nogods4me

Apparently they taught him how to design tee-shirts

Jonesy

then how would you counteract Prof Eden's quote (which I included in my post)?

tronvillain

Stop right there. The point of evolutionary theory is to show how you can get a design process without a designer - combine mutation with natural selection.

Anyway, huge modifications would have to be made to that engineer's procedure to make it analagous to evolution.

Jonesy

So, how do you explain the fact that we have no hope at the moment in designing and reproducing an EXACT replica of a human eye? My suggestion - we haven't yet understood the DESIGN which is too advanced for our current understanding.

Jamie_L

Is this supposed to make it sound like you couldn't genearte a library using this method? Maybe it's just me, but this seems completely plausible if you had millions of years to work at it.

Jamie

Oolon Colluphid

My suggestion - you haven't the foggiest what you're talking about. Go learn some biology.

What "DESIGN which is too advanced for our current understanding" would be stupid enough to put the vertebrate retina in backwards? I know of a few other examples if you persist.

Oolon

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

nogods4me

which quote?
the guy is a mathematics professor, how did he arrive at the probability of both of his results? IE Man evolving, and the volumes of books being produced? what probabilites and research did he use to come up with those fanciful odds?

before you drag any more decades old ICR crap in here, and this stuff you are quoting is all very old. I suggest you read a couple of books by Dawkins; The Blind Watchmaker, and Climbing Mt. Improbable. If you are lucky the software from Watchmaker is still available and you can play with it, or something similar.

You really haven't a clue, have you? You are certainly entitled to believe any bit of claptrat you like, but don't pretend it has any basis other than your desire for the BuyBull to be true.

MrDarwin

I would "counteract" it by saying that improbable is not the same as impossible.

Then, I would "counteract" it by asking somebody who actually knows something about the subject, just as I would "counteract" my neighbor's claims about how to fix my plumbing problems by asking a plumber.

Problems are usually--not always, but usually--solved by people who have some knowledge or expertise in the relevant field. And, as others have already pointed out, why on earth should we listen to the opinion of an engineer when it comes to biological evolution? He is merely offering his opinion, without any fact or research to back it up.

Edited to add a comment about this line:

[/quote]Now, I ask, why do evolutionists stick to the theory that "evolution is random"???[/quote]

Can you name even one evolutionary biologist who sticks to the theory that "evolution is random"?

If this is what you think evolutionary theory says, then it's no wonder you're confused. Evolution is anything but random.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

tronvillain

That is supposed to be a response to my post? What the hell?

Jonesy

Hold it. I'm now willing to accept the 'millions of years' part, especially in light of evidence such as dinosaurs, big bang, etc.

However, what the essence of my argument is (also implied in the 'eye' article I posted), is that this 'evolution over a million years' (or whatever number of millions you want) WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED and IT IS NOT ENTIRELY RANDOM. Well, I'm working on my understanding right here. The process APPEARS to us as random, but in fact, the rules for evolution ARE DESIGNED and thus there is an order to it all (complete with cause and effect relationships in everything in nature), even though we PERCEIVE it as random at this stage of our human understanding.