# evidence for god? some one said so. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 21, 2013, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896 "2013-01-21T08:55:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 40
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/781 "2013-03-07T23:11:10Z")
> [@paul32](#): > > I don’t know if useful mutations are possible. For example, the only mutations I know of for a new baby cause spontaneous abortion or a disease/condition such as Down’s syndrome. But what is the filter you speak of? If you mean natural selection, that doesn’t work, because that happens after the being is “born.” Evolution is saying the random mutation results in a new being, and then natural selection filters out the best ones. But even if you include spontaneous abortion in natural selection, that isn’t the filter you need to make this work. When you get some random DNA, the chances that it is a valid being are so small. Read in the transcript ([Evolution: “A Christian and an atheist go to the zoo”](http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/evolution-christian-atheist-zoo/)) the example of turning EASY into FAST in something with 95 characters–just altering 2 letters and keeping the rest the same has very low probability. The shortest DNA is much longer than that. The probabilities are so small to get what you need that it is impossible. Let me try to correct your terminology. A favorable mutation just improves the chances of survival of the being possessing it. A mutation which reduces your vision and thus the energy required to see is bad - unless you live in a cave where vision is useless, in which case it is good. If you want examples of favorable mutations look into [talkorigins.org](http://talkorigins.org) which I suspect has tons. We know there is a gene which lets us speak (a family in England is missing it and cannot) so that is another example. I don’t know what you mean by new being. Any birth is a new being, and one with a mutation is not obviously different from one without, and is not any newer a being. Clearly single mutations do not cause speciation all at once. Speciation means that members of the new species cannot have children with members of the old. If the new being speciated in this sense, his reproductive chances are going to be a bit limited, right? Reproductive success is the metric to care about. Clearly a creature who dies in utero is not going to be very successful in this sense. Ditto one dying very young. But ditto one living a very long time and never reproducing. If the mutation improves the chances of reproduction, then it is successful in this metric. Now, in my understanding there is a small number of bad mutations, (excuse me for using bad and good instead of unfavorable and favorable - less typing) an even smaller number of good ones and a bunch of ones not making a difference. Our eye color has little to do with reproductive success, I think. Yes, the probability is low, but we have lots and lots of experiments. Small fast breeding things evolve faster than big, slow breeding things like us. I’ve reviewed papers using genetic algorithms to generate very long sequences of tests for ICs. It does work, but it is inefficient. That was done on one computer. You can consider nature a massive parallel computer with each animal being one processing step. It does work, but it never actually gets used because “intelligently designed” tests can get generated a lot faster. Which is interesting. If we were intelligently designed, how come it took over 500 million years from the beginning of life for us to get here? That kind if slowness is what you’d expect from a genetic algorithm. We breed dogs and plants (both cases of real intelligent design) much faster than that. I read some of your link, and don’t have the time to point out the massive number of errors and misconceptions in it. The biggest is the concept of design. > [@](#): > > 1. Random mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design. Wrong. This produces something that can look like it was designed, not something that was designed. Evolution has no goal. If you are playing poker and get dealt a full house, the deck was not designed to give you that hand. You just got one hand out of many. Evolution did not happen to create us - we just popped up instead of many other possible species intelligent enough to have this discussion. If your source doesn’t understand this, he doesn’t understand anything. He is not even wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Quarrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Quarrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quarrel)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/782 "2013-03-08T12:23:19Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > This suggests to me that the answer to “How did the universe come to exist?” should be “we don’t know”. Answering God or Dennis Weaver is to make an assumption without evidence. It’s ok not to know something, it doesn’t necessitate fabricating an answer. The way i think is that it’s either the universe is created or not , if it is not then it should not be existing , and if it’s created then who ever created it is named God . so if Dennis Weaver created the universe then he is God . but that is obviusly impossible you know . ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/783 "2013-03-08T12:31:27Z")
> [@Quarrel](#): > > The way i think is that it’s either the universe is created or not , if it is not then it should not be existing , and if it’s created then who ever created it is named God . > so if Dennis Weaver created the universe then he is God . but that is obviusly impossible you know . The way I think is that God was created or not. If not, then he should not be existing, and if he was created then whoever created him is named Supergod. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/784 "2013-03-08T12:34:27Z")
> [@Quarrel](#): > > The way i think is that it’s either the universe is created or not , if it is not then it should not be existing , and if it’s created then who ever created it is named God . > so if Dennis Weaver created the universe then he is God . but that is obviusly impossible you know . It doesn’t need a creator, or a being to come into place, A being would first need a place where to exist,so if God is a being, something was there before a God. as I understand your explaination: God could not be a loving, caring, all knowing being. Just an unknown something we don’t know anything about, we call God As I read the Bible and other writings I understand the word God to meant some one or something with power, like the Pharohs, who could proclaim themselves God and the People who believed Thunder, lightening etc. were gods, and worshipped that. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/785 "2013-03-08T12:52:54Z")
If there are alternate universes, are there alternate Gods? If there is just one God for an infinite number of alternate universes, would it not take an infinite amount of time to do so? ---
**Author:** ![Quarrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Quarrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quarrel)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/786 "2013-03-08T13:52:55Z")
> [@](#): > > The way I think is that God was created or not. If not, then he should not be existing, and if he was created then whoever created him is named Supergod. That’s true . except that we call the one who is creator but not created : God > [@](#): > > It doesn’t need a creator, or a being to come into place, A being would first need a place where to exist,so if God is a being, something was there before a God. > as I understand your explaination: God could not be a loving, caring, all knowing being. Just an unknown something we don’t know anything about, we call God You do mistake the " Place" for what it is , the Place ( and Time ) are creatures , therefor the creator created them , and the creator is apart from his creatures . And as you understand I think the judgement of an Idea must not be upon one interpretation of it . and I think the idea of God is very misunderstood to be judged > [@](#): > > If there are alternate universes, are there alternate Gods? > If there is just one God for an infinite number of alternate universes, would it not take an infinite amount of time to do so? God is not in the universe but apart from it . and the law of time does not rule God because he created time ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/787 "2013-03-08T13:55:02Z")
Place and Time are creatures?? Just what we need -another religionist who makes up his own definitions for words. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/788 "2013-03-08T14:07:24Z")
> [@Quarrel](#): > > God is not in the universe but apart from it . and the law of time does not rule God because he created time And I suppose you expect us to believe that such a powerful creative force just popped into being all by itself? ---
**Author:** ![Quarrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Quarrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quarrel)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/789 "2013-03-08T14:17:42Z")
I believe every thing that was nonexistent then existed to be created . as for Place and time . You can either prove that Place and time wasn’t nonexistent then existed, or prove that being existing after nonexistent doesn’t mean it was created ---
**Author:** ![Quarrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Quarrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quarrel)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/790 "2013-03-08T14:26:16Z")
> [@](#): > > And I suppose you expect us to believe that such a powerful creative force just popped into being all by itself? that force is eternal ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/791 "2013-03-08T14:29:02Z")
> [@Quarrel](#): > > that force is eternal So is the universe. No creator required. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/792 "2013-03-08T14:47:00Z")
> [@Quarrel](#): > > either the universe is created or not , if it is not then it should not be existing > [@Quarrel](#): > > we call the one who is creator but not created : God You cannot have your cake and eat it. What goes for the universe goes for god. “If God wasn’t created, he should not be existing.” is what follows from your first premise. Indeed your first premise does not make much sense. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/793 "2013-03-08T15:09:27Z")
> [@Quarrel](#): > > that force is eternal Please explain why your idea that the universe must have been created but that your particular god wasn’t isn’t a case of [Special Pleading?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) ---
**Author:** ![Quarrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Quarrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quarrel)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/794 "2013-03-08T15:57:28Z")
> [@](#): > > What goes for the universe goes for god. It is a loop that is logically impossible , to say that God was created by God creator , and God creator was created by God creator’s creator .. to infinty so it has to end at a point where there is no creator for the creator, and that point is what I call God . it is really the same with the ones who think the universe is eternal . because in this case the universe is their God . the difference between us is that I think my God is intelligent and perfect . ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/795 "2013-03-08T15:59:24Z")
> [@Quarrel](#): > > It is a loop that is logically impossible , to say that God was created by God creator , and God creator was created by God creator’s creator .. etc > so it has to end at a point where there is no creator for the creator, and that point is what I call God . > it is really the same with the ones who think the universe is eternal . because in this case the universe is their God . the difference between us is that I think my God is intelligent and perfect . Again I ask: Why is your opinion not Special Pleading? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/796 "2013-03-08T16:10:20Z")
> [@Quarrel](#): > > …it is really the same with the ones who think the universe is eternal . because in this case the universe is their God . the difference between us is that I think my God is intelligent and perfect . The universe - around for a good long time but not eternal. The universe - is not god. The universe - evidence suggests it exists… God - not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/797 "2013-03-08T16:10:38Z")
> [@Quarrel](#): > > It is a loop that is logically impossible , to say that God was created by God creator , and God creator was created by God creator’s creator .. to infinty Exactly. The same argument that is used to say there has to be a ‘first cause’ to the universe, that argument goes for God too. > [@](#): > > so it has to end at a point where there is no creator for the creator No it doesn’t have to end just because you want it to. This is the ‘Turtles all the way down’. Maybe there is something wrong with the premise? > [@](#): > > it is really the same with the ones who think the universe is eternal . because in this case the universe is their God . the difference between us is that I think my God is intelligent and perfect . Your god may be intelligent, this statement surely is not. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/798 "2013-03-08T16:19:05Z")
> [@Quarrel](#): > > It is a loop that is logically impossible , to say that God was created by God creator , and God creator was created by God creator’s creator .. to infinty > so it has to end at a point where there is no creator for the creator, and that point is what I call God . > it is really the same with the ones who think the universe is eternal . because in this case the universe is their God . the difference between us is that I think my God is intelligent and perfect . And to bring this back on topic: What is the evidence that this god of yours exists? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/799 "2013-03-08T16:24:25Z")
> [@Quarrel](#): > > it is really the same with the ones who think the universe is eternal . because in this case the universe is their God . the difference between us is that I think my God is intelligent and perfect . But the argument against an eternal universe has always been it is too complex and systematic to exist without the hand of a creator. If that is so, then your god in his intelligence and perfection could not be eternal, and must have been created by some other supreme being. Intelligence cannot come from nothing, or so we are told. ---
**Author:** ![paul32](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc348/32.png) [@paul32](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paul32)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/800 "2013-03-08T16:38:12Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > There are several problems with that analogy: > > 1. The test would need to be structured so that you could duplicate the word “Easy” and it would have no effect on the advertisement’s success. Genes get duplicated sometimes, and the creature with two copies does just fine. Then one of those genes doesn’t have selective pressure to stay the same - it can mutate and do something else without causing harm to the creature. So again, with your example, if you duplicated the word “Easy” and then made random changes to the copy, it would need to have no deleterious effect on the survivability. > > 2. Just making the changes on one individual wouldn’t be appropriate - you’d need to do this in parallel on millions, billions, or hundreds of billions of ads, then see what survives. > > 3. You’d need to do the “natural selection” filter after each generation, and then do it not five times, but hundreds of billions of times. > > You see, the chemistry in the cell, which is the complexity that you’re trying to challenge here, went through this process with just single-celled organisms, or simple amalgamations of them, for _three billion years_ before more complex animals started to emerge. Looking at it this way, there were three billion years of countless organisms competing, and reproducing however often single-celled organisms reproduce, for something like three billion years. Then the cell development got to a very advanced state, one which could support more complex animals, and in the relatively recent few hundred million years you’ve seen an explosion of diversity. But this explosion is all based on that cellular machinery which took forever to evolve. 1. So only a “bad” genetic mutation dies? There would be variation in the results just from other factors, in the advertisement success or in the new creature. 2. Sure. And the ad doesn’t have the “impossible” probability to begin with. 3. Ditto. When you get into the cell, it has way more “bits.” How many bits and what is the rate of trials over the 3 billion years? It still won’t compute. > [@CurtC](#): > > Surely you’re kidding? Do you not see the glaring flaw in this syllogism? Have you heard of “begging the question”? That was a paraphrase of his part 1. I said when I started I couldn’t say it as well as he does. But, you would suggest this then? All codes except DNA come from a mind. DNA is a code. DNA doesn’t necessarily come from a mind. That is just as much, or probably more, a syllogism. Before DNA was discovered, certainly no one could object to “all codes come from a mind.” So when DNA is then discovered, and it looks like a code, it seems logical to conclude DNA comes from a mind. So then maybe you say DNA is not a code, like this: > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > On DNA being a code: > > [DNA is Not a Code | Life Without a Net](http://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/dna-is-not-a-code/) So this argues that DNA isn’t really a code. I guess to argue that point would validate the above argument. Why try to say DNA isn’t a code if that fact doesn’t imply a designer? > [@](#): > > The problem with the theist argument, however, is that the DNA code is not arbitrary, and it does not rely at all on the agreement of sentient beings. In fact, it is exactly the same in nature as any other dynamic chemical process. When you see an explosion on TV, you’re watching a chemical reaction that was controlled by the same kind of “code.” Crystals grow based on such a code. Stars give off light and energy from the same kind of code. I don’t agree with this argument. Yes, chemicals have some properties, and scientists determine what these properties are, and engineers (designers) put them into practical use. TNT didn’t just show up naturally, it was designed. The explosion is a natural process, but a designer caused it. > [@](#): > > Neither DNA nor RNA is sentient. And neither is TNT, but it was certainly designed! Everything that we design and build is made of matter, and that matter obeys some rules, but that doesn’t change the fact that the things were designed. We have “designer molecules” so why can’t DNA be a designer molecule? I guess a big part of the question is whether this thing could have occurred randomly. > [@](#): > > It takes perhaps 10 billion bits to convey all the necessary information needed to build a human… So he even says the DNA “conveys information”—that sure sounds like a code! > [@Trinopus](#): > > I watched Henry Morris perform the same antic. He proved that random DNA could never be assembled that coded for a meaningful cell. His error was two-fold: first, he used “1” as the numerator in his very small fraction – i.e., he calculated the chance of random DNA coding for the fiftieth retinal cell from the left in the right eye of a giraffe named Sandy, living in the Philadelphia Zoo in 1926. It seemed to have escaped him that there might be other living cells! > > Secondly, he (and you) overlook the gradual part of DNA evolution. It accumulates information slowly, over time. So how would you actually calculate it? Just saying his math is wrong doesn’t show it can reasonably happen. I’m thinking the intermediate steps don’t matter. To go from one thing to another, gradually, I don’t think matters how many of the in-between ones actually need to be a creature. If anything, that makes it harder (each step needs to survive). So instead, how many bits of information need to be just right for humans? The link above said 10 billion. How many bits need to be exactly right to be a human (not just things like eye color)? 1 million? 1 thousand? How about just 100? Randomly picking just 100 bits, trying to match a specific pattern, is 1 in 10^30. That is basically impossible (the age of the universe is under 10^18 seconds). > [@Trinopus](#): > > The major premise is false, and the minor premise is disputable, because you are using the word “code” in a way as to carry unwarranted connotative meanings. Which premise do you think is false and which is disputable? What code was not created by a mind? > [@Trinopus](#): > > Nope; God doesn’t get a free pass from the rules of existence by your unfounded claim. I’d be interested if you could present some actual evidence that God is eternal. At the moment, you aren’t even managing to present evidence that God exists at all, let alone “forever.” (By the way, can you define “forever?”) Forever—no beginning or end. My understanding of history, before the big bang theory, science thought the universe was static and existed forever, which is very different from creation. The big bang theory is actually closer to the bible, suggesting there is a beginning. So, without God, what caused the “big bang”? So some clump of matter always existed and one day happened to explode? My point was it is easier to assume God has always existed. You will always get to a first cause, and something has to be “at the top.” X created the universe. What created X? Y. What created Y? You have to accept something has always existed. What is that going to be? > [@Trinopus](#): > > Yep: if given enough time, and an incremental process, and especially if using the filter of survival/reproductive selection. How much time do you need? The average number of trials before getting a match in just 100 bits is 10^30. That’s more then a trial rate of 10GHz running for the age of the universe. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > What meaning does DNA hold for the non-sentient? I repeat; the meaning of DNA, or a computer file, or a Harry Potter book is inferred entirely by the human brain. There is no intrinsic “meaning” for anything outside of human consciousness. Let’s take the computer file. It doesn’t mean anything to the human brain directly. Ever open a file with the wrong viewer? Like a JPAG with Acrobat reader? No, the computer file has “meaning” to the appropriate viewer. And DNA has meaning to the cell processes. That DNA creates a being; the snowflake is just a pattern. And the “sentient” is not needed for this DNA to specify a being. > [@Voyager](#): > > Let me try to correct your terminology. A favorable mutation just improves the chances of survival of the being possessing it. A mutation which reduces your vision and thus the energy required to see is bad - unless you live in a cave where vision is useless, in which case it is good. If you want examples of favorable mutations look into [talkorigins.org](http://talkorigins.org) which I suspect has tons. We know there is a gene which lets us speak (a family in England is missing it and cannot) so that is another example. > I don’t know what you mean by new being. Any birth is a new being, and one with a mutation is not obviously different from one without, and is not any newer a being. Clearly single mutations do not cause speciation all at once. Speciation means that members of the new species cannot have children with members of the old. If the new being speciated in this sense, his reproductive chances are going to be a bit limited, right? > Reproductive success is the metric to care about. Clearly a creature who dies in utero is not going to be very successful in this sense. Ditto one dying very young. But ditto one living a very long time and never reproducing. If the mutation improves the chances of reproduction, then it is successful in this metric. > Now, in my understanding there is a small number of bad mutations, (excuse me for using bad and good instead of unfavorable and favorable - less typing) an even smaller number of good ones and a bunch of ones not making a difference. Our eye color has little to do with reproductive success, I think. Yes, the probability is low, but we have lots and lots of experiments. Small fast breeding things evolve faster than big, slow breeding things like us. > I’ve reviewed papers using genetic algorithms to generate very long sequences of tests for ICs. It does work, but it is inefficient. That was done on one computer. You can consider nature a massive parallel computer with each animal being one processing step. > It does work, but it never actually gets used because “intelligently designed” tests can get generated a lot faster. Which is interesting. If we were intelligently designed, how come it took over 500 million years from the beginning of life for us to get here? That kind if slowness is what you’d expect from a genetic algorithm. We breed dogs and plants (both cases of real intelligent design) much faster than that. > I read some of your link, and don’t have the time to point out the massive number of errors and misconceptions in it. The biggest is the concept of design. . By new being I meant the one born, any birth with the mutations. By your definition of speciation, the new being isn’t just limited, it is 0 (it is the only one of the new species). Low probability times large number of experiments = likely or unlikely? I think the probability is SO low, that you can’t get enough experiments. You mention computer simulation of the random mutations that works. But are they really doing the large changes needed to get from a single cell to a human? You are asking why intelligent design took so long. Well, assuming the dates of fossils are right to begin with, intelligent design can create some animals and much later some other animals. > [@Voyager](#): > > Wrong. This produces something that can look like it was designed, not something that was designed. Evolution has no goal. If you are playing poker and get dealt a full house, the deck was not designed to give you that hand. You just got one hand out of many. Evolution did not happen to create us - we just popped up instead of many other possible species intelligent enough to have this discussion. If your source doesn’t understand this, he doesn’t understand anything. He is not even wrong. The list of 3 he put there was 3 “kinds of evolution,” with the 3rd being Darwinism. His point was Darwinian evolution can’t make a design. So if we just “popped up” why are we the only species intelligent enough? > [@Latro](#): > > No it doesn’t have to end just because you want it to. > This is the ‘Turtles all the way down’. You are saying there ARE turtles all the way down. I think that expression is used to show there must be an end. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896.md?page=41)