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

Skip to comments.

What is wrong with intelligent design?
EurekAlert! ^ | 22-Feb-2007 | Suzanne Wu

Posted on 02/22/2007 6:22:34 PM PST by Boxen

In a thought-provoking paper from the March issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology , Elliott Sober (University of Wisconsin) clearly discusses the problems with two standard criticisms of intelligent design: that it is unfalsifiable and that the many imperfect adaptations found in nature refute the hypothesis of intelligent design.

Biologists from Charles Darwin to Stephen Jay Gould have advanced this second type of argument. Stephen Jay Gould's well-known example of a trait of this type is the panda's thumb. If a truly intelligent designer were responsible for the panda, Gould argues, it would have provided a more useful tool than the stubby proto-thumb that pandas use to laboriously strip bamboo in order to eat it.

ID proponents have a ready reply to this objection. We do not know whether an intelligent designer intended for pandas to be able to efficiently strip bamboo. The "no designer worth his salt" argument assumes the designer would want pandas to have better eating implements, but the objection has no justification for this assumption. In addition, Sober points out, this criticism of ID also concedes that creationism is testable.

A second common criticism of ID is that it is untestable. To develop this point, scientists often turn to the philosopher Karl Popper's idea of falsifiability. According to Popper, a scientific statement must allow the possibility of an observation that would disprove it. For example, the statement "all swans are white" is falsifiable, since observing even one swan that isn't white would disprove it. Sober points out that this criterion entails that many ID statements are falsifiable; for example, the statement that an intelligent designer created the vertebrate eye entails that vertebrates have eyes, which is an observation.

This leads Sober to jettison the concept of falsifiability and to provide a different account of testability. "If ID is to be tested," he says, "it must be tested against one or more competing hypotheses." If the ID claim about the vertebrate eye is to be tested against the hypothesis that the vertebrate eye evolved by Darwinian processes, the question is whether there is an observation that can discriminate between the two. The observation that vertebrates have eyes cannot do this.

Sober also points out that criticism of a competing theory, such as evolution, is not in-and-of-itself a test of ID. Proponents of ID must construct a theory that makes its own predictions in order for the theory to be testable. To contend that evolutionary processes cannot produce "irreducibly complex" adaptations merely changes the subject, Sober argues.

"When scientific theories compete with each other, the usual pattern is that independently attested auxiliary propositions allow the theories to make predictions that disagree with each other," Sober writes. "No such auxiliary propositions allow … ID to do this." In developing this idea, Sober makes use of ideas that the French philosopher Pierre Duhem developed in connection with physical theories – theories usually do not, all by themselves, make testable predictions. Rather, they do so only when supplemented with auxiliary information. For example, the laws of optics do not, by themselves, predict when eclipses will occur; they do so when independently justified claims about the positions of the earth, moon, and sun are taken into account.

Similarly, ID claims make predictions when they are supplemented by auxiliary claims. The problem is that these auxiliary assumptions about the putative designer's goals and abilities are not independently justified. Surprisingly, this is a point that several ID proponents concede.

###

Sober, Elliott. "What is Wrong with Intelligent Design," The Quarterly Review of Biology: March 2007.

Since 1926, The Quarterly Review of Biology has been dedicated to providing insightful historical, philosophical, and technical treatments of important biological topics.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creationisminadress; crevo; crevolist; evolution; fsmdidit; goddidit; id; idjunkscience; intelligentdesign; itsapologetics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 641-649 next last
To: Wakeup Sleeper
This is not macro evolution!!!!!!!! Your own paragraph said natural selection!!!!!! natural selection has nothing to do with adding to the genetic code!!!!!! A little lesson, your gene pool has a vast variety of possibility, greeen eys blue eyes, red hair, black hair, shoet, tall, dark skin, light skin, etc...etc... just a whole bunch of gene pool there. But you will always remain and have always been a human being!!!!! same for finches!!!! same for fish!!!!! cows or there kinds!!!! But I can assure you a whale was never a cow!!!!

Nice try to sidetrack, but I prefer to stick with the issue we are discussing:

To put it simply there is NO adding to the genetic code!!!!

You state that "your gene pool has a vast variety of possibility, greeen eys blue eyes, red hair, black hair, shoet, tall, dark skin, light skin" -- well duh!; many of those traits are additions to the genetic code. They did not always exist. Dark eyes, dark hair, and dark skin most likely are the original conditions. The rest are mutations, resulting in additions to the genetic code.
221 posted on 02/28/2007 7:22:53 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
Thats because its not a mutation!!!!

Are you referring to my comment:

Even mildly harmful mutations (sickle cell anemia) can convey an advantage (resistance to malaria) and spread within a population.

Of course its a mutation. And Thalassemia is a similar mutation that arose in a completely different population, also conveying resistance to malaria.

Both are examples of additions to the genetic code.

You are not doing very well tonight.

222 posted on 02/28/2007 7:28:59 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper

And like I said mutations or not it doesnt turn you into another TYPE of creature, and to say there is no real way for you to make claims as to whether a mutation is neutral or not, you would have to observe it and know all and I mean all the variables, which I know you do not. But what I do know is that your genetic info is all you get and its all you can pass on this absolute fact you know it and so does every credible honest thinker!!!! Also to add if evolution was so overwhelmingly obvious, why is it so easily disputed!!!! and not completely accepted, it should be as clear as the grass is green!!!! Butmany Honest highly known and regarded scientists who use to be evolutionists have greatly shown the lies in every aspect, with real believable logic and the visual evidence is overwhelming against evolution but evolutionists just have stories and drawings and hypotheticals and biased clicks at universities and fraudists and time and time again debunked non science nonsense!!!


223 posted on 02/28/2007 7:34:19 PM PST by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
And like I said mutations or not it doesnt turn you into another TYPE of creature, and to say there is no real way for you to make claims as to whether a mutation is neutral or not, you would have to observe it and know all and I mean all the variables, which I know you do not. But what I do know is that your genetic info is all you get and its all you can pass on this absolute fact you know it and so does every credible honest thinker!!!! Also to add if evolution was so overwhelmingly obvious, why is it so easily disputed!!!! and not completely accepted, it should be as clear as the grass is green!!!! Butmany Honest highly known and regarded scientists who use to be evolutionists have greatly shown the lies in every aspect, with real believable logic and the visual evidence is overwhelming against evolution but evolutionists just have stories and drawings and hypotheticals and biased clicks at universities and fraudists and time and time again debunked non science nonsense!!!

Nice diatribe. Meaningless, but nice.

But it does not address the question we are discussing, that of additions to the genetic code--that was your claim, wasn't it? No additions to the genetic code?

I have provided several examples. In response, you go off on unrelated tangents.

You are not doing very well tonight.

224 posted on 02/28/2007 7:39:01 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper

Look up Dr. Grady McMurtry He use to be an evolutionist and he is extremely knowledgable you may even get to talk to him, but I can assure you he will show you how ridiculous evolution is. And as I said he use to be an evolutionist scientist. Also I have a list of another fifty scientist I can give you and if thats not enough how about Henry M Morris He use to be an evolutionist or Gary E. Parker Or how about someone from Nasa, Dr, C. L. Cagan, I can give you many more highly positioned scientist who say evolution is pure junk and many of them use to be evolutionists, The only scientists that believe in evolution are the university biased quacks i know cause I seen them when I went to school at a university, they have there clicks like a bunch of hollywood wacks! And they get there junk printed in the reviews and there propaganda always gets front page news from there biased controlled hollywood/ media spin doctors. My pastor is a doctor three times and he use to be an evolutionist! He fell for the university Dr. Zaius (Planet of the apes) garbage at one time too, then he began to think with honesty and started to look at the real HARD evidence, which does not support evolution in the slightest! Peace!


225 posted on 02/28/2007 7:48:25 PM PST by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Wrong my friend those are not additions they were already in the pool to begin with they are just variations, they dont turn you into a person from a monkey!

As I said you dont add to the genetics that you were given you can rarange them all around and come up with different characteristics that many of us human beings have but you dont turn into a lizard, because its not there. theres no genes to be a lizard, your a human being created in the similatude Of God!


226 posted on 02/28/2007 7:54:06 PM PST by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper

Also you may have the genes for red hair but you might not be red haired thats because the genes were not dominant in you but it could show up later generations but red hair doesnt turn you into tweety bird! or would that be yellow hair, ha!


227 posted on 02/28/2007 7:56:10 PM PST by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
Another nice, but unrelated, diatribe. (I don't think its worth the bandwidth to repeat.)

You are trying to change the subject because you have been caught in a major error.

You claimed there can be no additions to the genetic code, and I showed you are wrong.

You have been trying to cover up your mistake with excess verbiage, all on unrelated topics, instead of either supporting your original contention or admitting your error.

You are not doing very well tonight.

228 posted on 02/28/2007 7:57:57 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; Wakeup Sleeper
You are not doing very well tonight. I'm afraid you've abserved the normal modus operandi of wake-up sleeper: There are only two steps left:
229 posted on 03/01/2007 1:24:21 AM PST by si tacuissem (.. lurker mansissem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
The second law of thermodynamics is plain and simple!!!!

Looks not like it is that for you.

First it is limited to thermodynamics.

It is limited to closed systems. The earth is from the thermodynamical point of view an open system because it gains energy from the sun.

The law makes no predictions about a subset in a closed system.

The law says nothing about order or disorder. It says the absorbed amount of energy per temperature has to be greater than zero for a process to happen. You probably thought about the concept of statistical mechanics of possible microscopic configurations of a system. That got nothing in common with order.

And finally it is just called a law but it is just a well supported scientific theory.
You may have heard something about holes in scientific theories?


"There are things called hybrids, that has nothing to do with macro evolution or should I say the hypothetical macro evolution which does not occur!"

You claimed that there is "NO adding to the genetic code". Hybridization is a way of adding to the genetic code.


"Mutations happen about 10 to the 7 power and for just four of them to occur is called just absolute O%"

10^7 compared to what? There are about 3 billion molecules in the human genome.
Especially for you: 3 billion = 3x10^9
10^7 is 100 times smaller than 3x10^9.


"Not to mention when mutations occur in people its called disease, because it always leads to the demise of the being and it has nothing to do with changing them into something else!"

This is a layman's concept of "mutation". "Mutation" is just another word for "change".


"Its time to be Honest first and formost and its time to quit trying to propagandise with things that have long been debunked!!!"

Yes, why don't you do this.

Particular then you have no idea what you are talking about. You mix up thermodynamics with order, hybridization with macro evolution and your math is at worst.
230 posted on 03/01/2007 3:56:46 AM PST by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

Complete junk Mhalblaub whether a "so called" closed system or not heat death occurs to anything that once has energy and then it runs down or becomes of no effect or equalises.

Hybridisation is not adding to the genetic code, it is mere recesive or dominant genes of specific characterisations that already exist in the pool of genes given.

mutations occur about 1 in a 1 with 7 zeros after it thats 10 to the 7 power. I think thats ten million aone in ten million chance. and for three to happen would be a 1 with 21 zeros after it, thats called zero% possibility! let alone for them to be benificial let alone for them to be related and also the fact that there is absolutly no
rhyme or reason that they should.

And science is just another word for to know or knowledge, and dinosaur was coined less than two hundred years ago and all it means is terrible lizard, and the lucy bones were named after the beatles song that was playing when the high on who was gathering them together named the bones after the song lucy in the sky with diamonds, thats real scientific there. And the word evolution just means to evolve or develop theres no real substance behind calling a theory.

The math is good the concepts are good and you are just bitter at the facts, Look up Dr. Grady McMurtry and many other who are scientists who USE to be evolutionists and they will explain it to you there are quite a few so it shouldnt be to hard for you. If you are Honest you will look them up. And I absolutly GAURANTEE you will not debunk what they show you! But thats if your honest.


231 posted on 03/01/2007 5:36:52 PM PST by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I havent been caught in any error your just trying to make it look so. Your gene pool is your gene pool that has been passed on to you, you can only get what you were given, thats all I can say to you. And what Ive said is fact I know and so do you! You got genes from your dad you got genes from your mom, and those are the genes that you have in ther combos, and that all you can pass on. PLain and simple. Nothing more can be said to you I guess, so you can quit trying to make it look like Im in error cause you know what Im saying. And so will most people when they look it up for themselves, they will see the truth if there being honest with their search. No Errors just simple facts! Peace!


232 posted on 03/01/2007 5:50:26 PM PST by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
I havent been caught in any error your just trying to make it look so. Your gene pool is your gene pool that has been passed on to you, you can only get what you were given, thats all I can say to you. And what Ive said is fact I know and so do you! You got genes from your dad you got genes from your mom, and those are the genes that you have in ther combos, and that all you can pass on. PLain and simple. Nothing more can be said to you I guess, so you can quit trying to make it look like Im in error cause you know what Im saying. And so will most people when they look it up for themselves, they will see the truth if there being honest with their search. No Errors just simple facts! Peace!

You have been defending a significant error, repeated in many of your recent posts. This error is the following:

To put it simply there is NO adding to the genetic code!!!!

I have posted examples of where this is incorrect, and cited websites showing you to be incorrect.

The mutations for lactose tolerance (which occurred differently in different parts of the world) are additions to the genetic code--they are mutations that did not previously exist.

The original humans, coming out of Africa, would have had dark skin and eyes. The mutations leading to light skin and blue eyes in northern Europe represent additions to the genetic code--mutations that did not previously exist.

There are a lot more examples. You could see them if you would just look around you and see the world as it is. Instead, you look at the world and try to make it conform to your belief system, though the evidence shows otherwise.

You seem unwilling to accept what scientists have learned about the real world, but your denial of reality does not alter that reality. Mutations occur whether you accept them or not. You just make yourself and the position you are defending look silly.

Are you familiar with the following quotation? It really does apply.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and they hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make confident assertions [quoting 1Ti. 1:7].

St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1:42-43.


233 posted on 03/01/2007 6:31:17 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
I said, You decide which ones to submit. Oh I bow down to your indoctrinated decision making process. You would never decide against those that do not fit your belief.

You asked, Why do you think Coyoteman would act like you do?


This is what I will say to it. This is a hypothetical situation that is most likely a bad example but never the less it is my attempt.

We must now imagine for a little while.

Imagine that someone has been placing graduated glass beakers around the Oregon coast range for an undisclosed amount of time (these beakers are 12" in diameter and 100' tall).
Some of these beakers are above ground, some have their tops level to ground, some are slightly below ground, some are under gutter down spout drains some are near wildlife, some are in completely shaded areas and some are in areas of full sun.
Now image if you can that there are imperfections in some of these beakers that are undetectable to the human eye, microscopic holes in the bottom, holes at mid way a quarter of the way and three quarters of the way.

Now imagine if you can that the Oregon coast gets approximately 9' of rain a year.

We know the days it rained and the days that the sun shined. We have knowledge of the evaporation rate.
Now one day a fine young student from OSU or U of O or both if you will are commissioned to find graduated beakers and determine their age in the outdoors.

Now being well educated by the Government controlled educational system they do a fine job of finding many beakers

Now the first beaker brought back to the lab was above ground and completely dry of water. So they determined it must be less than a month that it has been outdoors because it has not rained in a month. (But they were wrong because it has been out doors for more than 10 years it just has microscopic holes in the bottom so it never holds water.

The next beaker they bring back was in the ground and is filled to the brim. By using their presupposed educational minds they determine that the beaker must have been out doors for more than 11 years. But once again they were wrong because of the ground water that washed by the area when it rains filled the beaker.

Now you can see I could continue to make examples of the different situations in where they only use atmospheric assumptions to determine the age.

I am sure that Coyoteman is well educated and does or did a good job where ever he worked.

But I am also positive that he tested many things and because the date did not fit the presupposed date required the test was considered flawed. Now how do we know this test was flawed and not the one which the date fit the criteria?

I would also have to say even though he has claimed the calibration for atmospheric conditions that is not the only factor in a specimen. What about leaching? What about leaching during extra wet years? What about leaching in extra dry years? What effect does the magnetic field have on the decay rate? (To claim it has no effect is speculative and there are studies that show that magnetics do effect decay rates)What effect does burying the specimen? What effect happens when exposed on the surface? What effect does extreme heat or extreme cold in various degrees have upon the object in question?

C-14 dating is a science so young that any thing we test with it is assumptive in nature as we can only understand less that 1 percent of the field based upon the decay rate we know now. In the uniformitarian thinking of this science.

I would than have to say if it decays at a steady rate as they think than the magnetic field must also decay at a steady rate and therefore the earth would have been a magnetic star less than 20,000 years ago. If you give me the assumption that the magnetic field fluctuates (Over 150 years of testing does not show the magnitude greater than when measuring first begun) than I would have to say so does the decay rate and therefore you can not properly date and object using any decay rate methods as first you must know the fluctuation rate.
234 posted on 03/01/2007 8:09:06 PM PST by Creationist ( Evolution=alternative to believing in God to justify their moral shortfalls and animal behavior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
You said,
The original humans, coming out of Africa, would have had dark skin and eyes. The mutations leading to light skin and blue eyes in northern Europe represent additions to the genetic code--mutations that did not previously exist.


Sorry this is not an example of mutations to the code. This is an example of isolation of a population from a larger gene pool. As a population lives longer without outside information the pool becomes more alike the traits become more pronounced.

As with America we have a large gene pool and therefore we do not have lots of people with the racial traits.

Now I know I did not explain that scientifically enough but it it correct.

As to lactose intolerance that is an assumption on your part. The gene has alway been there it is now becoming more identified because of the amount of people with it continue to have children an therefore some will start to show the signs.
235 posted on 03/01/2007 8:17:29 PM PST by Creationist ( Evolution=alternative to believing in God to justify their moral shortfalls and animal behavior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I would also like to add this is evolution trying to break away from the original racist form it has and had, by now claiming all humans came from Africa.

But do you not find it strange that Africans still have brown skin, and Asians have a lighter skin with different facial features, and Europeans are whiter with different facial features.

Not to mention the body differences. Yet true to the Bible we all have the same types of blood, and can reproduce with each other. Hmm
236 posted on 03/01/2007 8:25:05 PM PST by Creationist ( Evolution=alternative to believing in God to justify their moral shortfalls and animal behavior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Williams

The Supreme Architect designed and BUILT the universe, and yet ignorant men label any mystery as GOD, and look no further. Once there was the GOD named THOR that was responsible for lightning. Or it was GOD'S punishment for sinners.

Beginning with a SCIENTIST by the name of Ben Franklin(and others), lightning is now a well understood process of electrical discharge of the negatively charged earth/positively charged ionosphere - spherical capacitor(400,000 V at 50mi gap and 1800A average flow).

Basically we have then the "lestrade" mentality vs the "sherlock holmes" mentality. Those who GLOM onto quick and easy explanations(lazy intellects)and those who do the real detective work to solve mysteries. Which type would you have leading you out of the forest of ignorance?


237 posted on 03/01/2007 8:45:37 PM PST by timer (n/0=n=nx0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
I would also like to add this is evolution trying to break away from the original racist form it has and had, by now claiming all humans came from Africa.

BS. The evidence shows that the original humans came from Africa. This has been accepted for most of a century.


But do you not find it strange that Africans still have brown skin, and Asians have a lighter skin with different facial features, and Europeans are whiter with different facial features.

No, I do not find that strange. I find that pretty much expected. It was all explained in my study of human races. These changes are to be expected based on environmental paramaters as humans migrated away from Africa.


Not to mention the body differences. Yet true to the Bible we all have the same types of blood, and can reproduce with each other. Hmm

Of course we can all reproduce. We are all of the same species.

You really need to study some anthropology and biology and see what scientists are really finding in their research.

238 posted on 03/01/2007 8:51:27 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
So how do you explain the darker skin of the Eskimo? Environmental parameters and dark skin.

Sorry variations of humans is not evolution.

Also is is speculative and assumptive to believe that man if evolved came from Africa. Unless you have dug up all of the Antarctic, South American, North America, Europe, Asia, the bottom of the Ocean's.

You do not know what color skin the original human Biblical or evolved were.

Your assumption of predictability is arrogant in nature. As nothing is being predicted, you are saying that evolution has happened based upon visible traits in humans, when all historically recorded humans have been white, yellow, black, brown, red. That is not proof. If evolution (not variation) be true what kind of human being is next? 3 legs, wings, eyes in the back of head.

India is hot, they have dark skin but features of European.

North America is colder, American Indians are not white.

South America is hot and the Indians do not look like the African's

Sorry environmental predictions do not fit. This is hog wash.

When the people were dispersed from the Tower of Babel isolation of genes from a large pool made distinctive traits stand out.
239 posted on 03/01/2007 10:21:49 PM PST by Creationist ( Evolution=alternative to believing in God to justify their moral shortfalls and animal behavior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
"Complete junk Mhalblaub whether a "so called" closed system or not heat death occurs to anything that once has energy and then it runs down or becomes of no effect or equalises."

Finally true for the whole universe in some billion or trillion years. But until today your you showed that your knowledge about thermodynamics is complete junk.


"Hybridisation is not adding to the genetic code,"

The genes of horses and donkeys are not equal. Therefore one of them is adding code to the other. You think just adding existing code is worth nothing. No! No! No! You see the difference to one "No!"? We are adding only a little bit more than 26 chars. Nature uses just 4. So adding existing things can result in a change. Si! Si! Si!

"mutations occur about 1 in a 1 with 7 zeros after it thats 10 to the 7 power. I think thats ten million aone in ten million chance. and for three to happen would be a 1 with 21 zeros after it, thats called zero% possibility!"

Your math is as worse as your physics. Let's say the possibility for you to hit the jackpot is 1^12. The possibility for you to hit the jackpot 3 times is 1^36. But for 3 other people people to hit the jackpot it's still only 1^12. The jackpot for you would be knowledge in stochastic.

"And the word evolution just means to evolve or develop theres no real substance behind calling a theory."

"Lucy", "Apollo", "Evolution" all chars have a different meaning in a different contexts. Therefore people sometimes create new words like "HIV", "Wikipedia" or "dinosaur" to make the denotation clear.
For beginners:
There is a theory called evolution with certain claims and restrictions.
And there is the fact of biological evolution.
Like gravitation and the theory of gravitation.

The math is good the concepts are good and you are just bitter at the facts...

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
Your math is horrible and your concept of thermodynamics, too . What facts? Your unproven claim about "NO adding to the genetic code" or your unproven "Order" construct via thermodynamics?

...Look up Dr. Grady McMurtry and many other who are scientists...

If you claim something then show it to me. I won't search for your claims.

"And I absolutly GAURANTEE you will not debunk what they show you! But thats if your honest."

Show it to me and I'll debunk it.
The problem is you may not understand the reasoning because of your obvious lack of knowledge in math and physics.
240 posted on 03/02/2007 3:23:20 AM PST by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 641-649 next last

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.

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