[quoteOr for what else would you need photographs of your opponents? Creationists must be very desperate

I dont believe that Matt would ever dare to tell me off in the public real world as he has asserted, and I am dying for proof to satisfy my speculation. Perhaps the fact that you cannot find his likeness anywhere proves that he has a basic fear of being seen which would prove that if he has such social fears, then he would certainly never be able to hold his own in a real-life debate with me. It is just a theory. No I would not beat him up or stick pins in a doll. I know I should believe him if he says he would "tell me off", but I just dont believe that. I suppose everyone should believe Matt_Aufderheide when he makes such claims.

Quote:

Ok. Your monkeys are hammering away on the typewriters and you want to get a certain sentence of 100 characters. Any character not fitting this sentence is immediately erased (natural selection). The average time for a single monkey to finish your sentence is 100*26/2 = 1300 = 22 minutes.


OK, but they cant be immediately erased as you said. Natural selection would only cause the calculation to restart at the next generation, therefore the probability of 100^26 would occur at each iteration.

This math (100*26/2), I dont get where you came up with this. Im not saying its wrong, I would just hope you show how it is arrived at a little closer.

Quote:

Yes, I'm at a loss and didn't understand what you are permanently posting about your "impossibility". But the reason is not your thoughts falling outside the domain of talkorigins. The reason is more that I don't get your thoughts at all.

The 100,000 years estimate was based on an organism like the cave fish that lost and regained eyes within decades. Such an organism has maybe 2 effective mutations per replication and a replication period of 1 year, thus an effective mutation rate of 2 per year. If we have species with higher mutation rates, the 100,000 years period gets accordingly shorter.




jcl jcl jcl. The 2 mutations per replication may be accurate indeed,and I am assuming the reason why you see a replication period of 1 year is because that is the fish's reproductive cycle (new babies every year or so). So theoretically you have, according to this model---around 100,000 generations of cave fish. And because the evolution occurs over a period of 100,000 years we cannot readily observe it.

All this is fine and valid theory, I am not disagreeing with the rational of the thought process behind it, but I am disagreeing with it occuring because the same circumstances can be reproduced in the lab without waiting 100000 years with a time-lapse camera:

If you substitute drosphilia for the cave fish you now have a replication period of 1 day, because drosphilia lay eggs every day(and I have done experiments with drosphilia so I know this experiencially). Using the same process of 2 mutations per generation, now you have reduced your period from 100,000 years to 100,000 days.

If you replace the cavefish for e.coli bacteria, then your replication period goes way way down to a place where the entire 100,000 years should be easily observable in the lab.

My point is simply this: Gradual macro-evolution evolution through mutation has never been observed in the labratory or in the wild, even though insects and microspecies would provide the proper specimens for observation for not only are there lifespans shorter, but more importantly their breeding cycles(or replication periods) are much much shorter

So somebody please tell me you understand my point. Its fine to reject my point, but do you at least understand it? Does anyone understand it?

Why would I call the 100,000 year period an impossibility? Because I thought you were using it as some type of a constant involved in evolutionary change. In that case it would be impossible to apply it to a dinosaur, which approximating the gestation periods of say a modern elephant (22 months), an elephant gives birth every 5 years, but it takes an elephant 9-12 years to reach sexual maturity, so now your theoretical replication period goes up exponentially and puts dinosaur evolution well out of the ranges of their fossil records, which means that gradual evolution at that rate never could have occured.