snakeblitz33
Well-Known Member
That whole thing with Chic-fil-A was a huge marketing ploy! I admire whoever came up with that - they are a genius. I could learn a thing or two from them.
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
- Thread starter snakeblitz33
- Start date
snakeblitz33
Well-Known Member
I want to be the 600th post. XD
pezenfuego
Active Member
We haven't talked much about unintelligent design. The human sinuses, the path of the laryngeal nerve, and blind spot resulting from the optic nerve position are all examples of things that would be expected if evolution were true and are flaws in design. Not to mention vestigial structures, like the appendix in humans and hip bones in whales. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/the-longest-cell-in-the-history-of-life/
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/600#post_3493663
We haven't talked much about unintelligent design. The human sinuses, the path of the laryngeal nerve, and blind spot resulting from the optic nerve position are all examples of things that would be expected if evolution were true and are flaws in design. Not to mention vestigial structures, like the appendix in humans and hip bones in whales. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/the-longest-cell-in-the-history-of-life/
Come on, even creationism had its flaws. Wasn't Eve "created" from one of Adam's ribs?
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/600#post_3493663
We haven't talked much about unintelligent design. The human sinuses, the path of the laryngeal nerve, and blind spot resulting from the optic nerve position are all examples of things that would be expected if evolution were true and are flaws in design. Not to mention vestigial structures, like the appendix in humans and hip bones in whales. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/the-longest-cell-in-the-history-of-life/
Come on, even creationism had its flaws. Wasn't Eve "created" from one of Adam's ribs?
pezenfuego
Active Member
I don't think I understand your response.
When I was in Sunday school I was taught that males have one fewer rib than females as a result of eve being created from Adam. This is not true.
When I was in Sunday school I was taught that males have one fewer rib than females as a result of eve being created from Adam. This is not true.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/600#post_3493687
I don't think I understand your response.
When I was in Sunday school I was taught that males have one fewer rib than females as a result of eve being created from Adam. This is not true.
What's not true? That the Adam and Eve event didn't occur, or that Eve being conceived from Adam's rib is a "flaw"?
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/600#post_3493687
I don't think I understand your response.
When I was in Sunday school I was taught that males have one fewer rib than females as a result of eve being created from Adam. This is not true.
What's not true? That the Adam and Eve event didn't occur, or that Eve being conceived from Adam's rib is a "flaw"?
bionicarm
Active Member
Got an hour and a half to spend? History Channel ran this show "Proving God", and someone stuck it on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AT7ppbPu2w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AT7ppbPu2w
pezenfuego
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/600#post_3493690
What's not true? That the Adam and Eve event didn't occur, or that Eve being conceived from Adam's rib is a "flaw"?
No, anatomically (and on average) males and females have the same number of ribs.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/600#post_3493690
What's not true? That the Adam and Eve event didn't occur, or that Eve being conceived from Adam's rib is a "flaw"?
No, anatomically (and on average) males and females have the same number of ribs.
snakeblitz33
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/600#post_3493718
God must have taken Adams other rib and created barbecue and saw that it was good
[hr]
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/600#post_3493718
God must have taken Adams other rib and created barbecue and saw that it was good
[hr]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/600#post_3493928
[hr]
And this is why you now have 10K posts!
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/600#post_3493928
[hr]
And this is why you now have 10K posts!
flower
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/600#post_3493928
[hr]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/600#post_3493943
And this is why you now have 10K posts!
LOL
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/600#post_3493928
[hr]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/600#post_3493943
And this is why you now have 10K posts!
LOL
pezenfuego
Active Member
"I can't believe that," said Alice. "Can't you?" the Queen said a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath and shut your eyes."- Lewis Carroll
pezenfuego
Active Member
So I was sitting here today thinking about evolution while doing math homework and below is the result:
Some people who believe in evolution (and some who don't) have the misconception that evolutionary intermediate implies something that it does not. For instance, the crocoduck (I'm wearing a crocoduck t-shirt right now...ladies) is a commonly used argument against evolution. The misconception being that every species is related by a common ancestor such that there once existed a hybrid of every animal-eg the common ancestor of the crocodile and duck was the crocoduck. We can show that this is not only physically impossible, but logically impossible.
Let's call every species currently existing s
s=the number of species living on earth currently (the actual value of this is irrelevant so long as we can agree that it is finite)
Now let's assume that each of these species has an evolutionary intermediate with every other species. Let's take an elephant for example. So an elephant has an intermediate with every other animal. How many elephant hybrids are there. Well there are (s-1) such hybrids. Why (s-1), because there are (s-1) species which aren't elephants (well technically there are multiple elephant species-but we are focusing only on one). So it stands to reason that there are (s-1) elephant species. Now let's look at an ostrich. How many ostrich hybrids are there? Clearly there are (s-1). However, we already counted the elephostrich as an elephant hybrid. Therefore our new value becomes (s-2). So we sum all of these in a series that looks like this
series=(s)+(s-1)+(s-2)+(s-3)+(s-4)...+(3)+(2)+(1)+(0)
It is clear that this series can also be written as(ie-flip the whole thing around):
series=(0)+(1)+(2)+(3)...+(s-3)+(s-2)+(s-1)+(s)
I also checked this to be true by finding the sum of both series.
We can write this as a summation (excuse my summation symbol, it does not have bounds. For our purposes it goes from k=0 to s):
Most prefer i, but I like k.
?k
Now, looking at this, most know what ?k is equal to, but let's write up a proof.
look at the series
0+1+2+3+4...+(s-2)+(s-1)+(s) and realize that it is the same as
1+2+3+4...+(s-2)+(s-1)+(s) because 0 adds nothing
Now look at ?(k+1) and notice that this is equal to
1+2+3+4+5...+(s-1)+(s)+(s+1) and that this is ?k with an extra (s+1)
So we can write
?(k+1)=?k + (s+1) and since the sigma distributes
?k+?1=?k + s+1 (subtract ?k from both sides)
?1=s+1, but we still don't ?k
So what do we do? Since the thing we wanted to find cancelled, we evaluate ?(k^2) using the same logic as before hoping that ?k is left behind.
so the series ?(k^2)=(0)^2 + (1)^2 + (2)^2 + (3)^2...+ (s-2)^2 + (s-1)^2 + (s)^2
and
?((k+1)^2) = (1)^2 + (2)^2 + (3)^2...+ (s-2)^2 + (s-1)^2 + (s)^2 + (s+1)^2
such that
?((k+1)^2) = ?(k^2) + (s+1)^2
now we use pascal's triangle (who would have thought that a thread about evolution would leave out pascal's wager and use pascal's triangle?)
?(k^2) + 2?k + ?1 = ?(k^2) + s^2 + 2s + 1
we can then simplify a bit (using our previously found value of ?1
2?k + (s+1) = s^2 + 2s +1 (and simplify some more)
2?k = s^2 + s
?k = (s^2 + s)/2
So we've found the formula we need. It is intuitively obvious that the number of species and proposed hybrid species (the value we just found) should be larger than the number of current species, but let's show that:
Assume:
(s^2 + s)/2 > s
(s^2 + s) > 2s
s^2 > s
s > 1 So this is true for all values where s > 1 and I hope we can all agree that there is more than 1 species on earth.
But wait, there's more.
Those intermediates must have intermediates of their own, right?
j= # of intermediates = ((s^2 + s)/2)
So the ?k from 0 to j would be (j^2 + j)/2 and plugging in the value for j would give ((s^2 + s)^2 + (s^2 + s))/2 and then you can do the same thing for the intermediates of intermediates of intermediates and so on and so forth. Now we could do a limit problem for this, but it should be clear that this is divergent. The conclusion of this (and hopefully you see it) is that for this to be true, there must have been an infinite number of species existing on Earth. That is logically impossible.
Some people who believe in evolution (and some who don't) have the misconception that evolutionary intermediate implies something that it does not. For instance, the crocoduck (I'm wearing a crocoduck t-shirt right now...ladies) is a commonly used argument against evolution. The misconception being that every species is related by a common ancestor such that there once existed a hybrid of every animal-eg the common ancestor of the crocodile and duck was the crocoduck. We can show that this is not only physically impossible, but logically impossible.
Let's call every species currently existing s
s=the number of species living on earth currently (the actual value of this is irrelevant so long as we can agree that it is finite)
Now let's assume that each of these species has an evolutionary intermediate with every other species. Let's take an elephant for example. So an elephant has an intermediate with every other animal. How many elephant hybrids are there. Well there are (s-1) such hybrids. Why (s-1), because there are (s-1) species which aren't elephants (well technically there are multiple elephant species-but we are focusing only on one). So it stands to reason that there are (s-1) elephant species. Now let's look at an ostrich. How many ostrich hybrids are there? Clearly there are (s-1). However, we already counted the elephostrich as an elephant hybrid. Therefore our new value becomes (s-2). So we sum all of these in a series that looks like this
series=(s)+(s-1)+(s-2)+(s-3)+(s-4)...+(3)+(2)+(1)+(0)
It is clear that this series can also be written as(ie-flip the whole thing around):
series=(0)+(1)+(2)+(3)...+(s-3)+(s-2)+(s-1)+(s)
I also checked this to be true by finding the sum of both series.
We can write this as a summation (excuse my summation symbol, it does not have bounds. For our purposes it goes from k=0 to s):
Most prefer i, but I like k.
?k
Now, looking at this, most know what ?k is equal to, but let's write up a proof.
look at the series
0+1+2+3+4...+(s-2)+(s-1)+(s) and realize that it is the same as
1+2+3+4...+(s-2)+(s-1)+(s) because 0 adds nothing
Now look at ?(k+1) and notice that this is equal to
1+2+3+4+5...+(s-1)+(s)+(s+1) and that this is ?k with an extra (s+1)
So we can write
?(k+1)=?k + (s+1) and since the sigma distributes
?k+?1=?k + s+1 (subtract ?k from both sides)
?1=s+1, but we still don't ?k
So what do we do? Since the thing we wanted to find cancelled, we evaluate ?(k^2) using the same logic as before hoping that ?k is left behind.
so the series ?(k^2)=(0)^2 + (1)^2 + (2)^2 + (3)^2...+ (s-2)^2 + (s-1)^2 + (s)^2
and
?((k+1)^2) = (1)^2 + (2)^2 + (3)^2...+ (s-2)^2 + (s-1)^2 + (s)^2 + (s+1)^2
such that
?((k+1)^2) = ?(k^2) + (s+1)^2
now we use pascal's triangle (who would have thought that a thread about evolution would leave out pascal's wager and use pascal's triangle?)
?(k^2) + 2?k + ?1 = ?(k^2) + s^2 + 2s + 1
we can then simplify a bit (using our previously found value of ?1
2?k + (s+1) = s^2 + 2s +1 (and simplify some more)
2?k = s^2 + s
?k = (s^2 + s)/2
So we've found the formula we need. It is intuitively obvious that the number of species and proposed hybrid species (the value we just found) should be larger than the number of current species, but let's show that:
Assume:
(s^2 + s)/2 > s
(s^2 + s) > 2s
s^2 > s
s > 1 So this is true for all values where s > 1 and I hope we can all agree that there is more than 1 species on earth.
But wait, there's more.
Those intermediates must have intermediates of their own, right?
j= # of intermediates = ((s^2 + s)/2)
So the ?k from 0 to j would be (j^2 + j)/2 and plugging in the value for j would give ((s^2 + s)^2 + (s^2 + s))/2 and then you can do the same thing for the intermediates of intermediates of intermediates and so on and so forth. Now we could do a limit problem for this, but it should be clear that this is divergent. The conclusion of this (and hopefully you see it) is that for this to be true, there must have been an infinite number of species existing on Earth. That is logically impossible.
bang guy
Moderator
You have a flaw with a premise, not with an equation. While there is not an infinite number of species on earth, you got that right, there is the potential for an infinite number of permutations because the DNA chain is indeterminant.
In addition, most permutations are unrealized, you need to subtract these from the indefinate sum.
In addition, most permutations are unrealized, you need to subtract these from the indefinate sum.