KMB>>..agree.."calculating..odds is pure conjecture".


OLIVER>>KMB,...Evolution does work the way you think.>>ok so with the two statements side by side,we agree,..but then..

QUOTE>>..series of small steps,each with shorter odds.>>....shorter odds with higher complexity?..mate its out and out nonsense..[i expected better from you bro]

please comprehend..short steps is micro/evolution,that occurs within the species levels...[yet evolution claims genus evolution...[if in these''little''steps..then there must be more intermediate..[between genus,than intra/genus]

this absurdity demands proof...[clearly if only because of the huge shortage of genus gap fossils..[by your rekoning there should be more..lol..[the clear fact of thier rarety rebuts your error..[little steps]..before it even evolves your point

evolution evolves its theory..that need creates the mutation,that then gets sorted via a natural?..lol..selection process,..the fit survive..[thus a fish evolving shoulder blades and legs from flippers,..gets to cover speculativly billions of years..[the required numbers prove it an absurdity]

quote<<By your reasoning Shakespeare did not/could not write a sonnet,..time>>

and by your reasoning it was written word by word as it evolved from random words into the evolved final form..[but as it gets closer to the final score it changes;evolves at an ever greater rate ..lol..

yet it is unchanged since its final shakingspear's rewrite..evolution[even the movements and gestures of the actors seem frozen into its finality of murderous form]...ok i conceed a few micro adaptions by some actors but essentially his plays remain specificlly in the species of the form shakingsprear did finnally evolve his plagerised works into

<<Alternatively,...>>...interesting an absurdity can have an alternative that seems logical..[isnt that a debait teqnique?

[postulate an absurdity against a trueism?]anyhow his brain did evolve[as human speach concepts and words evolved into descriptive meaning

[but it was only crafted into vile of the act with the bile of the word to fix the concepts into the human phyci]..by those loving the violence in it..[sort of dis-spelling out the vile spell of it..[to retain and retrain the human love of its inherant vile]..

de-evolution if you will...but i have wandered away from the evolving numeric darwinian/ape topic into shaking spear-isms... gone from rebutting error to rebutting collusive demonic spell..[ing

One has to wonder at the frame of mind of the religionist, if they keep hammering away like this.

KMB, rest assured, no-one is out to burst your bubble. We are quite comfortable that you believe in divine intervention as your catch-all rationale for the existence of the universe, if that's what makes you happy. All we atheists really want is that you keep your funny ideas to yourself, and don't keep making laws for the rest of us, based upon your fantasy.

This numbers-game argument is fallacious, and you know it. We are constantly uncovering clues as to the origins of life on this planet, and one day we may even find an answer that covers all the bases. However, simply because this journey is not complete, it is not realistic to say "there you are, the numbers don't add up, therefore there must be a God".

We humans have a propensity to examine and explore. Far more than monkeys, as it turns out.

In fact, I suspect that if you were to be able to look inside the brain of a monkey, you would discover the a primitive version of the religionist's thought process: I can't understand it, therefore a God must be involved.

When I was about eight years old, I found the whole concept of the universe extremely confusing. The idea that I didn't have to think any harder about it than "God did it" was therefore extremely attractive.

Over the years that followed, it became increasingly obvious to me that this was merely a convenience, and that the more challenging - and fulfilling - approach was to accept that there is no simple answer, no catch-all response, that is intellectually complete and satisfactory.

Personally, I consider it more intellectually honest to keep learning, than to abandon the enquiry in favour of a man-made interpretation of ancient mythology.

But again - why all this concern about how we atheists deal with the absence in our world of your God? Are we somehow a threat to you?

Be honest, KMB. This isn't really about monkeys, is it?

KMB

There are about 1 e1000 000 000 genetic possibilities for humans or between 2 individuals about 1 e10 000 000. (these figures could be out by a factor of a billion or so).

Using your argument, ergo we cannot exist. As I haven't yet disappeared in a puff of logic, the anthropic principle might apply here.

That 98.5% of the DNA sequence is "junk" and completely non productive, would indicate a somewhat chaotic generation, and if due to intelligent design, that God had had a somewhat heavy night before creating.

ERROR: "I will try again. Evolution does work the way you think. There is are series of small steps, each with shorter odds." - Oliver

Should read:"I will try again. Evolution does NOT work the way you think. There is are series of small steps, each with shorter odds."

I forrest does turn into a house. Yet external forces can make a forrest several houses. There are steps.

OUG, I stopped reading your post when I got to "microevolution". That's a made-up termed used by creationists to divide reality into two parts - the bit that's real and the bit that fits their beliefs.

Mind you, it'd be entertaining if fundamentalists used it to attack other fields of science. How about micro and macro mathematics, where 1+1 = 2, but 1000000+1000000 = Jesus?

Shadow Minister..QUOTE>>That 98.5% of the DNA sequence is"junk"and completely non productive,...>>lets say 1.5 percent makes recognisable enzines etc[as to the rest science hasnt figured out yet]...lol

..much is spoken about't'cells''knowing''what body part to'make'[..that is in your 98.5%..your evolution scien-trysts dna termed junk;..they just havnt figured out yet,what that junk do do..lol]

Oliver<<Should read:..Evolution does NOT work the way you think. There is are series of small steps,each with shorter odds.">>ok lets accept that at face value..[this time]...AT WHAT STAGE egsactly does the..small..[micro]/..step..[evolution]..lose the ability to breed with its source genus?

what does this inbetween genus mate with?..[im takling about your half ape half monkey..[or your coldblood;half fined fish mating with the half legged first warmblood mammal..


SANCHO quote<<OUG,I stopped reading your post when I got to"microevolution".>>>google the term[it had over 3/4 of a million hits last time i googled it[see;last debate]

<<..That's a made-up termed used by creationists to divide reality into two parts>>>..mate read up see my response to previous poster re his micr[small]evolution[steps]... see one of you evolunnytune-lot understands the micro steps..[the others dont]

see bro'small-steps'[micro-evolution]..[within a species is completly comprehensable and logical..[its a survival mechanism from the survival of the fittest..[but it only works for species capable of interbreeding..[search the darwin finches link]

where micro-evolution in darwins finches varies.. from season to season[in dry-times a shorter/harder beak is needed[in wet-times a longer-beak[thats a micro/evolution..[small-step]...get it?

<<the bit that's real and the bit that fits their beliefs>>much seems to depend on which side of the debate the idiot..[legal term..signifying imbisile]..sits on.

<<How about micro and macro mathematics,where 1+1 = 2,but 1000000+1000000 = Jesus?...>>...mate your math is as bad as you knowledge about evolution,jesus is a known[sayX]with a speculative unknown[sayY]thus jesus =x+y..[even so ye shall call him emmanuel]god within us all]

but that has nothing to do with you presenting your fact[im presuming by your blase use[abuse]of his name..you dont even believe,but then what you believe is so inexplicably loose,..so as to not make much logic whatsoever

but this seems the norm with those taking evolution on faith