Posted on 10/01/2012 8:26:41 AM PDT by fishtank
I've always thought one of the apparent assumptions of the TOE which is highly suspect is that favorable mutation is permanent. Just because a mutation may come along that increases a particular species' likelihood of survival, who's to say that individual wouldn't be killed in some other way? A favorable mutation would not only have to occur, after countless millennia of time, but its carrier would have to survive and reproduce to pass it along!
The silly thought exercise of the million monkeys with a million typewriters producing all the works of Shakespeare is full of assumptions like that:
1) Would a monkey try to type on a typewriter? Who's to say it wouldn't use the typewriter as a stool or a toilet? For each monkey that doesn't use the typewriter as intended, the condition, sooner or later, becomes irreversible.Now, many people would just roll their eyes and explain that I'm not getting it. But that's exactly the point! When you grant an easy out on the ugly details, nearly any absurd idea can "pass!"2) If a monkey did play with a typewriter, instead of actually or effectively ignoring it, who's to say it wouldn't break the typewriter? That condition is irreversible.
3) If the monkey does manage to press some keys on the typewriter, what does it type on? Is it assumed that there is an endless supply of correctly loaded typing paper? ...ribbon? Convenient and powerful assumption, that.
4) Why would a monkey continue to use the typewriter, assuming the first three obstacles are overcome? What causes the experiment to continue? Another assumption?
5) Both the monkey and the typewriter have limited life spans. You only get a finite amount of time for Shakespeare to appear before everyone and everything is dead!
All these issues have analogs in relation to TOE which, as far as I know, are not addressed by adherents. Evolution would have to work in the messy, hostile, random Real World. Favorable mutation? Yay! ...oops, dinosaur stepped on it. Start over.
When you factor in the inconvenient realities, I believe even the Magic Fairy Dust isn't powerful enough to bring the dead theory to life.
There's a lot we don't yet know. Happy now?
I’ll let you know when I get over the shock! I feel like I should make a wish or something.
Must be getting close to the next freepathon
Evolution may disprove particular creation myths if they are taken literally, but it doesn't disprove creation in general. It does describe how creation happened for people who choose not to be ignorant.
True, and I do know that there is no problem with us discussing it here.
This is a pro-God site.
Please tell what you know of science.
That, BTW, is a perfect description of the theory of evolution.
To what end do I dedicate a substantial investment in time?
That, BTW, is a perfect description of the theory of evolution.
Your opinion is noted, and held for reference in evaluating future communications.
It will make you look like you might know what you’re talking about, at least. As it stands, all I see is an “attack dog”.
To what end do I dedicate a substantial investment in time?
Not a shred of humility in you, eh?
Your opinion is noted, and held for reference in evaluating future communications
It might. Or it might just waste a large portion of my time to no good end. If all you can see is "attack dog", then that's likely not going to change. That you suddenly became interested in my reply on this thread from days ago after a disagreement on another thread brings up the possibility that this is simply and exercise in "counterattack" calculated to effect self-censoring by retreat.
Evasion.
I’ve been here too long to take that bait.
More evasion.
You’re not going to get to jerk me around, and you’re not going to get your flame war. Better luck next time.
Asking a question is not a flame war. Refusing to answer could be seen as an attempt to start one, however.
I've been here long enough to know better than that. Many a flame war has been started with loaded questions, and nobody ever started one by walking away.
By all means, point out whatever loaded question you are referring to. Never mind being more specific about “cherry-picked facts” and “logical fallacies” previously referred to.
That is argumentum ad hominem as well as argumentum ad verecundiam.
But following your line of thinking, then everything Darwin came up with should be utterly dismissed due to his own background of study. The man was not a biologist, nor had any degree in any of the sciences. He was a naturalist, which is pure philosophy and no science.
All of the questions you've asked me have been loaded.
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.