500 Scientists Express Skepticism About Evolution

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

Paley's watch argument is simply invalid because it requires completely random processes as well as intermediate stages that do nothing to ensure their own survival. It is *not* analogous to processes of natural selection. Strawman arguments prove nothing.

---

[:"blue"]Invalid? By whose criteria? This planet is made up of not just living but inanimate things as well. If random processes cannot produce complex inanimate objects, how then can the same process produce a more complex living organism whose component parts are made up of the same inanimate parts that the same process could not produce? IOW, if the random process of evolution could not produce the simple, how then can you expect it to produce the complex?

But, ok, let's take a living organism. What are the probabilities that a cell wall evolves by itself? That the mitochondria evolved by itself? The nucleus? The DNA in the nucleus? And the probability of those parts coming together to form a living organism?

The fact is, evolutionists do not have an answer to Behe's argument about the simple mousetrap, i.e. his argument of the irreducible parts. Behe, BTW, is no creationist, but has come to question the theory that the random processes of evolution can produce the complexities we see in nature. [/]

Gerry

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

Paley's watch argument is simply invalid because it requires completely random processes as well as intermediate stages that do nothing to ensure their own survival. It is *not* analogous to processes of natural selection.

---

Ahh, speaking of biological evolution, correct, Herr Bravus?

But, what about the very early stages of organic evolution? Indeed, there is such randomness, is there not, necessarily?

Dave

[Ron Lambert]

Let me give an example that Hogan gave in his novel. Suppose you see a pile of Scrabble® tiles. Were they just poured out, or did someone arrange them? All of us are able to tell very easily. The tiles may appear to be scattered at random. There may be an occasional two-letter word spelled out, but we still know that was just the work of random chance. But if the tiles spell out a long sentence, and the sentence has intelligible meaning, so that there is definite information being conveyed, we all know without any doubt that someone intelligent deliberately arranged the tiles. Mathematical analysis applied by philosophers sets the boundary where we know something was designed by an intelligent being, at somewhere less than fifty orders of magnitude (one out of two to the 50th power). That is about where our intuition clicks in, and we know beyond any doubt this was not the result of random chance. Now apply the same objective measurement to the genetic code. There is a whole library full of ordered code, and it is meaningful, with thousands upon thousands of DNA protein sequences that convery definite information. Hogan said the mathematical analsis is 150 orders of magnitude--1 out of 2 to the 150th power. Evolutionists need to face the fact that if purported science does not pass the math test, it cannot be science. Science depends upon math, just as much as it depends upon experimentation. Too many scientists seem to be too much mathematically illiterate.

This is not a new issue; ever since the mid-1960's, when super computers became available for mathematical modeling, mathematicians have been taking evolutionists to task for their blythe assumptions about random mutation and natural selection being sufficient to produce evolution of one species to another. Major conferences have been held over this for decades (such as those involving the Wystar Institute). And evolutionists have been desperately scrambling to find some way to enable random mutation and natural selection to beat the odds. Here is a link for those who want more information about this:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm

[Bravus]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Highly recommended article that approaches the mathematical/probability claims head on with appropriate science and mathematics.