No. They can't survive in the same place at the same time.
But they do both exist in different places in the world at the same time.
No. They can't survive in the same place at the same time.
Yes, they do. As do a lot of species which can't survive in the environments of either one.But they do both exist in different places in the world at the same time.
The bugs did not live at the bottom of the ocean or inside ice, or anywhere else that could have had that degree of difference.Dude... in this world today, we have a vast diversity of lifeforms that cannot, and do not, survive in the same environments. Bacteria for which atmospheric Oxygen is a poison, as an extreme example. A river frog cannot survive in the same body of water as a basket starfish, for example. The environment at the bottom of the sea is incompatible with life-as-we-know-it on land, tropical plants will not grow in Siberia, etc etc.
Problem, the bugs WEREN'T in some super low altitude with super high air pressure inflating the oxygen density, they were everywhere.Do you think that Oxygen levels are identical all across the Earth, right now? Or air density and humidity?
Climb up a high mountain, and you can see different plant biomes at different altitudes, on the same mountain.
The bugs did not live at the bottom of the ocean or inside ice, or anywhere else that could have had that degree of difference.
Problem, the bugs WEREN'T in some super low altitude with super high air pressure inflating the oxygen density, they were everywhere.
Like, to clarify something, the atmospheric difference between the Carboniferous and today is the same relative difference as what you'd experience going from sea level to the peak of Mount Everest today. In that analogy, the peak of Mount Everest is today. You are not going to find bugs and dinos at the same time. And to argue that you even vaguely could is to argue that somehow massive chunks of the planet had at least that much of a elevation difference. Which simply has less than no evidence, it is, in fact, contraindicated by every piece of evidence we've ever found.
Yes. Mostly amphibians, which, btw, even today, breathe at least partly using their skin. Also, unlike spiracles, lungs are pretty good at extracting more or less oxygen based on need. That said, you can still get oxygen poisoning with lungs. So while an animal with lungs could exist in the Carboniferous, they evolved with that oxygen level, changed as the oxygen level did. Dinosaurs did not. The first Dinosaurs happened in the Triassic, following the Permian mass die off caused at least partially by a precipitous drop in atmospheric Oxygen. At the start of the Triassic, it was a very low 12%. Toward the end there was more oxygen, but still with a ceiling of about modern concentrations. Lungs are not that flexible.Now where is your argument about the vertebrate lung system not working in the "Carboniferous" biome of the Pre-Flood world?
There are fossil tetrapods found there with those bugs, are there not?
Yes. Mostly amphibians, which, btw, even today, breathe at least partly using their skin. Also, unlike spiracles, lungs are pretty good at extracting more or less oxygen based on need. That said, you can still get oxygen poisoning with lungs. So while an animal with lungs could exist in the Carboniferous, they evolved with that oxygen level, changed as the oxygen level did. Dinosaurs did not. The first Dinosaurs happened in the Triassic, following the Permian mass die off caused at least partially by a precipitous drop in atmospheric Oxygen. At the start of the Triassic, it was a very low 12%. Toward the end there was more oxygen, but still with a ceiling of about modern concentrations. Lungs are not that flexible.
And if you want to argue about the age of these things, go argue with electro-magnetism and the nuclear forces.
I could use this same argument to demand you believe in Young Earth Creationism, much less Intelligent Design.How, exactly, are your arguments anything beyond "It Does Not Have All The Answers, Therefor It's Wrong"?
As opposed to infinitesimal as with an omniscient creator, a counter-point you simply dismissed with "of course the supernatural doesn't follow natural law"? And you're still clinging to the extremely bloated number that's been shown wrong a variety of ways you started with instead of revising your talking point to be accurate.
For reference, 1,308,759 is the number of base pairs in the genome of the smallest verified fully free-living organism (my previous examples turned out to be intracellular parasites and symbionts), giving 787,952 digits for the naive combinations.
Fossils and the dating of such are themselves a fundamental problem with any form of Creationism.The issue isn't 'it doesn't have all the answers,' the issue is that 'there's definitive things that it has been functionally proven it cannot answer.'
The problem with declaring "improbability" is that the time scales are such that, well, it's not actually that improbable anymore.What level of improbability would you need to say 'no, I can't rationally believe this happened anymore'?
The problem with declaring "improbability" is that the time scales are such that, well, it's not actually that improbable anymore.
Well, the time scales, and the number of possible locations.
Between how long the universe has had to random it, and how many places in the universe it COULD random it, the odds are not nearly as bad as you think.
Ah yes, your "I ran numbers years ago, I got this result", with no given numbers and a supporting guy who's of the opinion that actually it's all space virii. No idea where he thinks the space virii came from but he's pretty adamant that space virii are how new species happen. Great evidence. Definitely made for interesting reading though. Fun theory. Still doesn't disprove Evolution.I said, back in March, that even if you account for all matter and all time, you don't have enough to get you life, and the odds are an enormous number of Zeroes long. Like 1 in 10^200,000 type long just to get you some DNA, not an actually viable cell.
Ah yes, your "I ran numbers years ago, I got this result", with no given numbers and a supporting guy who's of the opinion that actually it's all space virii. No idea where he thinks the space virii came from but he's pretty adamant that space virii are how new species happen. Great evidence. Definitely made for interesting reading though. Fun theory. Still doesn't disprove Evolution.
Once again, you run into the problem of arguing that Origin is a defining feature of evolutionary theory when it very much isn't.
And you continue to have 0 explanation for fossils at all.
That a random sampling is incomplete is not a surprise and not a problem with evolution. It is, however, a problem for the statement "God Created everything at the same time" given that many of these creatures fundamentally cannot exist in the same atmosphere.Also, I don't have to explain fossils, as they do not cohere to evolutionary theory in the first place.
That a random sampling is incomplete is not a surprise and not a problem with evolution. It is, however, a problem for the statement "God Created everything at the same time" given that many of these creatures fundamentally cannot exist in the same atmosphere.
...dude, there is a difference between animals that would die of heatstroke in the Sahara, and animals existing in basically the same geographic area, with similarish plant life, and using spiracles to be bigger than a human.There are animals living on Earth now that cannot exist in the same environment as other animals, that live on Earth now.
That a random sampling is incomplete is not a surprise and not a problem with evolution. It is, however, a problem for the statement "God Created everything at the same time" given that many of these creatures fundamentally cannot exist in the same atmosphere.
You're still not actually responding to my point.
How does evolution overcome the probability issue?
It doesn't need to. As many others have already stated, everything about Origins is extraneous to the actual Theory of Evolution. People like fiddling with it because it's interesting but A. it doesn't need to, B. what has happened has odds of 1.How does evolution overcome the probability issue?
It doesn't need to. As many others have already stated, everything about Origins is extraneous to the actual Theory of Evolution. People like fiddling with it because it's interesting but A. it doesn't need to, B. what has happened has odds of 1.
And, of course, there's the lovely question of, why do people keep assuming DNA happened in one brilliant moment. Even your Space Virii friend runs into this fundamental flaw. Fossils are not all from one instant. RNA exists. There are forms of DNA that ARE NOT Chromosomal. Chromosomes are not mandatory.
but the question is not "what are the odds of DNA" but "what are the odds of a molecular writing system?"
Basically zero is not equal to zero. Even the most improbable of things can happen completely at random once or more than once. Take this 1952 experiment, for example:If you mean, what are the odds of any such thing coming together by chance? Basically zero.