I am now posting links, i have no desire to type. This agrees with me and I can defend it if need be so...
http://sensuouscurmudgeon./2008/04/03/the-inevitability-of-evolution-part-i/
http://sensuouscurmudgeon./2008/04/03/the-inevitability-of-evolution-part-ii/
http://sensuouscurmudgeon./2008/04/03/the-inevitability-of-evolution-part-iii/

The Inevitability of Evolution (Part I)

PERHAPS THE SECOND-MOST IGNORANT of the common objections to the theory of evolution (after the ever-popular “Why are there still monkeys?”) involves some kind of objection based on the imagined “odds” against this or that biological feature appearing “completely at random.” The best known general form of this objection is presented by the Discovery Institute, a well-funded collection of creationists who pretend to offer scientific opposition to evolution.

In response to the question What is the theory of intelligent design? they offer this: “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” Whatever the Discovery Institute may say about this, it’s nothing but a claim that evolution is far more improbable than their conjectured designer.

This kind of argument — which is essentially saying “I don’t believe it!” — could be employed against more than evolution. A creationist could look at the current totality of English history, or the biosphere, or whatever, and impulsively exclaim that it’s “impossible” for such to have occurred without outside guidance. But is it really?

If England is impossible, so of course is the rest of human history. So are you, because the innumerable events leading to your conception are vast beyond comprehension. Everything is impossible to such a mentality. At what point does reductio ad absurdum intervene to put an end to this nonsense? “Never,” replies the creationist. “Prove I’m wrong!” Thus it appears that we need this series of articles.

There are several variations of the argument that the odds are against evolution, all of them fallacious. Some formulations involve different fallacies, some involve them all. This series of articles will consider a few of them.

The first fallacy is “collapsing the continuum.” The usual application involves a computation of the supposed odds against the happening of some sequence of events. The fallacy consists of wrongly treating the entire sequence of events as if it were one single event.

For example, let us consider the odds against, say, tossing a coin 100 times and getting it to turn up “heads” every time. Of course, the chance of getting some string of results — any one at all — is 100%. But the chance of getting 100 heads in sequence, or any specific string of coin tosses involves an exponential computation — one chance in two for the first toss, then the same thing for the next, etc. At the end of the sequence, the likelihood of a specific outcome is so minuscule that it’s declared to be “virtually impossible.” [The actual odds against tossing 100 heads in sequence are 2100, or approximately 1.27 times 1030.]

However, at any step along the way the chance of getting heads on the next toss is one out of two, or 50%. So if you had already enjoyed an improbable sequence of tossing heads, the chance of success for the next toss is still 50-50. Confusing the odds for each step (which are always 50-50) with the odds for the entire sequence (1 in 1.27 times 1030) involves the fallacy of collapsing the continuum.

Let’s make it more complicated than heads or tails. Consider a deck of cards. Each shuffle of a deck of cards has an outcome which is one in 52! (That’s 52 factorial, which is 8.06581752 times 1067.) It’s a huge number, which can be a metaphor for the odds (quite unknown) against our presently-existing biosphere. For comparison, the estimated number of stars in the universe is “only” 1021. Source: this NASA webpage.

By comparing those exponents we can see that the odds against any particular card shuffle are truly beyond astronomical. Yet, if you go ahead and shuffle a deck … ta-da There it is. You’ve obtained a virtually impossible outcome.

The point of the card-shuffle example is not that our particular biosphere isn’t unlikely, because it is. It’s just that whatever biosphere gets produced will be equally unlikely. Ours is no more unlikely than any other. If you went back to 4 billion years ago and started the whole thing all over again, you’d probably end up with a totally different mix of species, none of them exactly like what we have now. But this particular shuffle of the cards is ours. We’re unique. Never to be repeated. Irreplaceable. Priceless. This is why — contrary to the endlessly repeated claims of the creationists — the evolutionary point of view places a far higher value on humanity than one where we could be wiped out and started up again on a whim.

One can, if so inclined, see the hand of Providence (excuse me, the Intelligent Designer) in the outcome. Or one may decline such speculations, because each step along the way is a natural event, and the outcome is therefore every bit as natural as its component events. There’s no scientific answer to such questions. But there’s always Occam’s Razor.

Similarly, the odds against the history of England being what it has been are probably even greater (I wouldn’t even guess at how to quantify that). It wouldn’t be repeated the same way, even if it could be started all over again. It happened, quite naturally, day by day. In retrospect, the sequence that occurred is improbable, sure, but no more than any other that might have resulted; and despite the “odds” against it, there’s nothing impossible or miraculous about any of it.

The biggest problem with these computations (coin tosses, card shuffles, English history, or the biosphere) is that if you take all the events that ever happened and then whomp up some kind of monster mathematical result by stringing all the steps together, then you miss the key point: each step along the way is mathematically on its own! It’s an error to assign the characteristics of the entire sequence to an individual step. For further insights, see the Gambler’s Fallacy.

So that’s the first fallacy: assuming the entire sequence is all one step, which we’ve named collapsing the continuum. All creationists’ arguments that involve this fallacy are worthless. Evolution works. You can bet on it.

In Part II of this series we will consider another fallacious “odds” argument used by creationists: thinking small, or failure to appreciate the scale of things.

he Inevitability of Evolution (Part 2
THE NEXT FALLACY in this series (after Part I) is failure to appreciate the scale of things: When some creationist says that “the odds” against a particular series of mutations are so enormous that … [blah, blah] … he fails to grasp the immensity of the time and numbers involved. What he’s doing in his mind is watching one creature and one line of its descendants, waiting for the mutations to appear. He’ll probably wait forever.

But in the case of bacteria, for example, there are (I’ve read) maybe 100 million (108) of the little darlings in only one cubic foot of sea water. The earth has 328,000,000 cubic miles of ocean water, which is 4.83 × 1019 cubic feet. That’s 4.83 x 1027 bacteria in the oceans. Each one divides every 30 minutes. There are 8,766 hours in a year, so every bacterium reproduces 17,532 times a year. This means there are 8.46 x 1031 bacterial reproductive acts every year. That’s a whole lot of reproducing and mutating going on. In a billion years — a span we can grasp but which is forbidden to creationists — it’s 8.46 x 1040 bacterial reproductive acts.

Because evolution works on such a large scale, we recognize the incredible enormity of the creationist’s blunder when he says: “I’ve been watching the bacteria in this petri dish for weeks, and no platypus has climbed out yet.” When we say “large scale,” we’re not indulging in puffery. Ten to the 40th power is a big number — a very big number. For comparison, the observable universe is estimated to be 2.6 x 1040 times as large as a nucleus of an atom. Numbers of this order of magnitude have provided endless fascination for scientists, as can be seen here: Dirac large numbers hypothesis. Now we can add to that collection of natural wonders the reproductive acts of bacteria in a billion years.

Regarding the time scale, Darwin understood its necessity, and recognized it as a potential problem, because the age of the sun (approximately 4.6 billion years) was not then known, and the most educated estimates at the time seemed woefully insufficient for evolution to have occured. Darwin wrote to Alfred Russel Wallace (the co-discoverer of natural selection) in 1869: “Thomson’s views of the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles …” The reference is to William Thompson, later Lord Kelvin. The full text of that letter can be found here: The life and letters of Charles Darwin. As we now know, the issue was resoundingly resolved in Darwin’s favor. A good discussion of the Darwin-Kelvin dispute is presented here: The Age of the Sun.

The alleged odds against a sequence of mutations melt away with so many possibilities existing every hour for an enormous span of years, especially when it’s realized that all a tiny mutation (one step in the sequence) needs to do is occur once. Thereafter it’s part of the world’s bio-inventory, and each of its offspring, growing increasingly numerous, has the same mutating odds that its ancestor did. Just as there were billions of opportunities per hour for the first step to happen, in a very short time there will be billions of opportunities per hour for the second step to be added to the first, and so on. These things don’t happen all at once. They don’t have to. They have time and numbers on their side.

Now consider DNA — a long string of hundreds of millions, sometimes billions of chemically bonded base pairs of atoms. The assembly of such a sequence is declared by creationists to be an impossible string of random coincidences — as if its existence were the sudden result of all those atoms, aimlessly moving around in distant locations, finding one incredible moment when they just happen to fly together and somehow assemble themselves into just the right string. But it doesn’t happen like that. It’s step by step, involving billions of events an hour over a huge scale of time.

It’s not strictly relevant to the fallacy under discussion, but we should briefly mention something that creationists often overlook when they insist that DNA is miraculous. Atoms don’t behave like a Teflon-coated ball-bearings. DNA is based on organic chemistry. Carbon atoms are very promiscuous. Long, complicated, carbon-based molecules form naturally. If the elements are present, you can’t really prevent it. Organic molecules have even been observed off the earth, in comets and interstellar dust clouds. Earth’s early oceans would probably have been full of them. Those are the building blocks from which more complex molecules can form. Before very long, the oceans are full of useful sub-assemblies that don’t need to be “invented” all over again. DNA doesn’t “defy the odds” to abruptly assemble itself from the random wandering of disassociated atoms; and imagining that it does only increases the creationists’ confusion about the odds against such structures.

The idea of building blocks ties in with the first fallacy we discussed earlier — collapsing the continuum. Whatever accumulated mutations you may have in your genetic configuration, you can stop thinking of them as mutations — they’re you. That’s the initial state as far as your offspring are concerned. Either a new mutation will appear or it won’t, and all the generations before you, going right back to the proverbial pond scum, are irrelevant in “computing the odds” of the future. The next generation, like the last, doesn’t start from ground zero. None of them do; none ever did. Over an immense time scale and after uncountable natural iterations, you have arrived at where you are today. It’s pointless to ponder the odds against the past, because the past has already happened. The future starts now; it’s based on the present which is a 100% certainty. How do you like those odds?

So now you know the second fallacy: thinking small, or failure to appreciate the scale of things. All creationists’ arguments that involve this fallacy are worthless. Evolution works. You can bet on it.

In Part III of this series we will consider another fallacious argument used by creationists: failure to appreciate the nature of biology.

The Inevitability of Evolution (Part III)

THE THIRD FALLACY in this series (after Part I and Part II) is failure to appreciate the nature of biology Biology isn’t coin tossing, card shuffling, or English history. It’s based on organic chemistry, and it has its own rules.

Let us illustrate those rules by returning to the card-shuffling analogy, but playing the game according to the way evolution actually works. Suppose we were in a gigantic casino, observing the players at a million tables simultaneously. There are trillions of tables where games are going on, but we’ll just watch this group. A million is enough for our purposes. (Meanwhile, the creationists are watching only one player as they grumble about “the odds,” but they don’t understand how the game is played. The creationists are looking for one long improbable serial sequence, while we’re watching a large number of parallel events, one step at a time.)

We’ll use a deck of cards as a simplified metaphor for a sequence of genetic mutations that the creationists are claiming is impossible. We want to see if that sequence can emerge without supernatural intervention. For convenience, let’s define that sequence as the original order of the cards, and let’s see if evolution can get there after a good shuffle of the deck.

Remember, we’re not playing Intelligent Designer, deliberately intervening to achieve a desired result in the future. We’re playing detective, trying to look back so we can see how an already existing result could have been achieved by natural means. In doing so, we won’t behave like creationists by figuring the odds against us and then throwing up our hands and saying “It’s impossible!” We’re looking for a way these things may have happened.

Remember also that even if we find a way, it may not be the way it actually did happen (we may never know that); but if we can find a natural method for accomplishing the allegedly impossible sequence, then we’ve demolished the foundation that supports the edifice erected by the “It’s impossible!” crowd. They won’t admit defeat, of course. They never do. Instead they’ll demand of us what they never demand of themselves; they’ll want absolute proof that what we’ve described is the specific way the sequence really did happen, and if we can’t do that (which we can’t) they’ll huff and puff that we’ve merely concocted a “just so” story. They’ll completely fail to grasp that if we’ve shown one possible method, then … well, it isn’t impossible after all.

Before playing, let’s be sure to avoid the first two fallacies we’ve described earlier in this series of essays. You remember the odds against dealing a specific sequence of 52 cards, don’t you? The chance of achieving such an outcome is only one in 8.06581752 times 1067. That doesn’t bother us because we’re not the Intelligent Designer, intentionally intervening to achieve the entire sequence. We don’t need to collapse the continuum; we’re just going to take it one card at a time. Also, we know about the scale of things, so we’ll take advantage of the large number of players and the long span of time available to us.

Now we’re ready to start. The game at each table is to deal out a shuffled deck, one card at a time, and end up with the cards in their original sequence. Ah, I see that you’re worried; you fear that it’s nearly impossible to win this game. Normally, it would be; but don’t be confused by the deck of cards analogy. This isn’t a normal game! Remember the fallacy under discussion — failure to appreciate the nature of biology. Be of good cheer, because by using evolutionary algorithms, the game works like this, at each of the million tables we’re watching:

1. Each table has a differently-shuffled deck. Each card dealt is a mutation that appears in an act of reproduction. Mutations are common, but they happen randomly from our point of view. They’re quite natural, however, because they follow the rules of organic chemistry. A card may appear in the next generation or we may have to wait a few generations. It doesn’t matter. We have time.

2. Only players at those tables where the first card dealt is an ace of spades will remain in our game. The others vanish. They don’t necessarily die (many mutations are harmless), but we’re no longer interested in them. For our purposes they’ve lost the game, and we’ll let them drift away into the biosphere. The losers may still be lurking around and playing a different game of their own, but we’ve dismissed them from million tables we’re watching. Note that although we’re being selective about the players we observe, we’re not actually interfering with them.

3. The players with an ace of spades then reproduce — this is biology, remember? — and we’re soon back to a million tables with players in our game. Unlike the creationists, we’re not watching only one creature and waiting an arbitrarily short time for it to develop something complicated, so that when it doesn’t (which is likely) we can foolishly claim that we’ve disproved the theory of evolution. Life doesn’t work like that except in creationist literature.

4. The next round begins with dealing card number two. At every table we’re watching, all the players are now “ahead of the game,” because they’ve already drawn the ace of spades. By the way, because we’re watching an existing feature develop, we know that the sequence we’re observing wasn’t fatal to those who have it, so we don’t need to worry that these mutations will injure those who get them.

5. The same rules apply for getting the two of spades. Those players that do it survive and multiply. The others drift away from the tables, and will be replaced by reproducing “ace-deuce” players. Bear in mind that not every “ace-deuce” player will stay in the game. Some may draw a card that proves fatal to survival, and some may fail to survive and breed for other reasons. These things happen. If players die, they’ll be replaced. That’s how it is in this game. It’s all a matter of numbers, reproduction, time, and death. But enough players should survive — and reproduce — that we’ll always have a million in the game.

6. Repeat for the three of spades. Then again for the next card. Keep going. Some players may never get beyond the first mutation or two. That’s okay. We have enough players that one of them should eventually get the next card, and when that happens it will reproduce and fill the other tables with its progeny. The game will never lack for players, and each round is just like the first — some player will draw the right card, and soon we’re back to a million players again. If we’ve already been through five or six cards, every one of the million players now has those cards because they’re the descendants of prior winners.

7. By now you can see how this is going to end. If not, go back and read through the steps of the game again. Eventually we will end up with one table where the cards are all dealt in sequence. It probably took a long time, and we went through a great number of players that didn’t draw the right card at the right time. When we finally get one player with the right sequence, it will reproduce, and before long we’ll have a million of them. Maybe more. Game over.

What did we learn from this? Several things:

The sequence of mutations needed for significant changes doesn’t happen simultaneously. It’s step by step, and each step is entirely possible because it involves reproduction and mutation on a massive scale. Evolution works with large numbers. No miracles, just a long chain of natural events.

The initial winner is a distant descendant of the first player that drew an ace of spades, perhaps millions of years earlier. From that long ago first card to the last, the odds against any one of the billions in this generation being the winner were indeed immense, but considering the rules of the game, it shouldn’t surprise us at all that there has been a winner. (If the lottery worked this way, you could keep an old ticket that had one correct number out of six, and then continue playing that ticket in future lotteries until you got a second correct number — the first number would always be good — and so on until you finally got six winning numbers. Nice game.)

Although we might be tempted to marvel at the winner’s “luck,” we should remember that there were probably trillions of others in related lines of descent that were dropped from the game because they didn’t inherit the string of mutations that this one did. It’s not luck, it’s statistics.

What becomes of the losers and their descendants? There are trillions of them. Some lines became extinct, but others are probably flourishing. Their own sequence of cards reveals that they’re related to the winners, and it can be shown exactly at what point they dropped out of our game. There’s nothing wrong with them, but they’re not the same as the players we’re watching. They’ll go their own way, perhaps mutating in some different direction. It’s a big world with room for lots of variation. Hey, that’s why there are still monkeys!

Amazingly simple, isn’t it? Evolution bypasses the odds. A successful mutation needs only to occur once, out of trillions of opportunities. Then it will rapidly multiply. Losing events are discarded. The same odds apply to the next successful mutation, and so on. Did you get that? The “odds calculator” is reset with each round, and every generation is the start of what is virtually a new game.

Winners not only remain in the game, but they reproduce, so that in the next round their descendants have already won the prior round — and all the rounds that went before. Each new round is played only by winners, and they’re always producing more winners to replace those who lose. How do the odds look now?

So that’s the third fallacy — failure to appreciate the nature of biology. All creationists’ arguments that involve this fallacy are worthless. Evolution works. You can bet on it.

Do you honestly expect christians to read this?

If it is not in short quotes like.......

"Give until it hurts"!

"sow and you shall reap"

"holy ghost fire burn my enemies"


.....they wont read it

Nothing to debate here. What is created, evolves. Two sides of the same coin.

logicboy: Do you honestly expect christians to read this?

If it is not in short quotes like.......

"Give until it hurts"!

"sow and you shall reap"

"holy ghost fire burn my enemies"


.....they wont read it

you make it sound like they are retarded...thinks of buzugee..okaaaay

Creation and evolution. One cannot be without the other. Two sides of the same coin. Very weak topic for debate.

Jenwitemi: Creation and evolution. One cannot be without the other. Two sides of the same coin. Very weak topic for debate.

some would say otherwise

Jenwitemi: Creation and evolution. One cannot be without the other. Two sides of the same coin. Very weak topic for debate.

What are you? Some kind of Agnostic hippie bhuddist?


Evoltuion has nothing to do with creationism. Parts of evolution debunk Genesis in the bible and that is why christians put forward creationism as an alternative theory. Creationism is fake and not science.

Logicboy, you should change your name to "tunnelvision boy". Your thought perspective is as narrow as any religious person's, if not narrower.

logicboy:


What are you? Some kind of Agnostic hippie bhuddist?


Evoltuion has nothing to do with creationism. Parts of evolution debunk Genesis in the bible and that is why christians put forward creationism as an alternative theory. Creationism is fake and not science.

Jenwitemi: Logicboy, you should change your name to "tunnelvision boy". Your thought perspective is as narrow as any religious person's, if not narrower.

WORD!

Jenwitemi: Logicboy, you should change your name to "tunnelvision boy". Your thought perspective is as narrow as any religious person's, if not narrower.

Thanks for the ad hominem and no substance at all.

mkmyers45: WORD!

Cheerleading....

buzugee, please stay off if you have nothing to say

ea7: buzugee, please stay off if you have nothing to say

Buzugee?

logicboy:


Buzugee?

saw him viewing, preemptive strike

[img]http://www.50centloseweight.com[/img]Good point

What i am trying to tell you is that, to separate yourself from the religionists you try so hard to distant yourself from, you will have to first of all begin to think outside the box. Religions keep your thinking processes in a tiny box, but what you do not know is that when you think that you have finally gotten out of religion and become an "atheist", you are still in the grips of religion because of the way you think, your thoughts and perspectives are still as narrow as ever. Nothing has changed.

Religion is still controlling your thought processes. To really set yourself free, you need to start thinking outside the box and not within it. Expand your horizon, bro. Broaden your perspective, your worldview. Then you would really be free of religious influence on yourself. That's a good advice for you for free.

logicboy:


Thanks for the ad hominem and no substance at all.

Jenwitemi: What i am trying to tell you is that, to separate yourself from the religionists you try so hard to distant yourself from, you will have to first of all begin to think outside the box. Religions keep your thinking processes in a tiny box, but what you do not know is that when you think that you have finally gotten out of religion and become an "atheist", you are still in the grips of religion because of the way you think, your thoughts and perspectives are still as narrow as ever. Nothing has changed.

Religion is still controlling your thought processes. To really set yourself free, you need to start thinking outside the box and not within it. Expand your horizon, bro. Broaden your perspective, your worldview. Then you would really be free of religious influence on yourself. That's a good advice for you for free.

Pure nonsense. Why I called you an agnostic hippie buddhist is because you seem to accept many paths to enlightenment. Evolution and creation are two different paths which you claim are two sides of the same coin.

Stop your philosophical bollsh1t

Good read I must say, nice analogy of the cards. It explains how evolution might be true as a result of randomness however this analogy has some flaws because it would be saying that
1. There should be backward evolution as well since the random cards can move in many different directions
2. Dawkins argument for a selfish gene would wouldn't work here since the gene has to have some kind of intelligence* to progressively evolve
3. There should be evidence of transitional species or 'missing links' especially living in the present day
4. If mutations are as random as they are claimed then organisms would have some needless mutations alongside those suited for their environment. For instance, Negroes live in warmer climate hence more melanin in their skin so we are black. A Caucasian on the other hand lives in a colder climate doesn't need as much melanin hence he is white. I the card analogy is true then, there should have been indigenous Negroes in Europe randomly evolving dark skin since it is not harmful to their survival anyway.

My point is this: Evolution is not unguided

Mr_Anony: Good read I must say, nice analogy of the cards. It explains how evolution might be true as a result of randomness however this analogy has some flaws because it would be saying that
1. There should be backward evolution as well since the random cards can move in many different directions
2. Dawkins argument for a selfish gene would wouldn't work here since the gene has to have some kind of intelligence* to progressively evolve
3. There should be evidence of transitional species or 'missing links' especially living in the present day
4. If mutations are as random as they are claimed then organisms would have some needless mutations alongside those suited for their environment. For instance, Negroes live in warmer climate hence more melanin in their skin so we are black. A Caucasian on the other hand lives in a colder climate doesn't need as much melanin hence he is white. I the card analogy is true then, there should have been indigenous Negroes in Europe randomly evolving dark skin since it is not harmful to their survival anyway.

My point is this: Evolution is not unguided

1) Humans dont need their wisdom teeth and are stopping to grow them. A bit backwards dont you think?

2) Sorry, I dont know the context

3) "Missing link" is a colloquial term. The fact that you use it shows that you are lacking basic knowledge in evolution.
There are numerous transitional fossils that have been discovered. There arent any "transitional" animals alive for the same reason your human ancestors are not alive. They are our ancestors who where steadily changing into us.

"Missing link" is still a popular term, well recognized by the public and often used in the popular media. It is, however, avoided in the scientific press, as it relates to the concept of the great chain of being and to the notion of simple organisms being primitive versions of complex ones, both of which have been discarded in biology.[59] In any case, the term itself is misleading, as any known transitional fossil, like Java Man, is no longer missing. While each find will give rise to new gaps in the evolutionary story on each side, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions.[4][60]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Missing_links

4) Huh?

logicboy:

1) Humans dont need their wisdom teeth and are stopping to grow them. A bit backwards dont you think?

I'll give you that. but notice that if evolution is not progressive, then it means that a species can also evolve into a less complex species i.e mammals can also evolve back into reptiles given enough time.

2) Sorry, I dont know the context

Dawkins argues that the gene would try to propagate itself and it's kind, The analogy implies complete randomness

3) "Missing link" is a colloquial term. The fact that you use it shows that you are lacking basic knowledge in evolution.
There are numerous transitional fossils that have been discovered. There arent any "transitional" animals alive for the same reason your human ancestors are not alive. They are our ancestors who where steadily changing into us.

"Missing link" is still a popular term, well recognized by the public and often used in the popular media. It is, however, avoided in the scientific press, as it relates to the concept of the great chain of being and to the notion of simple organisms being primitive versions of complex ones, both of which have been discarded in biology.[59] In any case, the term itself is misleading, as any known transitional fossil, like Java Man, is no longer missing. While each find will give rise to new gaps in the evolutionary story on each side, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions.[4][60]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Missing_links

You miss my point here. My point is If the analogy is true i.e. mutation is completely random, then evolved species shouldn't branch of so distinctly rather we should witness in the present day a much smoother blends across families.

4) Huh?

Read it again

Mr_Anony:
I'll give you that. but notice that if evolution is not progressive, then it means that a species can also evolve into a less complex species i.e mammals can also evolve back into reptiles given enough time.

Adaptation, natural selection. Evolution is tied to survival no matter how random it is.What is complex? A mammal that lays eggs or not?

Mr_Anony:
Dawkins argues that the gene would try to propagate itself and it's kind, The analogy implies complete randomness

Not complete randomness. Survival of the fittest. The gene would propagate itself in the best host.

Mr_Anony:
You miss my point here. My point is If the analogy is true i.e. mutation is completely random, then evolved species shouldn't branch of so distinctly rather we should witness in the present day a much smoother blends across families.

You should try to understand the terms you are using. There are spontaneous and induced mutations. Evolution is not completely random. This is one of the basic misconception about evolution.

Mr_Anony:
Read it again

It makes sense not

This false theory about evolution proposed about 150 years ago by a man named Charles Darwin believed that all living things came into being by chance. Throughout his life, Darwin wrote books to make people believe this; and evolutionists are still trying to deceive others even today. But today’s science has proven that God has created all living things. In spite of this, evolutionists still defend what has been shown to be a lie. All these started when Darwin was young, he went on a boat trip. On this voyage, he thought he would find the answers to some questions about living things. While wandering across the islands, Darwin came across some interesting-looking birds with very attractive colors. After a long trip, Darwin returned to England and continued thinking about the creatures he had seen and how they came into existence. In the years that followed, Darwin continued his work. But the scientific instruments of his day were too primitive to let him examine the inner workings of cells. So, he made several errors. With his primitive scientific instruments, Darwin couldn’t see that cells were composed of several structures, which he could perceive only as spots. But caught up in this wrong idea, Darwin still had many questions to answer. Even though Darwin’s idea was erroneous, he thought it was true and proposed the theory of evolution. According to his idea, living creatures developed by chance from inanimate matter. First of all, an imaginary first cell inexplicably came into being, and then all living creatures supposedly evolved from this one cell. Darwin’s being an atheist exerted a great influence on his thinking. With this theory, he would advance a series of ideas that would give strong support to atheism. Darwin explained his ideas in a book, The Origin of Species, published in 1859.

At that time, the misstatements and errors contained in that book gave great support to some people who did not believe in God. But even so, Darwin was not happy because some scientific developments which occurred after he proposed his ideas caused him great difficulty. For example, an Austrian botanist (or plant scientist) by the name of Gregor Mendel(you remember the Mendelian Law of Hereditary in Modern Biology in school then) made experiments with plants and, as a result, proposed what he called the laws of heredity— which proved that Darwin’s claims as set out in the theory of evolution were untenable. Having examine his evolutionary theory, we see that Darwin believed living things were simple structures. But this was not so.

Only-Rebel:
This false theory about evolution proposed about 150 years ago by a man named Charles Darwin believed that all living things came into being by chance. Throughout his life, Darwin wrote books to make people believe this; and evolutionists are still trying to deceive others even today. But today’s science has proven that God has created all living things. In spite of this, evolutionists still defend what has been shown to be a lie. All these started when Darwin was young, he went on a boat trip. On this voyage, he thought he would find the answers to some questions about living things. While wandering across the islands, Darwin came across some interesting-looking birds with very attractive colors. After a long trip, Darwin returned to England and continued thinking about the creatures he had seen and how they came into existence. In the years that followed, Darwin continued his work. But the scientific instruments of his day were too primitive to let him examine the inner workings of cells. So, he made several errors. With his primitive scientific instruments, Darwin couldn’t see that cells were composed of several structures, which he could perceive only as spots. But caught up in this wrong idea, Darwin still had many questions to answer. Even though Darwin’s idea was erroneous, he thought it was true and proposed the theory of evolution. According to his idea, living creatures developed by chance from inanimate matter. First of all, an imaginary first cell inexplicably came into being, and then all living creatures supposedly evolved from this one cell. Darwin’s being an atheist exerted a great influence on his thinking. With this theory, he would advance a series of ideas that would give strong support to atheism. Darwin explained his ideas in a book, The Origin of Species, published in 1859.

List of lies in this creationist babble

-Darwin was an atheist. False. (Darwin was an agnostic)
-Evolution has been proven to be False. False. (Creationism has been debunked, evolution has proof; fossils, current evolution and dna)
-Science has proven that God has created all things. False. (There has never been a physical proof of God)

ea7: buzugee, please stay off if you have nothing to say

sup ma nicca ea7.

logicboy: Do you honestly expect christians to read this?

If it is not in short quotes like.......

"Give until it hurts"!

"sow and you shall reap"

"holy ghost fire burn my enemies"


.....they wont read it

you dayum right we aint finna read all that epistle. what you think we is ? legal secretarys ? LOL

Many years passed since this erronous gospel-Origin of Species by Darwin is propagated, and Darwin died. This book remain the scripture of atheist, they will claim they are no following a religion. This is their scripture in truth.

buzugee: you dayum right we aint finna read all that epistle. what you think we is ? legal secretarys ? LOL

Buzugee, do you smoke weed?

At the beginning of the 20th century many important scientific developments occurred, each of them proving how wrong Darwin’s theory was. In the 1900s, the science of genetics was born, and shortly afterwards the structure of genes and chromosomes was discovered.

In 1955, James Watson and Francis Crick demonstrated the structure of the DNA molecule.

To explain DNA briefly:

In the nucleus of every cell in your body, there is a DNA molecule, containing all the information about your body. The color of your hair and your eyes, information about your internal organs, your external appearance, your height, and all your other characteristics are all encoded in your DNA.
To understand how much information is contained in DNA, consider this comparison: If you wrote down the information in one DNA molecule, it would fill a library of 900 volumes of 500 pages each. To house these encyclopedias, you would need a library as long as a football field. This much information, invisible to us, is contained in one single molecule. DNA proves that cells could not have come into being by chance. This is one of the countless clear proofs of God’s existence.