Strawberry

What is a Christina evolutionist, anyway?

Skydancer

It's a variant of the day-age nonsense. If God is moving at nearly-c speed relative to Earth, then his six days of creation could've taken 5 billion years in our time and both science and the Babble are satisfied. It still doesn't explain the mangled order in Genesis, of course.

Doubting Didymus

Plus, God would be an awfully looong way away by now, wouldn't he? So much for being personal. Prayers would need to exceed lightspeed to reach him!

Paul

I've got real probs with evolution due to probabilitys
but maybe some new and really good theory has just come out that does'nt require random mutations but something far more powerful and i'm also curious if there is a engine for puntuated equilibruim.

Paul

evolution and the bible do not fit. Yom can't mean "in my day"
but means a litral 24 hour day well thats what the hebrew scolars
say anyway but you dont have believe them if you dont want to.

Wyz_sub10

I answered a similar post you made in Science & Skepticism.

The bottom line of my point was that you are assuming life was a goal, and therefore, how likely was it that the goal was reached using random, rather than directed processes.

Life wasn't the goal anymore than the pattern created by your spilled milk was intentional. It isn't that life was destined to happened, so we need to figure out the probability of the mechanism.

Life wasn't destined to happen, so the probability is irrelevant. Probability might only be relevant when comparing mechanisms for the origin of life, in trying to ascertain the best theory. But whether life arose is a moot point - it did. There needs to be no easy solution. The odds for it happening via mechanism 'A' could have been 3,456,657,887,344,098,111,234,643 to 1 and it would not affect the validity of mechanism 'A'. It might affect the likelihood if the probability for mechanism 'B' was 2,344 to 1.

RufusAtticus

How much theory do you even know?

Paul

very little due to the fact that in all the schools I have been to evolution is taught as a fact but even in A level biology evidence for this is basicaly none existant. I am interested in how mutations work and what implications they really have on variation and of the probabilty of micro-evolution bringing about macro-evolution I asume that probabiltys have been calculated.

Wyz_sub10

There is plenty of evidence, of course. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity (and probably better understood, as well).

With regards to both 'random chance of evolution' and mutations, you should start here:

5 Major Misconceptions about Evolution

A second article dealing with mutations (effects, studies) can be found here:

Are Mutations Harmful?

As for 'micro' and 'macro' evolution, there is no real distinction. These terms are sometimes used, but in actuality, there is no line between 'micro' and 'macro'. The one question I have never heard answered (at all, in fact) by Behe or Phillip Johnson or whoever is what mechanism exists to prevent 'micro' from becoming 'macro'?

As for calculating a probability that 'micro' will bring about 'micro', there's no need to. There is no difference between the two. One does not 'bring about' the other. Plus, with no frame of reference for outcome (i.e. what should 'micro' have brought about?) probability is meaningless.

Paul

I totaly agree there is overwelming evidence for micro-evolution

I'm asuming that on avarage a helpful mutation adds information
has this be abserved