The flaws in Intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

Goodness, SZ...I'm the one who quoted the Bible regarding the definition of faith used in it. You haven't bothered to support your claim.

What claim do you need supported? And I don't remember you quoting the Bible, if you did you did not quite the verse commonly used since that does not support your claim.

So it really IS a matter of my having to justify my beliefs to you before I am allowed to believe. Gotcha.

It depends. If you want to claim a rational belief then you need to be able to justify them to anyone.

Again. I am not the one equivocating. I have provided plenty of support for the definitions of 'faith' that I use. You haven't provided any at all except for your bald declarations of your own opinions, and SZ?

I'm sorry, but nobody died and made you God, or the Mirriam Webster Dictionary, or the Oxford dictionary. or any authoritative source except your own opinions.

It would be nice if you would actually support those, y'know. The way I have mine?

No, you do not understand how you have in the past. And I did support those claims when made the time to dispute corrections is when they are made. Not pages later. And when have you ever supported your claims?

 

[dianaiad]

Hey! We agree on that.

Well not quite. There are times that a lack of evidence is evidence of nonexistence, but this is not one of them.

What, that a lack of evidence for black holes was not evidence of their non-existence, but a lack of evidence for deity IS evidence for the non-existence of deity?

How is that logical?

 

[dianaiad]

What claim do you need supported? And I don't remember you quoting the Bible, if you did you did not quite the verse commonly used since that does not support your claim.



It depends. If you want to claim a rational belief then you need to be able to justify them to anyone.



No, you do not understand how you have in the past. And I did support those claims when made the time to dispute corrections is when they are made. Not pages later. And when have you ever supported your claims?

Given that you replied to both posts, I can only consider that you don't read them.

 

[Polymath257]

What, that a lack of evidence for black holes was not evidence of their non-existence, but a lack of evidence for deity IS evidence for the non-existence of deity?

How is that logical?

OK, *when* does absence of evidence provide evidence of absence? The answer is clear: when the existence of an object *should* give evidence.

In the case of black holes, we did not know at first what sort of evidence would be required to show their existence. That meant, on the theoretical side, figuring out what would be clear evidence for their existence. Also, the universe is big and black holes are hard to detect. That meant that detection was not immediate. But, I would note that within a century of the possibility being raised, they were, in fact, detected.

I'd also point out that many astronomers strongly doubted the existence of black holes up to the point they were verified. And how were they verified? Those who *disbelieved* came up with criteria that would convince them of the existence.

In the case of a deity, NOBODY has been able to establish a detection procedure. Some have argued that God is, by nature undetectable.And *that* means that the question of existence is meaningless.

So, here's a challenge: come up with an experiment or observation that anyone an make that, if it fails to show the existence of your God, would be enough to convince you that this God does not exist.

Alternatively, find convincing evidence some God does exist. As an example of evidence that would convince me: a pattern in the cosmic background radiation that clearly reads as the first chapter of Genesis in ancient Hebrew.

 

[dianaiad]

OK, *when* does absence of evidence provide evidence of absence? The answer is clear: when the existence of an object *should* give evidence.

So...who gets to decide when that should be?

Given how incredibly influential black holes are in this universe, shouldn't they 'give evidence?" In fact, they do give evidence; quite a considerable amount, actually. It's just that we didn't know what we were looking at or how to look for it. Even after their existence was proposed, the proposer was made fun of for over a century before Einstein showed up, and even then we were relying more upon Einstein's reputation than upon objective evidence, which didn't show up for over a half a century later.

Who are you, or any of us, to decide when such evidence SHOULD show up?

In the case of black holes, we did not know at first what sort of evidence would be required to show their existence. That meant, on the theoretical side, figuring out what would be clear evidence for their existence. Also, the universe is big and black holes are hard to detect. That meant that detection was not immediate. But, I would note that within a century of the possibility being raised, they were, in fact, detected.

No, actually, they were not detected for close to two centuries after their existence was first proposed...and for a full century after their first proposal, they...and the scientist who proposed them, were made much mock of.

I'd also point out that many astronomers strongly doubted the existence of black holes up to the point they were verified. And how were they verified? Those who *disbelieved* came up with criteria that would convince them of the existence.

In the case of a deity, NOBODY has been able to establish a detection procedure. Some have argued that God is, by nature undetectable.And *that* means that the question of existence is meaningless.

objectively, yes.

So, here's a challenge: come up with an experiment or observation that anyone an make that, if it fails to show the existence of your God, would be enough to convince you that this God does not exist.

Why should I do that? I have never claimed that God could be proven empirically. In fact, I have, many times, claimed that He could not be proven through objective evidence. Subjective, yes....and only to the person doing the searching...but not objective.

Alternatively, find convincing evidence some God does exist. As an example of evidence that would convince me: a pattern in the cosmic background radiation that clearly reads as the first chapter of Genesis in ancient Hebrew.

I don't see that happening. For one thing, who said that God only cares about what ancient Hebrews wrote down? Why should He give a good hoot what YOU demand as proof for His existence? It is a very big universe, and the lack of that chapter doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. It only means that He doesn't much care what you demand of Him as proof.

 

[We Never Know]

If I understand this correctly, the claim is that waiting for a bus is the same thing as believing in God and that the claim of faith extends to cover them both.

If faith is believing without knowing or without evidence, I agree with that. But the example of the bus is a poor analogy, since a person that regularly rides the bus has knowledge of buses, bus routes, public transportation, their specific route, and their history using that bus and route. They do know something.

My claim is faith is believing without knowing. Some say "without evidence" but without evidence, you don't know(hence without knowing).
Some others brought up the hooker and bus insinuating faith has different levels, where I claimed it doesn't but has different labels. There are no different levels of not knowing or without evidence ( either you know or you don't and either you have evidence or you don't). I stick with my claim that faith is believing without knowing.

 

[Jollybear]

It has the features of a cipher. If you wanted to relate it to something that humans have created and used, a cipher would be the closest approximation.

It is a cipher.

Ok, so it IS a cipher, its not LIKE a cipher?

Definition of a CIPHER.

"a secret or disguised way of writing; a code.
"he was writing cryptic notes in a cipher"
synonyms: code, secret writing;
coded message, cryptograph,cryptogram
"the information may be given in cipher"

So, DNA is all that, yes?

Would you like to take that up with polymath?

That is what research is all about. If we knew the origins, then we would not need to ask questions. Baseless attribution to an unseen cause is not answering the question.

Funny, you "believe" in that unseen cause, dont you?

An honest response, but one that asks the question 'If you do not understand what you are against, how can you be against it or form valid arguments against it?'.

The reason the body was incomprehensible is because it was BS. The intro and conclusion was more honest. They dont know. The body was an attempt to make it look like they knew what thwy wer talking about, but they didnt.

Truth is COMPREHENSIBLE.

Furthermore, if someone has got to talk over laymens heads, what is the point of the work? Also, why bolster ego just to make an appearance of looking smart?

There paper would have been better if it just said this> we dont know crap about the origin of DNA. Lol. Thats "professional" in my book.

You appear to be just repeating cherry-picked points that agree with your belief and not bothering to learn anything.

How can you learn something when theres nothing there to learn? The paper admits it dont know crap.

Or reiterating claims of others without understanding the basis of the claims or their validity.

Oh i understand the validity of ID. That part i do comprehend.

 

[Polymath257]

So...who gets to decide when that should be?

Given how incredibly influential black holes are in this universe, shouldn't they 'give evidence?" In fact, they do give evidence; quite a considerable amount, actually. It's just that we didn't know what we were looking at or how to look for it. Even after their existence was proposed, the proposer was made fun of for over a century before Einstein showed up, and even then we were relying more upon Einstein's reputation than upon objective evidence, which didn't show up for over a half a century later.

And *why* did they not show up? because we needed advances in our abilities to detect them. Once those advances were made, detection came quickly.

Who are you, or any of us, to decide when such evidence SHOULD show up?

Well, it's been a few thousand years for those proposing a deity. That seems to have been sufficient time.

No, actually, they were not detected for close to two centuries after their existence was first proposed...and for a full century after their first proposal, they...and the scientist who proposed them, were made much mock of.

Um, historically wrong. As I recall, it was Laplace that calculated that a mass of a certain size would have an escape velocity of the speed of light. But he did NOT predict an event horizon nor a singularity of the type that Einstein's equations required. Remember that Laplace was using *Newtonian* mechanics, where the speed of light was NOT considered a limiting speed.

objectively, yes.

That is all that is required for a 'yes' answer.

Why should I do that? I have never claimed that God could be proven empirically. In fact, I have, many times, claimed that He could not be proven through objective evidence. Subjective, yes....and only to the person doing the searching...but not objective.

Well, then, why object that there is no evidence for such a being? Why insist that we should wait longer for such evidence? You seem to be saying no such evidence is even possible. And that, for me, is enough to establish non-existence.

I don't see that happening. For one thing, who said that God only cares about what ancient Hebrews wrote down? Why should He give a good hoot what YOU demand as proof for His existence? It is a very big universe, and the lack of that chapter doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. It only means that He doesn't much care what you demand of Him as proof.

In which case, it is perfectly reasonable to not believe since the existence and non-existence are indistinguishable. In fact, the more reasonable stance is the default stance of non-existence.

 

[tas8831]

Ok, so it IS a cipher, its not LIKE a cipher?

Definition of a CIPHER.

Louis Cipher?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I assume Design because I believe in a Creator God.

Right. So it's assumption upon assumption.
You believe because you believe because you believe.

One does NOT have to prove a Creator, or disprove one, in order to examine it.

True. But without any demonstration of this creator, believing it is baseless and irrational.

YOU are assuming that there is no Creator

Yes. It's called the null hypothesis.
I also assume that there is no 7-headed undetectable dragon about to eat me.
When driving on the highway, I also assume that there isn't a 7-ton invisible rock blocking my lane.
You also assume both these things and for good reason.

When it comes to your creator beliefs though, you ARE doing the equivalent of assuming such an invisble rock or undetectable dragon.

You can't prove that there is none.

Indeed. I can't prove that there is no invisble 7-ton rock blocking my lane.
Neither can you. Yet, neither of us will be slamming his breaks in the middle of the highway out of fear of smashing into said rock.
Neither of us is also loosing any sleep over the possibility that an undetectable 7-headed dragon is going to eat us. Eventhough we can't prove that there is no such dragon.

Why not?

Should I insist that you do so before you are allowed to study the universe?

You could, but you would just be shifting the burden of proof and failing to understand the concept of the null hypothesis.

When a physicists does an experiment, he also assumes that there are no undetectable fairies fiddling about with the results.

Indeed. But one does NOT have to define the term "event horizon" to study plate tectonics. One does not have to define "Creator" in order to study stars. You are demanding that one come to an unprovable conclusion before one can examine the data.

Well, if you keep your creator beliefs to yourself and don't demand to "teach the controversy" in science classes, then you don't have to.

Otherwise, you better be ready to
1. define your nonsense
and
2. support it with testable evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My claim is faith is believing without knowing. Some say "without evidence" but without evidence, you don't know(hence without knowing).
Some others brought up the hooker and bus insinuating faith has different levels, where I claimed it doesn't but has different labels. There are no different levels of not knowing or without evidence ( either you know or you don't and either you have evidence or you don't). I stick with my claim that faith is believing without knowing.

I agree with your definition of faith, I just disagree that it applies to everything. Certainly, we do not know many things with certainty, but we do know things about certain events and conditions that we can predict and expect with reasonable confidence, their occurrence.

I do not know absolutely that my bus will arrive on time, but I have knowledge of many things that lead me to expect it so and an understanding of things that allow me to recognize reasons that it did not arrive on schedule on some occasions.

I believe in God, but I do not have or know of any evidence I could use to convince you to believe as I do. But I could provide a lot of information about my bus route and transportation that would give you some confidence in my claim that it will arrive on time. There is a difference in those two things.

 

[dianaiad]

And *why* did they not show up? because we needed advances in our abilities to detect them. Once those advances were made, detection came quickly.

....and you think that because we can now detect black holes, that our scientific advancements are sufficient to detect God?

..................................dark matter.

Well, it's been a few thousand years for those proposing a deity. That seems to have been sufficient time.

Evidently (see what I did there?) not. Remember; black holes have been around considerably longer than the sun has, never mind the earth and the scientists who dwell upon it. So it seems it has been just as long to find them...and even though we posit the existence of dark matter, we still can't see it. Or detect it in any other way. Dark energy (and there seems to be a great deal more of that, or rather, there should be, than dark matter) and dark matter are, in reality, mathematical place holders. We think that they exist because the equations don't work unless they do.

That could be because our equations are wrong....(shrug) in the meantime, both things are quick and dirty mathematical fixes so that we can pretend that we know how the universe works. We could be wrong. Boy, could we be wrong. I imagine that someone will figure it out; either find the 'darks,' or fix the math, one or the other. I have faith.

Um, historically wrong. As I recall, it was Laplace that calculated that a mass of a certain size would have an escape velocity of the speed of light. But he did NOT predict an event horizon nor a singularity of the type that Einstein's equations required. Remember that Laplace was using *Newtonian* mechanics, where the speed of light was NOT considered a limiting speed.

Wrong man, wrong time, wrong prediction. John Michell, in 1783, figured that black holes (he didn't call them that, of course...that honor going to Fred Hoyle, who was making fun of the idea) not only could exist according to Newtonian physics, he also said that they would, in spite of being invisible, might be detected if they had a star in orbit around them.

That LAST claim wasn't confirmed until Webster and Murdin used that idea to detect Cygnus X-1...in the 1970s.

That is all that is required for a 'yes' answer.



Well, then, why object that there is no evidence for such a being? Why insist that we should wait longer for such evidence? You seem to be saying no such evidence is even possible. And that, for me, is enough to establish non-existence.

I have NEVER said that such evidence isn't 'possible.' It might show up eventually. In fact, it probably will....but in my belief system that won't be for quite some time. I freely acknowledge that we don't have any now. At least, not any that non-believers will accept. I mean, really; if an atheist will, with a straight face, tell me that even if God appeared to him/her personally, that wouldn't be enough to establish His existence, I can't think of any objective evidence that would be accepted. As long as that evidence can be explained away as caused by anything else, no matter how outlandish, that is the explanation that will be clung to.

In fact, it seems to me that some of you are insisting that you won't believe that water is wet until someone holds your face in the lake until you drown. In the meantime, your fellow atheist onlookers will be calling the whole thing CGI holographic trickery.

Sorry. I get frustrated.

In which case, it is perfectly reasonable to not believe since the existence and non-existence are indistinguishable. In fact, the more reasonable stance is the default stance of non-existence.

If you want to say so for yourself, fine.

My only problem is when those on your side of this issue insist that if THEY don't think a position is reasonable or logical, that WE have no business believing in it.

 

[Polymath257]

....and you think that because we can now detect black holes, that our scientific advancements are sufficient to detect God?

..................................dark matter.

Well, they are clearly good enough to detect the *existence* of dark matter, if not its composition.

Evidently (see what I did there?) not. Remember; black holes have been around considerably longer than the sun has, never mind the earth and the scientists who dwell upon it. So it seems it has been just as long to find them...and even though we posit the existence of dark matter, we still can't see it. Or detect it in any other way. Dark energy (and there seems to be a great deal more of that, or rather, there should be, than dark matter) and dark matter are, in reality, mathematical place holders. We think that they exist because the equations don't work unless they do.

That could be because our equations are wrong....(shrug) in the meantime, both things are quick and dirty mathematical fixes so that we can pretend that we know how the universe works. We could be wrong. Boy, could we be wrong. I imagine that someone will figure it out; either find the 'darks,' or fix the math, one or the other. I have faith.

Well, people have worked on the possibility that the equations are wrong. it turns out to be very difficult to get consistency with the solar system data and the galactic data and *impossible* without some form for dark matter.

Wrong man, wrong time, wrong prediction. John Michell, in 1783, figured that black holes (he didn't call them that, of course...that honor going to Fred Hoyle, who was making fun of the idea) not only could exist according to Newtonian physics, he also said that they would, in spite of being invisible, might be detected if they had a star in orbit around them.

That LAST claim wasn't confirmed until Webster and Murdin used that idea to detect Cygnus X-1...in the 1970s.

I wasn't aware of the Michell prediction, although once again he was using Newtonian physics and did NOT have an event horizon nor a singularity. So whether it really deserves to be classified as a black hole is questionable.

I have NEVER said that such evidence isn't 'possible.' It might show up eventually. In fact, it probably will....but in my belief system that won't be for quite some time. I freely acknowledge that we don't have any now. At least, not any that non-believers will accept. I mean, really; if an atheist will, with a straight face, tell me that even if God appeared to him/her personally, that wouldn't be enough to establish His existence, I can't think of any objective evidence that would be accepted. As long as that evidence can be explained away as caused by anything else, no matter how outlandish, that is the explanation that will be clung to.

Well, appearing to someone could easily be the result of a hallucination. What would be much more convincing is, say, a signature in the cosmic background radiation that can be 'read' as that: a signature claiming authorship.

In fact, it seems to me that some of you are insisting that you won't believe that water is wet until someone holds your face in the lake until you drown. In the meantime, your fellow atheist onlookers will be calling the whole thing CGI holographic trickery.

Even holographic trickery is far better evidence than what is offered for the existence of a deity.

Sorry. I get frustrated.

If you want to say so for yourself, fine.

My only problem is when those on your side of this issue insist that if THEY don't think a position is reasonable or logical, that WE have no business believing in it.

You can believe in it. But just like belief in elves, I don't consider it to be logical. it is choosing to believe in spite of the lack of evidence.

Now, you could be correct in doing so. But, given the lack of evidence, the *logical* position is to be skeptical to doubtful, it seems to me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, so it IS a cipher, its not LIKE a cipher?

Definition of a CIPHER.

"a secret or disguised way of writing; a code.
"he was writing cryptic notes in a cipher"
synonyms: code, secret writing;
coded message, cryptograph,cryptogram
"the information may be given in cipher"

So, DNA is all that, yes?

I said it is like a cipher. Not that it functions in the way a person uses a cipher.

Would you like to take that up with polymath?

It might be a good idea. He is a mathematician and probably can give me far more insight on the subject than someone that just makes claims without evidence.

Funny, you "believe" in that unseen cause, dont you?

Believing in God does not mean that I believe every claim of every believer. Crazy people can believe in God too, should I accept everything they say?

This is just another passive aggressive attack on my beliefs that has no relevance to the point of discussion.

The reason the body was incomprehensible is because it was BS. The intro and conclusion was more honest. They dont know. The body was an attempt to make it look like they knew what thwy wer talking about, but they didnt.

Truth is COMPREHENSIBLE.

If it was incomprehensible to YOU, then how do you know it is BS? It was very comprehensible to me. By your definition, it is the truth?

Is it my fault of the fault of the authors of that paper that you have chosen to reject and ridicule things outside of your understanding?

Furthermore, if someone has got to talk over laymens heads, what is the point of the work? Also, why bolster ego just to make an appearance of looking smart?

How is supplying you with the scientific work on why DNA is not a language supposed to bolster my ego? That is incomprehensible, so it must not be true.

There paper would have been better if it just said this> we dont know crap about the origin of DNA. Lol. Thats "professional" in my book.

The paper was not about the origin of DNA. It was about whether DNA is a language, so why would I make a wild claim conflating the issue? Is creating a straw man argument what you consider professional too? You must.

How can you learn something when theres nothing there to learn? The paper admits it dont know crap.

The paper provides evidence to indicate that the way DNA functions is like a cipher. Your arguments are made up and have no relevance.

Oh i understand the validity of ID. That part i do comprehend.

ID has no validity. I am glad you understand that.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, they are clearly good enough to detect the *existence* of dark matter, if not its composition.



Well, people have worked on the possibility that the equations are wrong. it turns out to be very difficult to get consistency with the solar system data and the galactic data and *impossible* without some form for dark matter.



I wasn't aware of the Michell prediction, although once again he was using Newtonian physics and did NOT have an event horizon nor a singularity. So whether it really deserves to be classified as a black hole is questionable.

Moving the goalposts there. I think you are the only person I've ever come across that has tried the 'he wasn't really talking about black holes' argument.

Well, appearing to someone could easily be the result of a hallucination. What would be much more convincing is, say, a signature in the cosmic background radiation that can be 'read' as that: a signature claiming authorship.

Oh, you folks wouldn't accept that, either.

Even holographic trickery is far better evidence than what is offered for the existence of a deity.



You can believe in it. But just like belief in elves, I don't consider it to be logical. it is choosing to believe in spite of the lack of evidence.

Now, you could be correct in doing so. But, given the lack of evidence, the *logical* position is to be skeptical to doubtful, it seems to me.

The logical position is neutral. Not having an opinion one way or the other regarding the existence of a deity. Now I'm with you in regard to someone who claims to be able to prove the existence of a deity with specific attributes....

But that's not quite the same thing.

But you can call me a sceptic, in that since nobody can prove that there is NOT a god anywhere around, I'm not going to come down on the side of 'there ain't no such critter...er, creator...'

Can you prove to me that there is no god, of any sort, anywhere?

 

[Polymath257]

But you can call me a sceptic, in that since nobody can prove that there is NOT a god anywhere around, I'm not going to come down on the side of 'there ain't no such critter...er, creator...'

Can you prove to me that there is no god, of any sort, anywhere?

No, of course not. And neither can I prove there are no elves anywhere. But, in the absence of evidence for them, the default is to not believe in them.

 

[Bear Wild]

Neither pattern nor order are of particular concern. It’s the arrangements of numerous interrelated constituent parts or elements in a string of steps adhered to in a clear-cut logical order to effectuate a task, purpose, goal or operation (ordered complexity) which always betrays the existence of an intelligent mind. It's what makes a particular signal, for instance, instantly recognizable from random white noise. (That's why SETI scours the universe for radio signals.)


So you see, trying to use "poof" (fantastic chance)% to explain the outrageously small compound probabilities of standalone events giving us a life sustaining universe is utterly naked, absurd sophism.

%“It is our contention that if ‘random’ [chance] is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws, physical, chemical and biological.” -“Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Dr. Murray Eden, MIT


%“There is no chance (<10-1000) to see [evolution based on mutation and natural selection] appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less for it to remain. Thus, to conclude, we believe there is a considerable gap in the Neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.” -“Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution,” Marcel P. Schutzenberger, the University of Paris (Bracket mine.)​

This multiplicity of probabilities atop probabilities atop probabilities atop probabilities adequately illustrates the staggering probability of our universe winding up with the optimum blend and ratios of life permitting constants by pure chance.


Your reasoning makes it acceptable for someone who stumbles upon a copy of “Hamlet” to believe it is really the product of an infinite group of monkeys in an infinite assortment of universes banging away duplicates of texts at an infinite group of typewriters generated by yet another infinite group of monkeys in some other group of infinite universes banging away at their infinite bunch of typewriters rather than just simply concluding “Shakespeare.”


Concordantly,


1. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe are due to either physical necessity, chance or deliberate design.


2. It is not due to either physical necessity or chance.


3. Therefore, it is due to deliberate design.


If you If you hear hoofbeats, why think unicorns?

If you hear hoof beats you need to make the observation to find the evidence of what it is - unicorn, zebra, horse, cow.
As for the two people you mentioned Including murray Eden and Shutzenbuerger You have shown your complete lack of understanding of biology. So what was this big evidence.

The Wistar institute conference was to show that there was evidence of the improbability of evolution. The only paper presented proposing that the origin of life and evolution is improbable was by Murray Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” He does not really argue directly that evolution is improbable but rather argued the fact that all living organisms are composed of a very tiny fraction of all the possible proteins with his main argument that life is concentrated around a tiny fraction of this possible protein development. This is stated despite the fact that once a system uses a certain protein which was selected because of its advantage, that none of other protein patterns could compete even if they were to arise. This is why life has been built on one tiny set of proteins and not due to intelligent design. He calculates proposes without evidence that 120 point mutations would require 2,700,000 generations and he assumes an unsupported low mutation rate of 1 in 1 million which has no basis. He ignores the ideas of chromosome mixing and gene-pool variation as well as all of the other mechanism that increase variation at much higher rates. There is evidence that a beneficial gene can dominate a population faster than 20 generations and will also be subject to further genetic improvement.

He makes the point in the evolutionary changes in hemoglobin requires about 120 amino acid substitutions as individual events, But that isn't really what is going on at all. We don't need 120 changes one after the other. Calculations about the length of time of evolutionary steps have to take into account the fact that we are dealing with gene pools, with a great deal of genetic variability and they do not have to be with them as sequential steps.

The prolonged action of natural selection acting on random genetic variations can, in principle, craft complex structures. Mathematicians as such have nothing to say about that question since they do not take into account all of the biological processes that favor changes. The reality is that many of the problems biologists study just don't lend themselves to mathematical treatments due to too many variables acting on biological systems.

Mathematical analysis in very complex systems fails to give answers. The people you chose ignored all of the understanding of genetics and lacked any insight on biological systems complexity and the true influence of natural selection.
Concordantly,


1. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe are due to natural selection with increasingly more complex genetics creating increasing variation. No designer needed.

2. It is due to either physical necessity but not just chance. Mating, natural selection and genetic variations are all that is needed.


3. Therefore, it is all due to natural forces without the need of an imaginary intelligent designer.

 

[Maximilian]

1. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe are due to natural selection with increasingly more complex genetics creating increasing variation. No designer needed.

Natural selection? How could Nature select for anything when there was nothing to select from in the first place?

 

[Maximilian]

Mating, natural selection and genetic variations are all that is needed.

Our universe came into existence through . . . mating? Who or what mated with whom or what to then give birth to our universe?

 

[Bear Wild]

Natural selection? How could Nature select for anything when there was nothing to select from in the first place?

Natural selection started as the first simple dna elements formed and started to create self contained organism. This is the study of abiogenesis which I have already given evidence for. After the simple organisms appeared natural selection shaped the DNA code further for more and more complex organisms thus evolution. No intelligent designer needed. The two people you used were mathematicians ignoring biology and coming up with meaningless mathematical models based on poor assumptions proven wrong.