- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,758
- 51,640
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Nope
Whatever that is is meaningless
My point is that they would find something, even if they had to make it up.
Upvote
0
Nope
Whatever that is is meaningless
Don't know, but you might be surprised. LLMs do something similar.Do you believe it’s possible if a billion monkeys typing 100 chars per second on a billion typewriters, you would ever have one legible page of information?
(Which equivocates to a simple protein)
How many copying errors have led to new novel body parts?
The answer is a big fat NONE, no new body parts from random mutations which sticks a fork in your TOESome light reading
Hox genes and evolution
Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan
You should be able to read these (and 100,000s of other evolutionary biology studies) for free by signing up to the National Centre for Biotechnology Information website.
Sure is a good analogy, monkeys type randomly, you just can’t admit that randomness leads to chaos, not a new protein, and certainly not hundreds of them needed for life and new body parts!Don't know, but you might be surprised. LLMs do something similar.
But equivocate as you will, the monkeys still are not a good analogy for protein synthesis.
The answer is a big fat NONE, no new body parts from random mutations which sticks a fork in your TOE
Putting your imaginary ideas about how evolution works aside for a moment, what's your point? What are you pushing as a replacement for it?Sure is a good analogy, monkeys type randomly, you just can’t admit that randomness leads to chaos, not a new protein, and certainly not hundreds of them needed for life and new body parts!
Your own incredulity does you no favours whatsover.
Sure it does. It shows that you’re wearing no logical clothes and blindly believe that copying errors created a human bodyYour own incredulity does you no favours whatsover.
Sure it does. It shows that you’re wearing no logical clothes and blindly believe that copying errors created a human body
Total BS.
I even called it from the beginning that this thread was going to just be bait from a guy who doesn't want to accept that evolution is a valid scientific theory.
Thanks for giving me an idea for a challenge thread.
Can you at least do it as a poll this time? Many of your 'challenges' would benefit from being polls.
This coming from the guy who's given nothing of actual substance to try and even attempt to show that evolution might be wrong and pretends that he's some sort of intellectual when he's done nothing intellectual on this thread in the slightest.
I even called it from the beginning that this thread was going to just be bait from a guy who doesn't want to accept that evolution is a valid scientific theory. You don't understand what you're arguing against and it's clear that you don't actually want to understand what you're arguing against. If that's the case, there's other parts of the website you can go to if you don't want to interact with people who accept evolution.
You're not here to converse in good faith, that much is 100% clear.
First tell me if the monkeys will ever produce one legible pagePutting your imaginary ideas about how evolution works aside for a moment, what's your point? What are you pushing as a replacement for it?
The answer is a big fat NONE, no new body parts from random mutations which sticks a fork in your TOE
They might. It might not be in English, though. But a legible page produced by monkeys is not the same thing as protein synthesis.First tell me if the monkeys will ever produce one legible page
How genes suppress or control where body parts formDid you not read the papers, or is it just that you don't understand them?
What would you like to challenge about the observed evidence of mutation of homeobox and Hox genes in producing novel body plans and body parts?
How genes suppress or control where body parts form
You didn’t mention where the info for those genes arise from.
But here’s a notion: do you even believe that DNA is a code?
Here we go, a good atheist will always doubt that dna is a code: like you can’t look it up yourself?Define code. That means describe what a code is, concisely and without ambiguity.