There's no evidence of any guidance => There's no evidence of evolution with guidance
+
There's evidence of evolution
=
There's evidence of evolution with or without guidance
+
Burden of proof
=
There's evidence of evolution with no evidence of guidance => guidance should be dismissed outside of speculation
its all math
its projected that by 2050 there will be AI's as smart as normal people.
ThenFuckit stated: source post
its projected that by 2050 there will be AI's as smart as normal people.
I wonder how smart they figured a normal person is, and for that matter how smart a normal person will be by 2050.
What is this guidance or lack of guidance you speak?
"The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!
For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!"
Virus stated: source post
Sherlock007 stated: source post
Calvin's argument is moot. Whether or not souls are predestined for salvation, the end result is the same. It's a "chicken-or-the-egg" problem. On one hand, God looks through all of time to determine which souls will accept salvation, sends his son to earth as a blood sacrifice for their sins, then when those people accept that sacrifice they are allowed into heaven. On the other hand, he does all that and then waits to see what happens and the EXACT same people are the only ones affected.
Quite an oversimplification...
Can you point out what I omitted? I genuinely would like to correct any misconceptions I might have on the doctrine.
Sherlock007 stated: source post
Virus stated: source post
Sherlock007 stated: source post
Calvin's argument is moot. Whether or not souls are predestined for salvation, the end result is the same.
Predestination, the providential will of a sovereign G-d... is not the same as free will at all... and each comes with it's unique take on "how" G-d does what G-d does... and to some degree why... hence my supposition of sociopathy working into G-d's plan... through Total Depravity and Limited Atonement... Calvinist theology...
Armenian and other free will thinkers presume there is a work that can be done to attain salvation... Calvinist believe it is purely God's Grace... and the individual has nothing to do with the act of salvation... because of this free will I don't see sociopathy as anything other than another theory of why assholes are assholes... but if it's God's plan... well... sociopathy might well be called God's Hand of Wrath...
It's a "chicken-or-the-egg" problem.
Ultimately every argument about G-d becomes circular...
On one hand, God looks through all of time to determine which souls will accept salvation, sends his son to earth as a blood sacrifice for their sins, then when those people accept that sacrifice they are allowed into heaven.
On the other hand, he does all that and then waits to see what happens and the EXACT same people are the only ones affected.
Here is the oversimplification... Time is a construct of G-d and therefore G-d is beyond time... G-d is not waiting for anything... it is done... as for the elect... well... why G-d does what he does... Hmmm... imagine a tapestry... you are looking up at it from the backside and it is fucking huge! It looks all wonky... and like a bunch of stray threads tied in knots... G-d and Heaven look down on the tapestry... and it is small and beautiful... every thread in place... the tapestry is done... all threads are tied... and it looks amazing from a G-d's point of view...
Spatial Mind stated: source post
God has a plan to clean up this mess. He did regret making us on Earth.
He tell you that? God tell you his regret?
He does have a plan... and it is going well... the mess? You wouldn't know peace without war on this little blue orb... all to the Glory...
Virus stated: source post
What is this guidance or lack of guidance you speak?
"The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
more like, some mutations are adaptations. they are not universally good or bad.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!
Thats because it takes more time then we have known about evolution... and thats on a macro scale and i am not even sure it has never been seen, this article is absolutely full of shit. Viruses 'do' evolution regularly, you should know this by your username.
The evidence of evolution was mostly from fossils, but now also from genetics.
For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
yes
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
no, it can be just one mutation of one part that doesn't break the system.
Also one mutation == often a mutation of many parts, because one gene mutation can have multiple effects
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
Why even assume that there is an equal chance of good and bad mutation? You do not need to assume this to make evolution work. It takes a long time and if you do not take the Bible as a source of information on when the earth was made, then a lot of time has passed.
You can have one part mutation to begin evolutionary path. You can have one mutation to trigger the mutation of multiple parts at the same time. If a mutated specimen procreates, he spreads the mutation and then even more mutation occurs, as genes mix.
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
Evolution is more complex then just random mutations, which again can effect more then just one part of the organism:
- Genetic differences that are passed on to the generations
- Mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection
- Genetic variation
- The randomness of genetic drift and the reduction of genetic variation
- How variation, differential reproduction, and heredity result in evolution by natural selection
- Coevolution of species
the bold one are directly influencing mutation chance
And even if this is true, i see that this article tells me its highly unlikely, but not impossible. And when you consider that this is the statistic for one mutation... how many life forms are on the planet? They all procreate and each procreation can be a mutation. Some procreate multiple times with multiple offspring. And each of these offspring is another mutation. And this happens all the time.
Where is all of this in the calculation?
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!"
There are more then 100 trillion ants on the planet atm. And they all die and new are born all the time. Each of these birth can be a mutation. And this is only the ants and only within one year, i think they will cover this number. And this is when i exclude all the other factors of evolution...
Creationists used to be what i watched in youtube to laugh at. Before the SJW attacked.