Evolution and probability

After looking at the statistics on the probability of evolution (If you believe in it) How do you rationalize it being true? Not a joke i really want to know your reasoning.

Simple Statistics

A little more complex statistics more so on the the universe by chance in general.

its obvious you dont understand evolution coz if you did then you'd know its true

Edit: oh yeah btw you linked to a christian website, prepare your flameshield

What? You're supposed to actually understand it before trying to disprove it.Brainkiller05

Because there is an abundance of irrefutabe scientific evidence supporting it.

[QUOTE="Brainkiller05"]What? You're supposed to actually understand it before trying to disprove it.kneeha

the rationale cannot be understood unless you're a gifted atheist

Not trying to disprove it, I just want to understand the rationale behind believing a theory with extremely low probability. kneeha

Please, please, read up on evolution, and then you will hopefully understand how silly that statement sounds.

[QUOTE="Brainkiller05"]What? You're supposed to actually understand it before trying to disprove it.kneeha

After looking at the statistics on the probability of evolution (If you believe in it) How do you rationalize it being true? Not a joke i really want to know your reasoning.

Simple Statistics

A little more complex statistics more so on the the universe by chance in general.

kneeha

I don't think the Bible was meant to be a science book.

[QUOTE="kneeha"][QUOTE="Brainkiller05"]What? You're supposed to actually understand it before trying to disprove it.Brainkiller05

After looking at the statistics on the probability of evolution (If you believe in it) How do you rationalize it being true? Not a joke i really want to know your reasoning.

Simple Statistics

A little more complex statistics more so on the the universe by chance in general.

kneeha

in the past several groups of apes split up and one of those gruops were put into a postion which allowed them to evolve to survive in their new enviroment and so forth came man

[QUOTE="kneeha"]

After looking at the statistics on the probability of evolution (If you believe in it) How do you rationalize it being true? Not a joke i really want to know your reasoning.

Simple Statistics

A little more complex statistics more so on the the universe by chance in general.

ToppledPillars

To be honest the Bible because of fulfilled prophecy

not really 30 year reproduction span that 1800 generation and if each generation doubles thats

2*1800

that is defiantly a lot more than 7 billion

anyway dissproved one false idea in this thread

next there is a lot of evidance for evolution from basic observation such as selective breeding eg dog pedigree all the way to decoding the human genome

[QUOTE="ToppledPillars"][QUOTE="kneeha"]

After looking at the statistics on the probability of evolution (If you believe in it) How do you rationalize it being true? Not a joke i really want to know your reasoning.

Simple Statistics

A little more complex statistics more so on the the universe by chance in general.

kneeha

To be honest the Bible because of fulfilled prophecy

fine take a fertility rate avarage of 1.2 1.2^1 800 = 3.35925433 × 10^142

There only 10^80 atoms in existence in this universe (current estimate)

Because there is an abundance of irrefutabe scientific evidence supporting it.

broken_bass_bin

[QUOTE="mucgoo"]not really 30 year reproduction span that 1800 generation and if each generation doubles thats 2 times 2*1800 that is defiantly a lot more than 7 billion anyway dissproved one false idea in this thread Brainkiller05

not really 30 year reproduction span that 1800 generation and if each generation doubles thats

2*1800

that is defiantly a lot more than 7 billion

anyway dissproved one false idea in this thread

next there is a lot of evidance for evolution from basic observation such as selective breeding eg dog pedigree all the way to decoding the human genome

mucgoo

[QUOTE="Brainkiller05"][QUOTE="mucgoo"]not really 30 year reproduction span that 1800 generation and if each generation doubles thats 2 times 2*1800 that is defiantly a lot more than 7 billion anyway dissproved one false idea in this thread kneeha

not really 30 year reproduction span that 1800 generation and if each generation doubles thats

2*1800

that is defiantly a lot more than 7 billion

anyway dissproved one false idea in this thread

next there is a lot of evidance for evolution from basic observation such as selective breeding eg dog pedigree all the way to decoding the human genome

mucgoo

well than could you please research evolution for a few months before trying to talk about it? please.

this micro vs. macro thing has been beaten to the ground over and over and over.

micro evolution kneeha

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is timespan

which equates to the loss of genetic information. kneeha

wrong

Im just saying it just doesnt seem correct.kris9031998

What makes you say that?

The probability argument is a failed attempt by creationists to disprove evolution on chance alone.

The mistake being they are calculating a single state and then declaring it infinitely improbable. But you can do that for anything, I can pick up a rock; and the chances of all those atoms being in those exact positions are infinitely improbable, but it still happened because I'm holding it.

COMBINING religion and science.kris9031998

[QUOTE="kneeha"]micro evolution _Tobli_

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is timespan

which equates to the loss of genetic information. kneeha

wrong

A better defenition of micro would be a change within a single species wich normally equates to a loss of genetic information or so ive read.

Link here on change within a species.

[QUOTE="_Tobli_"]

micro evolution kneeha

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is timespan

which equates to the loss of genetic information. kneeha

wrong

A better defenition of micro would be a change within a single species wich normally equates to a loss of genetic information or so ive read.

Link here on change within a species.

A better defenition of micro would be a change within a single species wich normally equates to a loss of genetic information or so ive read.kneeha

What i meant was that phrasing it like that gives the wrong impression.

What are your thoughts on the speciation that has been observed?

[QUOTE="kneeha"]A better defenition of micro would be a change within a single species wich normally equates to a loss of genetic information or so ive read._Tobli_

What i meant was that phrasing it like that gives the wrong impression.

What are your thoughts on the speciation that has been observed?

I believe in rapid speciation and in short and very simplistic turns heres why in a video.

Link here

darwin's missing link found in 2009,evolution is not merely a theory anymore,it's proven and flawless.

You guys do know that its called the THEORY of evolution? While there are evidence supporting this theory, there are also findings that aren't concordant with it.exiledsnake

:| You do know its a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.. To declare it as just being a "theory" shows you don't even have a basic understanding of science.

[QUOTE="kris9031998"]COMBINING religion and science.testfactor888

You guys do know that its called the THEORY of evolution? While there are evidence supporting this theory, there are also findings that aren't concordant with it.exiledsnake

there are also findings that aren't concordant with it.exiledsnake

[QUOTE="_Tobli_"]

[QUOTE="kneeha"]A better defenition of micro would be a change within a single species wich normally equates to a loss of genetic information or so ive read.kneeha

What i meant was that phrasing it like that gives the wrong impression.

What are your thoughts on the speciation that has been observed?

I believe in rapid speciation and in short and very simplistic turns heres why in a video.

Link here

could i just point out that generally speaking im pretty sure most of those cross bread animals are infertile. I know the tiger lion cross breed sure is. that is why dont see them just running around all the time...

but seriously AMAZING VIDEO. hahaha i particularly liked the part with the ark. showing a painting of noah and some dinosaurs hahahaha :lol:

[QUOTE="exiledsnake"]You guys do know that its called the THEORY of evolution? While there are evidence supporting this theory, there are also findings that aren't concordant with it.ganon92

Alright, first off evolution is not produced entirely by chance, it's produced by organisms who are best suited to surviving in their respective environments reproducing while organisms who are not as well suited dying before they can reproduce. Secondly, can people please stop posting links to websites like the Institute for Creation Research as proof of creationism? There is an inherent and blatantly obvious bias there and it gets old having to point it out in every thread.

Next, order vs. disorder, this argument fails to take in the matter of perspective. We judge the world as we perceive it to be in order, but what proof do we have for that? What magical force is there that makes the world in order? Besides, as I said before, saying that evolution is a series of random processes is simply wrong. Yes, perhaps random processes account for some of the evolutionary changes that occur, but the process by which these changes become a dominant trait of a species is not random at all, it's natural selection.

What the second article is also ignoring is what was stated in the first article, that just because you flip a coin twice does not mean you will get heads on at least one of those flips. Let's go with probability for a second, if an organ has a certain chance of evolving this article assumes that chance to be somewhat of a law. In other words, if it is a one in a hundred chance it takes the necessity of 100 trials in order to get the one draw for granted. However, if I "draw" the selected variable on the 20th draw that puts a hole ni their mathmatics, as 80 draws were just gained. In other words their logic is flawed, they're proceeding from a certain standpoint without ever questioning its validity or the possibility of other standpoints, and they haven't made any great, evolution-killing discovery.

[QUOTE="ganon92"][QUOTE="exiledsnake"]You guys do know that its called the THEORY of evolution? While there are evidence supporting this theory, there are also findings that aren't concordant with it.exiledsnake

No, an assumption would be more akin to a hypothesis, that is a loose idea of scientific operation based on minimal analysis and not supported by experimentation and evidence. Assumptions by definition are not supported by evidence, and scientific theories must be supported by extensive evidence and experiments.

[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="kris9031998"]COMBINING religion and science.SkyWard20

Well, at one point religion was the only institution that delved in science, I guess some people would prefer to stop using proven scientific methodology and go back to trying to turn iron into gold.

[QUOTE="exiledsnake"]there are also findings that aren't concordant with it.testfactor888

we know how this always turn out

don't you know evolution is just a theory?

if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

if evolution were true how come we dont see a zebra turn into a camel?

If evolution is true and were so smart how come we cant evolve ourselves to fly?