kevin the wiiite said:
ManusJustus said:
kevin the wiiite said:
But that's exactly what I'm talking about. I went to a conference on genomics that talked about this. Less than 300 mutations on average occur per generation per 6 billion base pairs. These are almost always harmless, and the probability of them impacting anything is negligible aside from those that kill you. In order to create a new gene to express growth of new limbs or digestion of new materials or lungs or whatever you need you would need thousands of non-fatal mutations on the same gene to occur. The likelihood of that happening in a way that doesn't kill you is so low that you wouldn't even see it once in 6 billion years.
300/6000000000=.00000005 mutations/pair
300/6000000000*299/5999999999*298/5999999998........*1/5999999701= a really really small chance of stringing all those mutations consecutively.
|
If you want to understand science you are going to have to stop going to the religious conferences in crazy town. Limbs or lungs just don't pop into an species genome, its takes a long time for a gene to slowly change.
Just look at the fossil record. You can easily see humans, horses, you name it slowly changing over millions of years. No new limbs or eyes, just changes to the expression of these genes. But how do complex organs like eyes develop? The same way, just with more time (and faster generation lifecycles don't hurt). Eyes use to be light-sensitive cells, the same process that even the simplest of organisms have today as its actually a very common stimuli. Over millions and millions of years those light sensitive cells continued to develop into something more and more complex.
Please, before you go any further with the science, explain your reasoning for the slowly changing fossil record to me.
|
Great, you just insulted the best geneticists in the world. I'm pretty sure the head of the human genome project was there. No, the conference wasn't out of crazy town. It was an exposition of programs that display genetic data in laymans terms. They didn't do the math there, but they gave some simple numbers.
The way you're saying things evolve would infer that multiple systems were evolving at the same time, and the fossil record (the way you see it) clearly shows organ systems evolving at different times.
Also, the entire time the systems are evolving parts of them would be nonfunctional, and we definitely don't see fossils of animals with multiple nonfunctional organ systems, let alone one.
And yes, the earth isn't a closed system, but the universe definitely is. Conservation of Energy anyone? Sorters have a designer, which allows them to increase entropy. The sorter itself still breaks down over time because it itself needs a sorter. Hey look, now we just have to settle the infinite aliens theory. Don't really consider worthy of logical discussion.
|
