where does a ‘struggle’ to do anything exist within purely naturalistic constraints? Is nature invoking ‘struggle’? Where does ‘survive’ exist within purely naturalistic constraints? Is nature invoking ‘survival’? Whittle me this batman….
Since you know only the one true case and you don't know of any allowable FALSE cases you cannot calculate the probability. If you come along and find a coin laying on the ground and you see only a "head", would you then calculate the probability of it being heads by then assuming there are infinite possible ways the coin could land therefore it is impossible (due to the high odds) that it would land "heads" inspite of seeing it with your own eyes.
... therefore it is impossible (due to the high odds) that it would land "heads" </s>inspite of seeing it with your own eyes.</s> therefore someone had purposely placed it on the ground heads up.
... therefore it is impossible (due to the high odds) that it would land "heads" inspite of seeing it with your own eyes. therefore someone had purposely placed it on the ground heads up.
Talking about high odds, why do you think CBS and Dan Rather would ever apologize? A bit creo of you, eh?
I've trained you. :)
Sorry. Wrong person!
Yes. The sequences inhabit an environment where resources are limiting and predators abound. Small differences between the sequences can result in success or failure.
Mr. B would read it, note that the quote was not his and probably notify me that I probably hit the wrong post in which case I would review, note and then post to you.
Yes, it would get to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.