Evidence for God from Science

Ya'll realize we are just discussing how life can adapt,don't ya'll? We already knew life can adapt.How about we discuss evidence that shows a population of one kind of life can eventually evolve into other kinds of life. Just pointing out how life can adapt does us no good if life can eventually evolve into other kinds of life.

Hugh that's better but I don't recall Behe talking about 4 mutations ? Can you please show me where he made that claim ?

Your response is a bit better but it's still in the neighborhood of mullets response so I will study behes response and if there is a sticking point , heck I might even email the man himself if there is something I don't fully understand about how he got his math .

Not sure if I'll get a response but it's worth a shot . I'll probably have a little more time on Sunday to fully digest your response and if there is something I don't understand I'll be sure to ask you .

bippy123 wrote:Hugh that's better but I don't recall Behe talking about 4 mutations ? Can you please show me where he made that claim ?

Page 57 of the Google Books version of The Edge of Evolution says: "Suppose that P. falciparum needed several separate mutations just to deal with one anti-malarial drug? [...] Suppose that two different amino acids had to be changed..." He speculates that there could be more, but proceeds mostly to argue that a 1 in 10^20 occurrence of spontaneous malarial resistance requires at least two. He calls the combination a Chloroquine Complexity Cluster (CCC), and then later discusses the probability of a "double CCC" (i.e. at least 4 mutations), which he derives as 1 in 10^40 and considers impossible. This is untrue. Using his own rationale, the probability of the occurrence of a mutational cluster can be viewed as the multiplication of the probabilities of the occurrences of the individual mutations. (His 1/10^20 x 1/10^20). However, he is unjustified in assuming that the probabilities of the individual mutations are mathematical square (or cube or whatever) roots of the probability of the whole cluster, and so may not derive an 'impossible probability' from these figures alone.

If two probabilities are required to make up a CCC which occurs 1/10^20 times (as calculated by White), then the limiting factors are 1/1 and 1/10^20. The probability of any particular mutation, from this calculation alone, could be any number between certainty and 1/10^20. There is no reason why the probability of a CCC of 4 mutations has to be 1/10^20 x 1/10^20. If the probability of any particular mutation was, say 1/100, then the probability of a 4 mutation CCC could be 1/10^8.

You need not rush off to Miller and try to discredit him here, because these remarks owe nothing whatever to his own critique of Behe's calculations, which are more biologically based.

hughfarey wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Hugh that's better but I don't recall Behe talking about 4 mutations ? Can you please show me where he made that claim ?

Page 57 of the Google Books version of The Edge of Evolution says: "Suppose that P. falciparum needed several separate mutations just to deal with one anti-malarial drug? [...] Suppose that two different amino acids had to be changed..." He speculates that there could be more, but proceeds mostly to argue that a 1 in 10^20 occurrence of spontaneous malarial resistance requires at least two. He calls the combination a Chloroquine Complexity Cluster (CCC), and then later discusses the probability of a "double CCC" (i.e. at least 4 mutations), which he derives as 1 in 10^40 and considers impossible. This is untrue. Using his own rationale, the probability of the occurrence of a mutational cluster can be viewed as the multiplication of the probabilities of the occurrences of the individual mutations. (His 1/10^20 x 1/10^20). However, he is unjustified in assuming that the probabilities of the individual mutations are mathematical square (or cube or whatever) roots of the probability of the whole cluster, and so may not derive an 'impossible probability' from these figures alone.

If two probabilities are required to make up a CCC which occurs 1/10^20 times (as calculated by White), then the limiting factors are 1/1 and 1/10^20. The probability of any particular mutation, from this calculation alone, could be any number between certainty and 1/10^20. There is no reason why the probability of a CCC of 4 mutations has to be 1/10^20 x 1/10^20. If the probability of any particular mutation was, say 1/100, then the probability of a 4 mutation CCC could be 1/10^8.

You need not rush off to Miller and try to discredit him here, because these remarks owe nothing whatever to his own critique of Behe's calculations, which are more biologically based.

I encourage readers to read Kenneth Miller's tortuous attempt to explain the imagined evolution of the flagellum.This article should be named "ID is wrong about irreducible complexity because I can as a biologist just imagine and assume how the flagellum evolved,even when there is no evidence it evolved and I admit there is no evidence it evolved.IDer's cannot imagine,assume and speculate when it comes to science though!
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... ticle.html

abelcainsbrother wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Hugh that's better but I don't recall Behe talking about 4 mutations ? Can you please show me where he made that claim ?

Page 57 of the Google Books version of The Edge of Evolution says: "Suppose that P. falciparum needed several separate mutations just to deal with one anti-malarial drug? [...] Suppose that two different amino acids had to be changed..." He speculates that there could be more, but proceeds mostly to argue that a 1 in 10^20 occurrence of spontaneous malarial resistance requires at least two. He calls the combination a Chloroquine Complexity Cluster (CCC), and then later discusses the probability of a "double CCC" (i.e. at least 4 mutations), which he derives as 1 in 10^40 and considers impossible. This is untrue. Using his own rationale, the probability of the occurrence of a mutational cluster can be viewed as the multiplication of the probabilities of the occurrences of the individual mutations. (His 1/10^20 x 1/10^20). However, he is unjustified in assuming that the probabilities of the individual mutations are mathematical square (or cube or whatever) roots of the probability of the whole cluster, and so may not derive an 'impossible probability' from these figures alone.

If two probabilities are required to make up a CCC which occurs 1/10^20 times (as calculated by White), then the limiting factors are 1/1 and 1/10^20. The probability of any particular mutation, from this calculation alone, could be any number between certainty and 1/10^20. There is no reason why the probability of a CCC of 4 mutations has to be 1/10^20 x 1/10^20. If the probability of any particular mutation was, say 1/100, then the probability of a 4 mutation CCC could be 1/10^8.

You need not rush off to Miller and try to discredit him here, because these remarks owe nothing whatever to his own critique of Behe's calculations, which are more biologically based.

I encourage readers to read Kenneth Miller's tortuous attempt to explain the imagined evolution of the flagellum.This article should be named "ID is wrong about irreducible complexity because I can as a biologist just imagine and assume how the flagellum evolved,even when there is no evidence it evolved and I admit there is no evidence it evolved.IDer's cannot imagine,assume and speculate when it comes to science though!
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... ticle.html

Abel im still trying to find time to understand Hugh's mental gymnastics on his last post , we all know including him that his first post was copied and changed from Kenneth Miller

I know good copywriting when I see it since I was a copywriter myself for a few years .
When I do answer his last post it will be a complete and utter err you know what I mean

It was Stephen Meyers signature in the cell that opened me up to ID but it was Behe that took me further into it being that he's a microchemist.

Behe knows his stuff .
Hopefully I can get some answers from a certain fellow Catholic on this

bippy123 wrote:Abel im still trying to find time to understand Hugh's mental gymnastics on his last post , we all know including him that his first post was copied and changed from Kenneth Miller.

Clearly you have not actually read what Miller has to say, or you would know that my ideas do not derive from him at all.

When I do answer his last post it will be a complete and utter err you know what I mean.

I imagine that you will trawl the internet trying to find a refutation of my ideas, convinced that they derive from someone who must have been replied to before. Why bother? Why not do what I do and think for yourself? If I'm wrong, point out where. My premises are clearly stated and my calculations are simple.

Hopefully I can get some answers from a certain fellow Catholic on this

Try Kenneth Miller. He's a Catholic, like me!

hughfarey wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Hopefully I can get some answers from a certain fellow Catholic on this

Try Kenneth Miller. He's a Catholic, like me!

So let me get this straight, we have a Catholic (bippy) trying to refute another Catholic (hugh) by assuming he copied his material from yet another Catholic (Behe) and all of that being pointed out by, you guessed it, yet another Catholic (me).

First Merry Christmas and second, what the hell is the matter with you people? Take it inside please.

Byblos wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Hopefully I can get some answers from a certain fellow Catholic on this

Try Kenneth Miller. He's a Catholic, like me!

So let me get this straight, we have a Catholic (bippy) trying to refute another Catholic (hugh) by assuming he copied his material from yet another Catholic (Behe) and all of that being pointed out by, you guessed it, yet another Catholic (me).

First Merry Christmas and second, what the hell is the matter with you people? Take it inside please.

Sheesh!

And I thought Protestants were bad.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Hopefully I can get some answers from a certain fellow Catholic on this

Try Kenneth Miller. He's a Catholic, like me!

So let me get this straight, we have a Catholic (bippy) trying to refute another Catholic (hugh) by assuming he copied his material from yet another Catholic (Behe) and all of that being pointed out by, you guessed it, yet another Catholic (me).

First Merry Christmas and second, what the hell is the matter with you people? Take it inside please.

Sheesh!

And I thought Protestants were bad.

I'll turn a blind eye to disagreement between Catholics. We Protestants have a reputation to keep up.

Catholic or Protestant I have already refuted evolution. But like I said before It is hard to break the spell of those who have nibbled the magic mushroom of evolution,it is like a religion to them and they don't want to stop believing it. Nobody has refuted my reasons for rejecting evolution. I like the challenge,so if you think you can? Go for it. I highly doubt you can refute the reasons I've given for rejecting evolution,but you can always try. I admit if I'm wrong too,because I want the truth and go by the truth the best I can.

A simplified reason for why I reject evolution is because despite how much it is believed life evolves it is based on evidence that is really only proving reproduction,whether or not you realize it or not,and everything else is just believed and assumed.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Catholic or Protestant I have already refuted evolution.

Such a shame you didn't get a Nobel for it.

ACB, I wouldn't have known someone like you existed before you. Sometimes I'm not sure if I'm laughing with you, or laughing at your words. It may not be that I necessarily disagree, sometimes I do other times I don't, but then I find myself more in amusement . Where we agree, I suppose I'd just deliver quite differently, and then there are certainly "gaps" between us where I'd disagree.

Anyway, not going anywhere with this, so hope you enjoy Christmas, you too Neo-X if you celebrate it there.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Catholic or Protestant I have already refuted evolution.

Such a shame you didn't get a Nobel for it.

There are others that have refuted evolution and they didn't get a Nobel.I'm just going by what I've learned from them about evolution.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Catholic or Protestant I have already refuted evolution.

Such a shame you didn't get a Nobel for it.

And everybody else has refuted the Gap Theory.

Kurieuo wrote:ACB, I wouldn't have known someone like you existed before you. Sometimes I'm not sure if I'm laughing with you, or laughing at your words. It may not be that I necessarily disagree, sometimes I do other times I don't, but then I find myself more in amusement . Where we agree, I suppose I'd just deliver quite differently, and then there are certainly "gaps" between us where I'd disagree.

Anyway, not going anywhere with this, so hope you enjoy Christmas, you too Neo-X if you celebrate it there.

I don't know if that is good or bad the way you put it. But I do kinda the same,I agree with others about certain things,but not other things.You very well might could explain it better than me but I just keep things simple and easy to understand.Merry Christmas to ya'll also.