Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Albinoism is the lack of melanin, That's just another example of mutation eliminating traits.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Here you go adam.
Criticisms of Complex Specified Information...Dembski uses "complex" as most people would use "absurdly improbable". They also claim that his argument is a tautology: CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus.
They argue that to successfully demonstrate the existence of CSI, it would be necessary to show that some biological feature undoubtedly has an extremely low probability of occurring by any natural means whatsoever, something which Dembski and others have almost never attempted to do.
Such calculations depend on the accurate assessment of numerous contributing probabilities, the determination of which is often necessarily subjective. Hence, CSI can at most provide a "very high probability," but not absolute certainty.
Another criticism refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win.
Similarly, it has been argued that "a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact."
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Albinoism is the lack of melanin, That's just another example of mutation eliminating traits.
So, in a theoretical situation, such as, say, finches, that have, over time, developed longer beaks then there rest of their particular group else where, that wouldn't be evidence of a new trait would it? That would only be evidence of mutation eliminating the short beak trait?
I am afraid your logic and, frankly, your definitions are quite confusing.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Nice quote, problem is I didn't use only CSI as evidence. CSI combined with Irreducible complexity equals evidence for signs of intelligence.
A good example of CSI are finger prints.
Originally posted by Alliance
No. You don't understand what a trait is. A trait is a phenotype. Not expressing melanin is just as much a biological trait as producing it is. Not to mention there are different degrees of albanism: ocular and oculocutaneous, and varying degrees of variation within those categories themselves.
I remember I said that and one of the other mebers disagree with me, anyway this doesn't explain how simple organisms became complex ones since all mutations have been shown to do is eliminate or misplace traits. and lack of melanin is not a survival trait.
Originally posted by Regret
lol, if a small change occurs and then another occurs and another and so on, large differences will become present, especially after billions of years.
When you say small occurense you mean micro evolution. problem is micro evolution is just genetic variation and can only lead to speciation due to a combination of genetic drift and natural selection, which does not attribute to new function and traits.
Originally posted by Alliance
Right back at ya. Except...the world seems to agree with us.
The world agree's with you 😆 several hundred years back "THE WORLD" believed the earth was flat, it weas the center of the universe, and organisms came from inanimate objects. the world doesn't change itself, individuals do.
Originally posted by Blue nocturneI hope you're not trying to imply you're one of those world changing individual. Galileo you're not.
The world agree's with you 😆 several hundred years back "THE WORLD" believed the earth was flat, it weas the center of the universe, and organisms came from inanimate objects. the world doesn't change itself, individuals do.