Response to 'prove evolution true'

Originally posted by King Tiger
Correct if I'm wrong, but you are largely talking about the process of speciation

No, I wasn't talking about speciation.

As remarkable as speciation would be if it did occur, which I contest it does not. Point to a modern scientifically observed speciation please-I'd be more than happy to hear of it and then see who was the Nobel winner for discovering it or creating it.
I will be glad to once we have dealt with the probability question.

What I am talking about is the mathematical probability that the individual cell and then cells would evolve as they are.
Evolve from what, too what?

And how you keep missing this point is beyond me.
Because you keep changing what you are saying and going off at a tangent and never really state clearly what you are claiming.

So a very simple process of natural selection, L-protein mutations is untenable, and yet this is only 1 function within the complex cell and functioning organism is made up of millions such platforms!
It is still not at all clear what you are calculating the probability of. What do we start with, what mutates, and what do we end up with? How many individuals are we talking about and how many generations? What is the inheritance rule?

Also, notice I'm assuming each mutation of each protein and amino acid is successive and successful. So I'm being very generous.
Why is that generous? Can mutations be not-successive? And you did not assume they were successful as that is what you claimed to be calculating the probability of.

This was not my original calculation because honestly I was inferring to any calculation within mathematics is untenable for Darwinism.
Now you are just talking gibberish. Are you saying 2+2 is untenable for Darwinism? And by the way, we are discussing evolution not some imaginary religion you like to call Darwinism.

OK, so were getting side tracked with all your comments. Please stick to your example and give more detail.
1. What are we assuming a life form started with? No proteins? A protein with one amino acid?
2. What is the probability of a mutation adding an amino acid to the protein?
3. Why are you multiplying probabilities for each amino acid?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I wasn't talking about speciation.

[b]As remarkable as speciation would be if it did occur, which I contest it does not. Point to a modern scientifically observed speciation please-I'd be more than happy to hear of it and then see who was the Nobel winner for discovering it or creating it.
I will be glad to once we have dealt with the probabi ...[text shortened]... by the way, we are discussing evolution not some imaginary religion you like to call Darwinism.[/b]

You need a reality check. Read up some and then come talk to me about it. Somehow this process works for PhDs at Ivy Leagues but not you. Do I need to hold your hand on every detail?

Originally posted by King Tiger
You need a reality check. Read up some and then come talk to me about it.

So you are running away? Cant admit when you are wrong?

Originally posted by King Tiger
Do I need to hold your hand on every detail?

Yes, I am afraid you do. You are being far too vague for me to even evaluate your claim.

Originally posted by King Tiger
Well, please point me to a good source if that is the case. I'll admit, I'm no geologist, nor have any wish to be. But, I will say many catastrophists point to Mt. St. Helens as a very tenable pillar in their case. I've also heard of petrified wood extending through several layers of geological strata (periods or whatever). But I'm open to a good source if you have one on hand.

I am surprised that an intellectual of your caliber could come to a "young" Earth conclusion without examining geologic evidence. The Scablands, in the northwest US, would be a good start.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are running away? Cant admit when you are wrong?

No, but this is a waste of my time. You clearly know little of the debate and have a rudimentary understanding. I'm pretty convinced what I present is accurate. But I'm not going to keep presenting evidence to you when you intentionally misinterpret it.

Originally posted by caissad4
I am surprised that an intellectual of your caliber could come to a "young" Earth conclusion without examining geologic evidence. The Scablands, in the northwest US, would be a good start.

Are you suggesting you've studied every aspect thoroughly then for all your conclusions? I have finite time.

Originally posted by King Tiger
No, but this is a waste of my time. You clearly know little of the debate and have a rudimentary understanding. I'm pretty convinced what I present is accurate. But I'm not going to keep presenting evidence to you when you intentionally misinterpret it.

So please explain in a bit more detail what you are calculating the probability of. We can trade insults all day, but its much easier to simply get into the details of the issue.

1. What are we assuming a life form started with? No proteins? A protein with one amino acid?
2. What is the probability of a mutation adding an amino acid to the protein?
3. Why are you multiplying probabilities for each amino acid?

Originally posted by King Tiger
Are you suggesting you've studied every aspect thoroughly then for all your conclusions? I have finite time.

Of course not ! I would think you should know that. I directed you to where you will find intellectual evidence of likely flaws in the "young' Earth hypothesis. As an intellectual, you should interested. We all have finite time, lol. 😀

Originally posted by KellyJay
Wish nothing but that for you too my friend!!
I still wonder why you cut off that which you cannot control by rejecting
it as you do. I'd think that simply having so many others on the planet
expressing belief and with some suggesting contact, that you'd have
to at least give the benifit of doubt instead of rejection.
Kelly

As regards this matter I thought I was clear at my first post of the fifth page of this thread, Kelly
😵

Originally posted by King Tiger
Then you should be familiar with Dawkin's evident quotes and his insinuations. I did not quote Dawkin's as saying Dyson was 'mad' because I know of know exact quote. Yet, he certainly suggests it in his writings,Howe and my interpretation of Dawkin's writings would be he believes all true scientists and perhaps academics should be atheist. So if I was misleading I apologize, but I'm sure you can appreciate my own interpretation of his writings.

Well, it was misleading. The reason I questioned it was that it didn't sound like Dawkins, it sounded like what creationists say about Dawkins.

You said he had the audacity to call Freemon Dyson mad for speaking of God, which sounds very specific, explicit and clear. But it appears he did no such thing.

As to the other point, I think Freemon Dyson just made that up. It sounds nothing like Dawkins. In fact, if I remember correctly, Dawkins speaks with fondness and admiration in The God Delusion about some scientific colleagues who are theists. But I could be mixing this up with other things he has written. I will check when I get home.

However, the claim that you made in the post I am replying to and the claim that Freemon Dyson made are not the same. He said that Dawkins had stated publicly that you have to be an atheist in order to be a scientist. This does not sound plausible to me.

On the other hand if what Dyson is referring to is that Dawkins said he would expect anyone of a scientific or academic disposition to reach the conclusion that there is no god, then that would not surprise me at all. Or if Dawkins was referring to the idea that you cannot invoke god as part of your scientific explanation, then again I would not be at all surprised.

As I said to RJHinds (and this is a comment on Freemon Dyson) it is amazing how often creationists/theists resort to half-truths and lies to try and forward their argument.

Originally posted by black beetle
As regards this matter I thought I was clear at my first post of the fifth page of this thread, Kelly
😵

That was the one that reminded me of my brother. 🙂
You owe me nothing on the topic.
I was mulling what you said, and coming from you I didn't see why you
used the word reject.
Kelly

Originally posted by King Tiger
No, but this is a waste of my time. You clearly know little of the debate and have a rudimentary understanding. I'm pretty convinced what I present is accurate. But I'm not going to keep presenting evidence to you when you intentionally misinterpret it.

I hate to spoil other people's fun, but you should have realised by now that almost every poster on this thread is sceptical of your scientific and academic provenance.

Your posts are poorly structured, rambling, very often derivative, you duck direct questions when asked of you, and you constantly boast about your qualifications and intelligence and insult others when they can't understand your incoherent posts. These are not signs of erudition.

We have seen this many times before and it would be better for you if you just answered twhitehead's questions or admit you can't.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I hate to spoil other people's fun, but you should have realised by now that almost every poster on this thread is sceptical of your scientific and academic provenance.

Your posts are poorly structured, rambling, very often derivative, you duck direct questions when asked of you, and you constantly boast about your qualifications and intelligence an ...[text shortened]... e and it would be better for you if you just answered twhitehead's questions or admit you can't.

It didn't take long to attack the person instead of answer the points.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It didn't take long to attack the person instead of answer the points.
Kelly

Actually, if you look above, people have sought to answer his points, and have asked some straightforward questions which he has refused to answer. He has responded instead with a mixture of boasting and insults.

So how exactly would you suggest twhitehead answers the points he raised?