most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
In all these conversations about evolution it's worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of theists have no problems with it.
It's only a relatively small minority of fundamentalists - and most Muslims - who refuse to accept reality.
It's is a common issue for ex-JWs due to years of indoctrination and woeful science education.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
That's interesting stuff thanks DJW
geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .
“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.
there’s no way to make that happen.
Can't we just pull out the plug?
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
the theory of evolution is that it cannot explain how the mechanism of evolution evolved
On the contrary that is specifically the very thing that Darwin did explain correctly.
Evolution is nothing more than differences in the frequency of alleles in a gene pool.
Like drawing a random straight flush thousands or billions of times in a row
The OP of this thread illustrates why your commonly held opinion is entirely mistaken. It's absolutely NOTHING like that.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
DJW - The detailed understanding of the specific genetic mutations that tweek light sensitivity is really amazing. It's a brilliant example of science at its best.
I don't know the answer to your question about human differences. It's entirely possible. The thing to keep in mind is that mutations are random but selection is not. In the case of birds an ability to see particular colours has a selective advantage so it tends to survive into future generations. A human who has a similar mutation is no more likely to prosper or have more offspring than one who doesn't, So this mutation might disappear just as quickly or continue for a few generations.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
Your objection is answered in full in the OP
carried out in italy.. i wonder what jw's who are pressured to get jabbed would think of this post mortem examination report.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdjzavxzm98.
autopsy report: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393x/11/1/142.
Riley - Why are excess deaths 31% above average in the UK - week after week after week? Why is a similar picture being reported all over the world? Why are high rates of sudden death affecting all age groups?
It's not the people asking the questions who are embarrassing.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
It's nice to know this evidence is still bugging you all these years later.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
Wow it took you six years to come up with that!
It's just as if you have never read the OP.
However to get just the first two words together “When Shall” the odds become exponentially more difficult.
From the OP..
Imagine our 10,000 monkeys randomly typing until one of them by pure chance comes up with "When.."
At that point all the other pages are scrapped and every monkey is given a copy of this page. We observe some more until another monkey adds "shall.." and so on through thousands of iterations. How long would it take to achieve "When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?" Completing the full play now becomes inevitable....
The illustration is also misleading because it assumes there is an end product that we are hoping to achieve. This is sometimes referred to as the teleological fallacy. Evolution had no purpose in mind. It isn't trying to produce Macbeth or build a human. Whatever works is favoured by natural selection - from bacteria to beetles, it doesn't care.
