Consider the Probabilities (Creation vs Evolution)

Websites ^ | 9/6/2013 | Dennis Richter

[DennisR]

ConsiderTheProbabilities.com is an attempt to objectively, honestly, and logically discuss the much-debated subject of creation versus evolution.

[Auntie Dem]

If America broke away from England, why does England still exist? You need to learn better arguments.

Your faulty logic equates politics and biology. Your example and my example are not the same, and not comparable. I never said I didn't "believe" in evolution (note the emphasis on faith), as genetic drift or mutation has been observed in the laboratory. If man evolved from an ape, and you claim that is science, you should be able to replicate it in a lab. I'm sure there must be video of this successful experiment somewhere on YouTube. Do you have a link? Oh wait...the link is missing? Now I get it.

[Elsiejay]

That’s neat! That which we call life spontaneously generating itself from non life (abio). And so simple and straightforward that no one should hesitate to accept it.
Herbert Yockey wrote a monograph dealing with the probability of a protein being created by mindless chance. The probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c was calculated to be one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion (1 followed by 75 zeroes). Yockey concluded, “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability.”

But surely Yockey knew about abiogenesis!

[BroJoeK]

Busko: "There are no transitional fossils..."

Every individual, without exception, is "transitional" between its ancestors and its descendants.
Every fossil, without exception, shows features similar-to but changed-from earlier fossils, and many of those features are further modified in later fossils.
They are all "transitional"

As for human and ape fossils here, yet again, is a representative sample of transitional forms:

•(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
•(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
•(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
•(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
•(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
•(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My •(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
•(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
•(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
•(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
•(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
•(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
•(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
•(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

For a longer list of transitional fossils, check out this site.

[BroJoeK]

Elsiejay: "Herbert Yockey wrote a monograph dealing with the probability of a protein being created by mindless chance.
The probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c was calculated to be one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion (1 followed by 75 zeroes)."

First of all, the alleged "calculation" is useless, since it is based on no knowledge of actual processes required for "complex chemistry" to become recognized as "simple life".

But second, the number of single celled critters on earth today is circa 5 times ten with 30 zeros, each of which can multiply tens of thousands of times per year (10^4th), over billions of years (10^9th), and now we're looking at 10⁴³ reproductions = opportunities for descent with modifications and natural selection to operate.

Of course anybody can claim that such-and-such is impossible or improbable, but they will need more than flawed mathematics when physical evidence shows it obviously did happen.

As for God's role in all this, well Who do you suppose built the stage on which life's many dramas play out, in the first place?
And do you suppose the Director of life could not, from time to time, move His characters around on the stage, or replace them, so as to more clearly tell His-story?

[BroJoeK]

Auntie Dem: "If people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
And why isn’t that ape-to-man transitioning still occurring?"

I can't imagine why you think those are clever questions, when the answers are so obvious.

By definition of the word "speciation", it happens when sub-populations are separated from each other and no longer interbreed.
Each sub-group must survive under different conditions, and so habituates, acclimates, adjusts, modifies, adapts and yes, over longer periods, evolves until they are no longer physically able to interbreed.

In this process, scientists label them as different breeds, subspecies, species, genera, etc.

As for "that ape-to-man transitioning", of course there are biological changes in every generation, some for the better, most for the worse.
In most of nature, natural selection weeds out the worst changes.
Today amongst humans, we rely more on science and medicine to accomplish what we don't want natural selection doing for us.

[DennisR]

What were your detailed, logical, believable answers to the questions presented at considertheprobabilities.com?

[DennisR]

So you are still not wiling to answer any of the question, right?

[DennisR]

Let me try that again...

So you are still not willing to answer the questions, right?

[DennisR]

Hm...see section 3.3.

[tacticalogic]

In order to calculate probabilities, you have to know what all the possibilities are. In order to calculate the probability of a chemical reaction resulting in the creation of a particular molecule, you have to know all the possible chemical reactions and all the possible conditions that could potentially produce that molecule.

You cannot create a mathematical model of a process that is not completely understood. So far nobody can lay claim to understanding how it all works, much less having constructed an accurate mathematical modeling of it.

[BroJoeK]

DennisR: "What were your detailed, logical, believable answers to the questions presented at considertheprobabilities.com?"

Did you ask a question, FRiend?
When you do, I'll answer it.

By the way, did nobody ever explain to you -- on Free Republic, when you wish to debate some topic, you present the topic, your facts and your arguments, and then defend them as best you can?
Otherwise somebody would just post links to whole libraries full of data and challenge people: "debate this!".

Oh wait... that's just what you did.

But if that's what you want -- to have links debating other links -- then I'd start you off with this one:

Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, by Eugenie C. Scott

So if that's the game you wish to play, then I assert this book answers every question at your link, and if you disagree, then you read the book and tell us all exactly what you still, still don't understand, FRiend.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

No, I’m not willing to answer dumb questions based on a false premise. No sensible person would be.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Always nice to see that family tree. I remember someone around here used to post that and ask the creationists to identify which ones were apes and which were human—they were all sure they had to be one or the other, even if the apes might be extinct and the humans deformed or diseased. Well, they managed to label them, but the funny thing was that they couldn’t agree on which was which. It never seemed to occur to them that that was a strong indicator that they might be transitional species.

[DennisR]

Well, I guess that’s one excuse...

[DennisR]

Hate to tell you this, but anyone can take a bunch of pictures like you have posted, display them, and opine that these are the “transitional fossils.” You have absolutely no proof that this is true, right?

[DennisR]

” I remember someone around here used to post that and ask the creationists to identify which ones were apes and which were human.”

So if someone took all of these pictures and mixed them up that you would be able to tell which ones were apes, which ones were human, and the order in which they “evolved?” I am impressed.

[BroJoeK]

DennisR: "Hate to tell you this, but anyone can take a bunch of pictures like you have posted, display them, and opine that these are the “transitional fossils.”
You have absolutely no proof that this is true, right?"

No, you don't "hate to tell... this", you only fervently wish it were true in this case, right FRiend?

But in fact, there are two absolute proofs that these are transitional fossils:

1. They meet the scientific definition of the term "transitional fossil":
   "A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group."

   Indeed, this definition fits every fossil, there really are no -- zero, zip, nada -- non-transitional fossils.
   Yes, of course, in some fossils the transitions are more obvious to see than in others.

2. Every fossil listed in the photo above is clearly identified by name and number, and you can look each one up with a quick google search.

   For example, if you google that first pre-human, Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, these are the results you get.

So there's no doubt about their provenances and they obviously are transitional.

So what, exactly, is your problem with understanding and confessing the truth, FRiend?

[BroJoeK]

Ha Ha That's Very Logical: "It never seemed to occur to them that that was a strong indicator that they might be transitional species."

If you take just a moment to think about it, every individual is "transitional" between its ancestors and descendants.
And every fossil displays some traits which are similar to, but not quite the same as, those that came before and after.

Of course, most species' fossils have never been found.
Take the example of mammals, of which there are:

1. 29 orders
2. 155 families
3. 1,254 genera and
4. 5,963 species.

Of these nearly 6,000 species, how many species do we have fossils from even 10 million years ago?
A few dozen at most = circa 1%.
And many of those are quite incomplete.
For 99%, we've as yet found no fossils.

So, in many cases, instead of fossils showing us smooth transitions, with many minute changes, the changes appear rather abrupt and large.

But as the photo of human skulls shows, in some cases those transitions are indeed very small and "gradual".

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

If you take just a moment to think about it, every individual is "transitional" between its ancestors and descendants.

Oh, you don't have to tell me that. The statement applies to us humans too, of course. When people ask, "why don't we see evolution happening today?" I always think, We do! Ain't it great!

[DennisR]

The “false premise” being what?