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 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.
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 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.
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.
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?
That’s true . except that we call the one who is creator but not created : 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
God is not in the universe but apart from it . and the law of time does not rule God because he created time
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
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 .
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.
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.
Sure. And the ad doesn’t have the “impossible” probability to begin with.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
So he even says the DNA “conveys information”—that sure sounds like a code!
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).
Which premise do you think is false and which is disputable? What code was not created by a mind?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
You are saying there ARE turtles all the way down. I think that expression is used to show there must be an end.