The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[ratiocinator]

Wow great job doing that circular reasoning thing but read it to yourself and learn.

What's in the least bit circular about what I said? Go on, point out where I assumed a conclusion. Since I didn't present any conclusions at all, you're going to find that a little difficult.

You appear to be bearing false witness.

Why are all the many millions of chains of missing links missing from the fossil record.

We have a pretty good record actually, considering that fossilisation is relatively rare. What's the problem?

BTW, there is far more evidence for evolution from genetics than the fossil record. Why do you think you have a mutated gene for making egg yoke? Why do you have multiple mutated olfactory receptor (sense of smell) genes? Why do you think these broken genes are also present in our nearest evolutionary relatives (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) and that some are broken in exactly the same way and some are broken in different ways, so we can use them to trace the 'family tree' of relationships and arrive at the same set of relationships as we get from other, independent evidence?

Genesis and the genome: genomics evidence for human-ape common ancestry and ancestral hominid population sizes. - Free Online Library

Free Online Library: Genesis and the genome: genomics evidence for human-ape common ancestry and ancestral hominid population sizes.(Report) by "Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith"; Philosophy and religion Science and technology, general Human beings Analysis Origin Human origins...

www.thefreelibrary.com

I calculated the odds against as 10^10 million to 1.

Show your working.

 

[McBell]

That is not a refutation. You are now running away from a reasonable request and in dong so admitting that you are wrong.

When people offer to discuss the ideas that you do not understand and your claims that you cannot support and you run away that is only admitting that you were wrong.

They only thing they have shown they are better at than posting PRATT Gish Gallops is running away tail tucked from truth, facts, science, logic, etc.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What's in the least bit circular about what I said? Go on, point out where I assumed a conclusion. Since I didn't present any conclusions at all, you're going to find that a little difficult.

You appear to be bearing false witness.


We have a pretty good record actually, considering that fossilisation is relatively rare. What's the problem?

BTW, there is far more evidence for evolution from genetics than the fossil record. Why do you think you have a mutated gene for making egg yoke? Why do you have multiple mutated olfactory receptor (sense of smell) genes? Why do you think these broken genes are also present in our nearest evolutionary relatives (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) and that some are broken in exactly the same way and some are broken in different ways, so we can use them to trace the 'family tree' of relationships and arrive at the same set of relationships as we get from other, independent evidence?

Genesis and the genome: genomics evidence for human-ape common ancestry and ancestral hominid population sizes. - Free Online Library

Free Online Library: Genesis and the genome: genomics evidence for human-ape common ancestry and ancestral hominid population sizes.(Report) by "Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith"; Philosophy and religion Science and technology, general Human beings Analysis Origin Human origins...

www.thefreelibrary.com

Show your working.

P = nCx p(x)^x (1-p(x))^(n-x) binomial distribution formula
n=100 million total fossils of all kinds in the fossil record
x=0 number of missing links found
p(x) = 0.2 probably of finding a missing link

therefore,
nC0 = 1
p(x)^0 = 1
P = (1-0.2)^100 million = 0.8^100 million is approximately 10^(-10 million)
or odds against 10^10 million to 1

Now a circular reasoner may try to dispute the numbers I estimated for the calculation but the answer is still in essence the same, and that is, the odds are vastly against all the millions of chains of missing links still missing from the fossil record.

 

[McBell]

P = nCx p(x)^x (1-p(x))^(n-x) binomial distribution formula
n=100 million total fossils of all kinds in the fossil record
x=0 number of missing links found
p(x) = 0.2 probably of finding a missing link

therefore,
nC0 = 1
p(x)^0 = 1
P = (1-0.2)^100 million = 0.8^100 million is approximately 10^(-10 million)
or odds against 10^10 million to 1

Now a circular reasoner may try to dispute the numbers I estimated for the calculation but the answer is still in essence the same, and that is, the odds are vastly against all the millions of chains of missing links still missing from the fossil record.

There is no need to refute unsupported numbers.
Can you support the use of the numbers you use?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Wow great job doing that circular reasoning thing but read it to yourself and learn.

Why are all the many millions of chains of missing links missing from the fossil record.
I calculated the odds against as 10^10 million to 1.

Taxonomists have so far named about 1.7 million species. That there should be "millions of chains of missing links" between them is a rather pompous overstatement on your part.

And besides, you have already had it explained to you how rare fossilization actually is -- and why. Of course, that doesn't fit your theory, so you ignore it, like everyone who already thinks they know everything and would rather not be disillusioned on that score.

And your calculation -- what variables did you depend on? What hat did you pull your numbers from?

Thank you, information session has ended -- please continue your fantasy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Wow great job doing that circular reasoning thing but read it to yourself and learn.

Why are all the many millions of chains of missing links missing from the fossil record.
I calculated the odds against as 10^10 million to 1.

And I wonder if you might consider the "missing links" that are still living on this planet. Consider, for example all of the species of crickets, grasshoppers, locusts and katydids (order orthoptera). Do you know how many there are? About 25,000, most of which you couldn't tell apart if your life depended on, yet they're different species. But do you really think they're all unrelated?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Taxonomists have so far named about 1.7 million species. That there should be "millions of chains of missing links" between them is a rather pompous overstatement on your part.

And besides, you have already had it explained to you how rare fossilization actually is -- and why. Of course, that doesn't fit your theory, so you ignore it, like everyone who already thinks they know everything and would rather not be disillusioned on that score.

And your calculation -- what variables did you depend on? What hat did you pull your numbers from?

Thank you, information session has ended -- please continue your fantasy.

You are using circular reasoning again. No monkey today is a relative of mankind. No missing links there.
Biblical kind produces Biblical kind and that is how it has always been.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is no need to refute unsupported numbers.
Can you support the use of the numbers you use?

No, I doubt he can. Remember, he said 0 missing links found. As I pointed out in last thread, look at the order orthoptera: crickets, grasshoppers, locusts and katydids. They are there own (non-)missing links.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You are using circular reasoning again. No monkey today is a relative of mankind. No missing links there.
Biblical kind produces Biblical kind and that is how it has always been.

Circular reasoning is at least a form of reasoning. You might try a version yourself. "Biblical kind" is not a recognized part of the Linnaean System.

 

[ratiocinator]

P = nCx p(x)^x (1-p(x))^(n-x) binomial distribution formula
n=100 million total fossils of all kinds in the fossil record
x=0 number of missing links found
p(x) = 0.2 probably of finding a missing link

therefore,
nC0 = 1
p(x)^0 = 1
P = (1-0.2)^100 million = 0.8^100 million is approximately 10^(-10 million)
or odds against 10^10 million to 1

Now a circular reasoner may try to dispute the numbers I estimated for the calculation but the answer is still in essence the same, and that is, the odds are vastly against all the millions of chains of missing links still missing from the fossil record.

So, from my three points, you ran away from two and posted a lot of unjustified numbers for the third.

Just for a start, before we get into the rest, the "number of missing links found" is obviously not zero.

Questioning your numbers is not circular. Do you even know what circular reasoning means? Hint: it doesn't mean disagreeing with you.

 

[ratiocinator]

You are using circular reasoning again.

Untrue.

No monkey today is a relative of mankind.

Straw man.

Biblical kind produces Biblical kind and that is how it has always been.

Meaningless. Define "Biblical kind".

 

[McBell]

And I wonder if you might consider the "missing links" that are still living on this planet. Consider, for example all of the species of crickets, grasshoppers, locusts and katydids (order orthoptera). Do you know how many there are? About 25,000, most of which you couldn't tell apart if your life depended on, yet they're different species. But do you really think they're all unrelated?

God made them according to their "kind".
Of course, God did not explain what a "kind" is nor did God list the "kinds".
So creationists are free to make whatever "kind" they want.
And many do so on the fly, for example, I suspect you are going to be told about the "Bug Kind".
That in their mind not only resolves the problem presented but also completely 100% proves that evolution AND abiogenesis is nothing more than circular reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

P = nCx p(x)^x (1-p(x))^(n-x) binomial distribution formula
n=100 million total fossils of all kinds in the fossil record
x=0 number of missing links found
p(x) = 0.2 probably of finding a missing link

therefore,
nC0 = 1
p(x)^0 = 1
P = (1-0.2)^100 million = 0.8^100 million is approximately 10^(-10 million)
or odds against 10^10 million to 1

Now a circular reasoner may try to dispute the numbers I estimated for the calculation but the answer is still in essence the same, and that is, the odds are vastly against all the millions of chains of missing links still missing from the fossil record.

Quite a few errors there. Do you want to go over them or would you like to save some time and start running away right now?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Quite a few errors there. Do you want to go over them or would you like to save some time and start running away right now?

That circular reasoning that has entrapped you is a bad thing?
I did make 3 estimates.
If you want pick estimates of your own.
I probably will be amazed at the circular reasoning you will use.
BTW, the odds are much worse when when considering there are no partially developed organs or functions in any living creature every.
Use the same calculation but change n.
I estimated the odds against that as 10^(10^20) to 1

 

[Watchmen]

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.
This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.
Furthermore, they have no real rational answer to the origin of anything. But they know it must have happened because it must have happened by evolution because they know that evolution and billions of years are true. And they are absolutely sure that the answers will one day be found because they know that evolution and billions of years are true.


Now proving that you use circular reasoning, you will not answer these required and easy origin questions, but will use any technique that evade answering with a real rational answer.

What was the first living creature?
What caused the Big Bang?

That’s not a definition. Don’t apply it to anything. Just tell me your definition of “circular reasoning.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

That circular reasoning that has entrapped you is a bad thing?
I did make 3 estimates.
If you want pick estimates of your own.
I probably will be amazed at the circular reasoning you will use.
BTW, the odds are much worse when when considering there are no partially developed organs or functions in any living creature every.
Use the same calculation but change n.
I estimated the odds against that as 10^(10^20) to 1

I don't care about your estimates. You could make a million of them. You are just shooting in the dark.

Why weren't any of your estimates 1 amino acid?

Also in the future you need to stop making claims about others that you cannot support. The problem with your false claims about "circular reasoning" is that you have no understanding of the topics being discussed so you make up your own strawman versions. You should just try to stick with supporting your claims. But in effect you already admitted that you were wrong about abiogenesis. You were given enough chances to support your beliefs but you never did.

 

[Polymath257]

That circular reasoning that has entrapped you is a bad thing?
I did make 3 estimates.
If you want pick estimates of your own.
I probably will be amazed at the circular reasoning you will use.
BTW, the odds are much worse when when considering there are no partially developed organs or functions in any living creature every.
Use the same calculation but change n.
I estimated the odds against that as 10^(10^20) to 1te

In your calculations, are you assuming that each amino acids needs to be added one at a time and that all additions are probabilistically independent?

That is quite an assumption. And yes, it drastically affects the final probability.

For example, if certain chains of, say, 10 amino acids are stabilized by alpha helixes, that makes them far more likely than a simple product of probabilities would reveal. If several of these formed independently and then join together, that also affects the probabilities and makes them far more likely.

So your estimates simply don't take into consideration the known chemistry involved that shows your argument is simply wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

P = nCx p(x)^x (1-p(x))^(n-x) binomial distribution formula
n=100 million total fossils of all kinds in the fossil record

This seems unreasonably high. Are you talking about the fossils we have found? Or the fossils that exist that we have not yet found?

x=0 number of missing links found

False. Many 'missing links' have been found. of course, they are not missing now.

p(x) = 0.2 probably of finding a missing link

Please justify this last number. I would place the estimate much lower than that. Probably closer to 10^(-6).

therefore,
nC0 = 1
p(x)^0 = 1
P = (1-0.2)^100 million = 0.8^100 million is approximately 10^(-10 million)
or odds against 10^10 million to 1

Now a circular reasoner may try to dispute the numbers I estimated for the calculation but the answer is still in essence the same, and that is, the odds are vastly against all the millions of chains of missing links still missing from the fossil record.

Hmm...exactly what probability are you trying to calculate? Because you take a *very* roundabout way to the answer that assume independence of the different finds. Which, of course, is not true. Finds are geographically correlated, if nothing else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. Many 'missing links' have been found. of course, they are not missing now.

Hah!! Each found missing links created two new ones. Checkmate atheist!!

I had to have some fun since the "missing links" argument is pure nonsense. There never was a prediction that every single fossil would be found. Since evolution is a gradual process he is demanding that every animal that ever lived should have been fossilized according to his version of "evolution" If one makes crazy enough of a strawman argument it will always fail.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

In your calculations, are you assuming that each amino acids needs to be added one at a time and that all additions are probabilistically independent?

That is quite an assumption. And yes, it drastically affects the final probability.

For example, if certain chains of, say, 10 amino acids are stabilized by alpha helixes, that makes them far more likely than a simple product of probabilities would reveal. If several of these formed independently and then join together, that also affects the probabilities and makes them far more likely.

So your estimates simply don't take into consideration the known chemistry involved that shows your argument is simply wrong.

I did not make any assumptions as to how they are added although the one at a time method would never work or 10 at a time.
And you still do not seem to understand that it is the odds against a very long specific sequence that is the problem no matter how they are added. Thanks for the input