Darwin "debunked" - does anyone happen to know how they're coming up with such numbers and calculations?

[shunyadragon]

You have to firstly work out how many integrated and functioning parts any organism is made up of. Then you have the idea that there are many many intermediate stages in the evolution of any new organism and each stage must complement the previous stage so you have a fully functioning new advantages organism. When you take an organism as complex as the eye the numbers of parts is large. Hence you need many successful mutations that work perfect with previous mutations and the probability of this becomes very very low.

I mean evolution is a bit like brute forcing a password, you try every combination of letters and eventually you get a match.

The whole of evolution relies on the idea of randomness of which our understanding of is not complete.

This description is the reason why the religious argument for 'Intelligent Design' is bogus and represents an intentional ignorance of science. and an unethical use of statistics based on an ancient tribal religion..

 

[IndigoChild5559]

with "debunked" in quote marks.

Ahhhh I missed that. Sorry for my mistake, and thank you for clarifying.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ok, have you asked the forum admins to have this thread transferred over to the appropriate forum?

Why would I do that? The thread is about things relating to Darwin, so this IS the appropriate forum.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then I don't know why you were complaining. I'm the OP, and I'm not religious. Don't be dishonest about the title; it's actually Darwin "debunked" - does anyone happen to know how they're coming up with such numbers and calculations? with "debunked" in quote marks.

Claiming to not be "religious" does not negate your motives for claiming Darwin "debunked," Many and I mean many deeply religious Jews, Christians and Muslims claim to not belong to a religion or being "religious." For example: Jehovah Witnesses claim not to be "religious" or a religion or church. It is glaringly apparent that your argument matches the Fundamentalist Christian argument against the sciences of evolution. In this accusation you are using one man as a scape goat for a vague argument against evolution.

You need to be clear and upfront what your beliefs are, and what your "motives" are.. Your injection of the question of "odds" and probability? reflect an Intelligent Design agenda.

In reality the sciences of evolution is not solely based on Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin proposed a theory and he was not the first, You have to deal with over 200 years of science going back to before Charles Darwin before you can legitimately "debunk" the sciences of evolutions

The numbers or more specifically the math behind the sciences of evolution is the same math that is behind all of the sciences.

 

[anotherneil]

Claiming to not be "religious" does not negate your motives for claiming Darwin "debunked," Many and I mean many deeply religious Jews, Christians and Muslims claim to not belong to a religion or being "religious." For example: Jehovah Witnesses claim not to be "religious" or a religion or church. It is glaringly apparent that your argument matches the Fundamentalist Christian argument against the sciences of evolution. In this accusation you are using one man as a scape goat for a vague argument against evolution.

You need to be clear and upfront what your beliefs are, and what your "motives" are.. Your injection of the question of "odds" and probability? reflect an Intelligent Design agenda.

In reality the sciences of evolution is not solely based on Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin proposed a theory and he was not the first, You have to deal with over 200 years of science going back to before Charles Darwin before you can legitimately "debunk" the sciences of evolutions

The numbers or more specifically the math behind the sciences of evolution is the same math that is behind all of the sciences.

You seem to be confused.

 

[shunyadragon]

You seem to be confused.

Please clarify. You did not respond to my post.

The numbers or more specifically the math behind the sciences of evolution is the same math that is behind all of the sciences.

What are the specific questions you have with the numbers?

What are your beliefs????

 

[anotherneil]

Please clarify. You did not respond to my post.

The numbers or more specifically the math behind the sciences of evolution is the same math that is behind all of the sciences.

What are your beliefs????

That's correct; I did not respond to your post because you seem to have the incorrect idea of what's going on in the OP.

I'm not religious, and that includes not subscribing to religious notions like creationism & intelligent design. Science shows us that we're evolving from the fossil record, DNA, basic observations in the structure of organisms such as similar patterns in the structures of vertebrates, etc.

I'm not the one making those claims in the video; I'm criticizing and challenging them, but for some reason I don't get, you're speaking to me as though I supported the video's position, which is why I said that you seem to be confused.

 

[GardenLady]

IOW, when something has happened, it makes little sense to try and figure the odds.

Agreed.

Another example: A group of family and friends traveled to London for our son-in-law's 40th birthday. Many of us planned add-on visits around the UK and/or Ireland. We ran into our son-in-law's parents on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh. What are the odds? 1:1. It happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's correct; I did not respond to your post because you seem to have the incorrect idea of what's going on in the OP.

I'm not religious, and that includes not subscribing to religious notions like creationism & intelligent design. Science shows us that we're evolving from the fossil record, DNA, basic observations in the structure of organisms such as similar patterns in the structures of vertebrates, etc.

I'm not the one making those claims in the video; I'm criticizing and challenging them, but for some reason I don't get, you're speaking to me as though I supported the video's position, which is why I said that you seem to be confused.

It can be very hard to know where people get their wrong numbers from without sufficient evidence. When it comes to a creationist book I will probably never know because creationists refuse to pay me to read that tripe. And even if I read it I may not know since creationists have a bad history when it comes to documenting their own case. Part of the scientific method and peer review is to go into excruciating details at times as to how one did one's experiments. This is necessary so that others can test ones work by trying to reproduce it as accurately as possible. When it comes to the sciences they rarely if ever produce enough information. That is just one of the reasons that they constantly fail when it comes to peer review.

For example creationists "carbon dated" a bunch of fossils. But there wee all sorts of details missing so there was no way to tell if their dates were from the Earth being young or if they just totally blew it by contaminating their samples. Actually let me walk that back a bit. The ages they got revealed that is was probably due to contamination, but I cannot find the article this fine morning.