Comment on The hinge of our faith by rnielsen7222@msn.com.
Bob, It remains a mystery to my why you insist on equating evolution with athiesm. Evolution is a statement about how living organisms change from generation to generation. Athiesm is a statement about whether God is involved in the process. Those two concepts aren’t totaly separeate, and independent issues.
Also your references to evolution as life coming from organic material, or birds coming from reptiles is totally irrelevant. Life doesn’t need to come from inorganic material, and we don’t need birds to come from dinasaurs, because we already have birds, and we see that the birds we have are continuing to evolve. All life that we know of today is in the process of evolving.
Table of Contents
rnielsen7222@msn.com Also Commented
The hinge of our faith
Shannon, I don’t think you can equate a philosoophical, or scientific idea, with bigotry or hate speech. Of course we should oppose anything that is hurtful to another human being. That is in fact why I am opposing the intent if this web sight. It is hurtfull to the students and teachers at LSU, and it is hurtful to the principle of free speach, and religious freedom that we as Adventists support.
Recent Comments by rnielsen7222@msn.com
Dr. Nick Matzke Explains the Evolution of Complexity
[…] Compare this to the gap distances in sequence space comprised of numerous specific mutational changes between each of the proposed steppingstones along the evolutionary pathway for complex multiprotein systems like the flagellar motility system. It is for this very reason that no such evolutionary success has ever been demonstrated in any wild population or under laboratory conditions, nor has an evolutionary pathway even been proposed that could be reasonably traversed in what anyone would consider to be a reasonable amount of time (Link). […]
Dr. Nick Matzke Explains the Evolution of Complexity
[…] Compare this to the gap distances in sequence space comprised of numerous specific mutational changes between each of the proposed steppingstones along the evolutionary pathway for complex multiprotein systems like the flagellar motility system. It is for this very reason that no such evolutionary success has ever been demonstrated in any wild population or under laboratory conditions, nor has an evolutionary pathway even been proposed that could be reasonably traversed in what anyone would consider to be a reasonable amount of time (Link). […]
Homologies, Phylogenies, Sequence Space and the Theory of Evolution
[…] The best counterargument to the coordinated mutation problem is known as the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (Link). In short, the argument is that there are many different possible targets in sequence space that are potentially beneficial. In other words, hitting the same bullet hole isn’t so insurmountable if there are a great many bullet holes already in the target. Therefore, even though a lot of time may be required to hit one particular target, the odds that at least one target, among a great many options, will be hit in a short amount of time are actually very good. And, this is true at very low levels of functional complexity. However, with each linear increase in the minimum size and/or specificity required at higher and higher levels of functional complexity, the ratio of non-beneficial to potentially beneficial targets within sequence space increases exponentially – and the average time to success as well (Link). […]
Homologies, Phylogenies, Sequence Space and the Theory of Evolution
[…] The best counterargument to the coordinated mutation problem is known as the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (Link). In short, the argument is that there are many different possible targets in sequence space that are potentially beneficial. Therefore, even though a lot of time may be required to hit one particular target, the odds that at least one target, among a great many options, will be hit in a short amount of time are actually very good. And, this is true at very low levels of functional complexity. However, with each linear increase in the minimum size and/or specificity required at higher and higher levels of functional complexity, the ratio of non-beneficial to potentially beneficial targets within sequence space increases exponentially – and the average time to success as well (Link). […]
Homologies, Phylogenies, Sequence Space and the Theory of Evolution
[…] The best counterargument to the coordinated mutation problem is known as the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (Link). In short, the argument is that there are many different possible targets in sequence space that are potentially beneficial. Therefore, even though a lot of time may be required to hit one particular target, the odds that at least one target, among a great many options, will be hit in a short amount of time are actually very good. And, this is true at very low levels of functional complexity. However, with each linear increase in the minimum size and/or specificity required at higher and higher levels of functional complexity, the ratio of non-beneficial to potentially beneficial targets within sequence space increases exponentially – and the average time to success as well (Link). […]
