Store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven
where moth and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

The 1.6% Solution

1.6% of the North American population says that natural selection cannot favour the evolution of a nonfunctional system. Yet if the system obviously existed prior to being functional as that system, it must have functioned as something different. This 1.6% of the population cannot seem to grasp that a complex living organism cannot randomly substitute one function for another and still survive. Nevertheless, even though these people say that without observation and verification nothing can be believed this portion of the population maintains this implausible position, not because of the evidence but in spite of the evidence. They must do this or their world view will collapse.

9 comments:

  1. I worship the creator of your God.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ginx, you worship the imagination?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reminder, just in case...

    1.6% is actually the number of atheist AND agnostic combined, in the USA only, for surveys done in 2008. There is a sentence on a Wikipedia article that mentions the 1.6% but I did not see it in any source, it was only a sum of two other numbers.

    I pasted some links in the comment section of the following post to the appropriate references (which were ignored obviously...).

    http://thesauros-store.blogspot.com/2010/04/16-solution_11.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why not comment the post while I am here...

    natural selection cannot favour the evolution of a nonfunctional system

    That's quite funny because this is actually an argument FOR evolution... why would a designer put nonfunctional systems in an organism?

    Yet, because life evolves, we see a lot of useless components on most, if not all, living things. These useless components probably serve a function before, but can have evolve to a point where they appear completely useless now.

    Or some functioning parts are just so badly "designed" that it's obvious that the original mistake was impossible to be corrected without a sudden major change, which never occurs with natural evolution. Best example? the human eye of course... it's freaking backward!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Substituting one function for another is precisely how some species HAVE survived. Don't think my world view is in any danger of collapsing with this post mak. Pretty weak...

    ReplyDelete
  6. "...a complex living organism cannot randomly substitute one function for another and still survive."

    If you were to open an introductory biology textbook, you would understand how gene expression and natural selection works. By the way, i posted a response to your comment about miracles. I happen to believe in them, actually.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's more like 16% atheist/agnostic in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And here I thought that the "1.6% Solution" is what Thesauros was smoking while writing this post.

    ReplyDelete