Darwin's theory

floggg

J C wrote: »

... since the basis for ID has been seen to be irrefutable.

Also from what I have read Dembski's stuff in no way serves as irrefutable proof or evidence for the basis of ID.

The only thing it would do is prove that it is unlikely that life was the result of a random arrangement of particules.

Question though - since when did particles arrange themselves randomly?

I'm no scientist, but aren't there certain laws and forces which mean that particules will tend to arrange in particular manners.
E.g. Once you have hydrogen and oxygen present in certain circumstances they will form water.

And an alkaline metal and water will produce salt and acid (as far as i remember from school).

So the interactions aren't random.


Also, shouldn't those calculations account contain a variable for the number of change or interactions which can occur each second?

They particles can't just randomly rearrange - there are constraints on how they will interact with each other and in what circumstances.

So in every second, not every combination or permutation will get possible or probable.

How is that accounted for in the maths.

Feel free to explain to talk to me like I'm stupid so to speak as I come from a non-scientific background.

Edit: you also won't have different elements in different places at the same time.

If we go on the basis that the planets were already formed through separate processes, you don't need to take account of all possible particles in the universe in the formula.

You just need to look at the hypothetical pond you like to refer to so much, and ask what are the odds of said pond containing the necessary building blocks for life (knowing what science now knows about the state of the earth back then) and those building blocks coming together in some shape or form which was capable of producing life.

To my (untrained) eyes, assuming a random unordered configuration of particles, and ignoring what is known about the distribution of the particules and the forces that cause them to interact is such a ridiculous over simplification that I feel one of us must be missing something fundamental here.

floggg

J C wrote: »

Not necessarily ... we simply don't know who or what this intelligence was/is.
... but we do know that it was an intelligence / intelligences.
... or at least something, with the abilities of an intelligence ... perhaps 'life ... but not as we have known it!!!'

... and on that note ... I'm off to bed ... to 'sleep on it'.:)

Em - you've argued that adam was made by God, the flood and ark were real and that genesis was real.

That sounds to me like the abrahamic god. Im sure it doesn't account with most other non-abrahamic faiths creation stories.

So are you saying that there is actually no way to know of any of that genesis stuff is true or not (other than personal faith and belief)?

Thargor

floggg wrote: »

Em - you've argued that adam was made by God, the flood and ark were real and that genesis was real.

That sounds to me like the abrahamic god. Im sure it doesn't account with most other non-abrahamic faiths creation stories.

So are you saying that there is actually no way to know of any of that genesis stuff is true or not (other than personal faith and belief)?

Uh-oh...

PopePalpatine

Wow, this thread was busy last night. It makes me glad J C's on my Ignore List.

Akrasia

J C wrote: »

They could do so ... but if they were the only one entering, they could expect to win only once every 600,000 draws on average.

... and if the lottery had odds of 10^150 ... nobody could expect to ever win ... no matter how many entries they had or how many draws that took place.

Evolution is not a lottery. It's not a random process.
The chemicals that bond best under certain conditions, bond the most under those conditions.
It's a complex interaction of competing chemical interactions. Each interaction alters the conditions making future chemical reactions more or less probable which in turn affect future chemistry.

Life is simply chemistry that actively alters it's surrounding environment in order to maximise it's own ability to replicate. The simplest rule in nature, the survival of the fittest, is enormously powerful.

Simple lifeforms are simple chemical interactions, complex life are multi-layered eco-systems of interdependent organisms that are all synthesising their own environment.

The difference between pond slime and the human organism, is that the human requires more complex internal eco-systems, while the pond slime requires a biosphere equally as complex (relatively) but these are mostly external to the slime. (ie, if the atmosphere didn't have the right mixture of gases, it would not survive, and the atmosphic gases are regulated by all the other lifeforms on earth and the earth's non-biological geological activity

sheesh

Its a load of annoying bullsheet none of the major churches on these islands dispute the Theory of Evolution and intelligent design a flawed concept put forward by US fundamentalist Christians.

And you know what the most annoying part? its been done before. When Darwin formulated his theory first he knew that it flew in the face of Christian thought of the time alot of the intellectuals of the time in Britain were actually members of the church their studies in science were studies of Gods Creation and even they could not find fault with the theory.

Vivisectus

J C wrote: »

OK please tell me where this is wrong?
Quote:-
(Dr.) Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.


These numbers place an upper limit of about 10^150 possible total reactions involving the entire matter and using all of the time in the Big Bang universe (which is termed the universal probability bound).
This is then compared with the combinatorial space of simple proteins and other biochemical molecules ... each of which are often in excess of the universal probability bound.
The implications of this is that if you had all of the matter in the Universe generating random sequences for the billions of years that the Big Ban Universe supposedly exists, you couldn't reasonably expect even one specific functional protein to be produced.
... and we need many hundreds of specific proteins and other biomolecules working in highly integrate systems in even 'simple' uni-cellular life, to say nothing about the multi-celled stuff.

This would apply if you expect a fully functional single-celled organism to pop into existence. Multiply by every cell in every creature that ever existed, and you get a good idea about just how silly ID really is: that is how much the laws of nature need to be broken for fully developed life to be magicked into existence by a God!

Science does not simply allow "God did it by magic" as an explanation. It does not have to: the math proposed here is deeply flawed. It assumes:

a) That is only one viable instance of proto-life possible
b) That a fully functional single-celled organism is supposed to appear, in stead of much simpler self replicating molecules such as RNA, or even a simpler predecessor to it.
c) that life started as a result of completely random floating molecules interacting in an equally random way

As usual ID goes to great lengths to set up a strawman, which it then attacks in the hopes that everyone will just go home and stop trying to figure out how life appeared and accept a magical explanation.

Stil, it is interesting in that it shows just how different a ID argument is from a scientific one: ID never really explains anything. If you look for an answer, it is always "God did it by magic". If ID actually went on and stated " And this is how God did it!" then there would be something there to take interest in. But there never is: once they find any sort of confirmation of what they already believe, they lose interest.

floggg

Vivisectus wrote: »

This would apply if you expect a fully functional single-celled organism to pop into existence. Multiply by every cell in every creature that ever existed, and you get a good idea about just how silly ID really is: that is how much the laws of nature need to be broken for fully developed life to be magicked into existence by a God!

Science does not simply allow "God did it by magic" as an explanation. It does not have to: the math proposed here is deeply flawed. It assumes:

a) That is only one viable instance of proto-life possible
b) That a fully functional single-celled organism is supposed to appear, in stead of much simpler self replicating molecules such as RNA, or even a simpler predecessor to it.
c) that life started as a result of completely random floating molecules interacting in an equally random way

As usual ID goes to great lengths to set up a strawman, which it then attacks in the hopes that everyone will just go home and stop trying to figure out how life appeared and accept a magical explanation.

Stil, it is interesting in that it shows just how different a ID argument is from a scientific one: ID never really explains anything. If you look for an answer, it is always "God did it by magic". If ID actually went on and stated " And this is how God did it!" then there would be something there to take interest in. But there never is: once they find any sort of confirmation of what they already believe, they lose interest.

Do they ever really find a confirmation though - or just "intelligently" design their own narrative and claim that as confirmation.

Vivisectus

Do they ever really find a confirmation though - or just "intelligently" design their own narrative and claim that as confirmation.

Good point: confirmation is a bad way of putting it. Mostly they tend to look for things that are compatible with their beliefs, and they try to find things that are not compatible with any perspective that casts doubt on their beliefs.

JC actually proposes vegetarian tyrannosaurs and magical climate-equalizing clouds just so (s)he can shoe-horn the fossil record into the biblical narrative!

Vivisectus

Not necessarily ... we simply don't know who or what this intelligence was/is.
... but we do know that it was an intelligence / intelligences.
... or at least something, with the abilities of an intelligence ... perhaps 'life ... but not as we have known it!!!'

But you go a lot further than that: you make up stuff that allows you to believe that there is not some vague intelligence, but that it is the god(s) described in the Bible that is behind it, and that the biblical narratives around creation, the flood, and adam and eve are literally true. You have even proposed vegetarian tyrannosaurs, sharks and spiders and magical climate-equalizing clouds in order to hang on to these beliefs.

That is a lot more than discerning a hint of an unknown intelligence. That is just plain old starting with a belief and then working backward.

Akrasia

floggg wrote: »

Do they ever really find a confirmation though - or just "intelligently" design their own narrative and claim that as confirmation.

Intelligent design is comprised of two contradictory ideas.
1. Utter credulity - the idea that they can believe without even the hint of scepticism, that everything in 'the bible' is the literal truth
2. Utter incredulity - the argument from incredulity is the fallacy that simply because you can't imagine something, that it must be false. Creationists can't imagine how life can originate naturally, therefore any theory that suggests this must be false.

JC01

This thread has gone on a looooong time after being answered in post 4 or 5...

What the hell are people arguing about? Iv clicked into it a few times and can't make heads or tails of it. Is there still normal people who don't beleive in evolution?

And I'm not having a sneaky swipe at religion I know plenty of devout Catholics but even they laugh at the whole Adam and Eve crac, I was of the opinion Darwins Theory was almost universally accepted in Ireland by now.

Squeedily Spooch

floggg wrote: »

Em - you've argued that adam was made by God, the flood and ark were real and that genesis was real.

That sounds to me like the abrahamic god. Im sure it doesn't account with most other non-abrahamic faiths creation stories.

So are you saying that there is actually no way to know of any of that genesis stuff is true or not (other than personal faith and belief)?

Don't forget The Fall of Man or:How I Created The Universe But Couldn't Stop A Woman Eating An Apple.

JC just uses bad science to try make it fit the myth. How convenient all this "science" just happens to prove everything written about in the bible, and not any other religious text; true.

Squeedily Spooch

JC01 wrote: »

This thread has gone on a looooong time after being answered in post 4 or 5...

What the hell are people arguing about? Iv clicked into it a few times and can't make heads or tails of it. Is there still normal people who don't beleive in evolution?

And I'm not having a sneaky swipe at religion I know plenty of devout Catholics but even they laugh at the whole Adam and Eve crac, I was of the opinion Darwins Theory was almost universally accepted in Ireland by now.

If Creationists were to see how ludicrous the idea that we all descended from a man created from thin air and a woman created from his rib (although quite why God would need his rib is another question, he just literally created a man from dust, why not a woman?) then the rest of it would fall apart. If there's no Adam and Eve there's no Christianity, it's really that simple.

Speaking of women, I wonder does JC think that female childbirth and the pain involved are a result of Eve's sin?

Hoop66

I heard the dude blamed the chick, I heard the chick blamed the snake and I heard they were naked when they got busted...

floggg

Vivisectus wrote: »

But you go a lot further than that: you make up stuff that allows you to believe that there is not some vague intelligence, but that it is the god(s) described in the Bible that is behind it, and that the biblical narratives around creation, the flood, and adam and eve are literally true. You have even proposed vegetarian tyrannosaurs, sharks and spiders and magical climate-equalizing clouds in order to hang on to these beliefs.

That is a lot more than discerning a hint of an unknown intelligence. That is just plain old starting with a belief and then working backward.

Any links to the veggie T-Rex, or does J C want to explain himself?

Terrlock

Say hello to our great great ancestors....

And there from Scotland no less. So we should all celebrate our Scottish roots with a nice big pitcher of ale.

http://news.sky.com/story/1356545/fish-fossils-show-sex-originated-in-scotland

Terrlock

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

If Creationists were to see how ludicrous the idea that we all descended from a man created from thin air and a woman created from his rib (although quite why God would need his rib is another question, he just literally created a man from dust, why not a woman?) then the rest of it would fall apart. If there's no Adam and Eve there's no Christianity, it's really that simple.

Speaking of women, I wonder does JC think that female childbirth and the pain involved are a result of Eve's sin?

It's only ludicrous to the unbeliever (Also the air was probably quite thick back then)- God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.

As sure as 1 + 1 = 2 God created man. If you don't believe it then just ask God to prove it to you.

Vivisectus

floggg wrote: »

Any links to the veggie T-Rex, or does J C want to explain himself?

You may find this and other gems of ID wisdom in the link below.

Home Soc Religion & Spirituality Atheism & Agnosticism The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Nine years on. Still going stong.

Learn how Sabretooth tigers used their fangs to dig up roots, how spiders used to suck plant juices, and how T-rex was a herbivore before the Fall!

Also features magic climate-equalizing clouds and tropical hardwoods growing in deserts!

Vivisectus

Terrlock wrote: »

It's only ludicrous to the unbeliever (Also the air was probably quite thick back then)- God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.

As sure as 1 + 1 = 2 God created man. If you don't believe it then just ask God to prove it to you.

That is pretty much it: like most religious viewpoints, it only makes sense if you already believe it. That is why Mary never miraculously appears to devout Buddhists.

Terrlock

Vivisectus wrote: »

That is pretty much it: like most religious viewpoints, it only makes sense if you already believe it. That is why Mary never miraculously appears to devout Buddhists.

The world is still full of people that worship and follow false gods.

But that's getting off topic.

Delirium

Vivisectus wrote: »

You may find this and other gems of ID wisdom in the link below.

Home Soc Religion & Spirituality Atheism & Agnosticism The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Nine years on. Still going stong.

Learn how Sabretooth tigers used their fangs to dig up roots, how spiders used to suck plant juices, and how T-rex was a herbivore before the Fall!

Also features magic climate-equalizing clouds and tropical hardwoods growing in deserts!

and not forgetting my personal favourite, pangea separated and formed the continents we have today in a matter of months!!

PopePalpatine

Vivisectus wrote: »

That is pretty much it: like most religious viewpoints, it only makes sense if you already believe it. That is why Mary never miraculously appears to devout Buddhists.

Creationism really is a prime example of confirmation bias.

iDave

When it comes to our relationship with the Neanderthal, would I be correct in saying that they are/were just as much human as homo sapiens, in the same way T-Rex and Triceratops can both claim to be dinosaurs or Orcas and Blues can both claim to be whales?

Doctor Jimbob

iDave wrote: »

When it comes to our relationship with the Neanderthal, would I be correct in saying that they are/were just as much human as homo sapiens, in the same way T-Rex and Triceratops can both claim to be dinosaurs or Orcas and Blues can both claim to be whales?

Homo sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis are part of the same genus, making them more closely related than the examples you listed, but the basic idea is correct, yeah.

Interestingly, (to me at least :pac:) some dinosaurs are quite distantly related - think kangaroo and elephant rather than horse and zebra, to use a rough example.

JC01

Terrlock wrote: »

It's only ludicrous to the unbeliever (Also the air was probably quite thick back then)- God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.

As sure as 1 + 1 = 2 God created man. If you don't believe it then just ask God to prove it to you.

Guess that answers one of my questions....

So it makes perfect sense to you that man (an insanely complex construction of matter and processes) can be made from air so long as it's "thick" air rather than thin? And why the hell was the air thicker back then??

MrPudding

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Creationism really is a prime example of confirmation bias.

Hmmm, I see it more of a prime example that Anencephaly is not necessarily fatal after all.

MrP

J C

obplayer wrote: »

And may the Flying Spaghetti Monster caress you to sleep with his Blessed Noodly Appendages.

... and may the living God who Created you, bless you too.

J C

Chunners wrote: »

Actually no, have you ever heard of hydrocarbons? I'm guessing not because religious people hate admitting they exist, see if you put hydrogen, carbon and oxygen in a closed system and add some electricity what happens is they bind and become this thing called RNA (Ribonucleic acid) and then if you throw Nitrogen into they mix it becomes DNA all without any outside influence, those four atoms only need to be together and they create DNA, they don't need a god, they don't need anything, life will out, it does not need someone to stir the pot. Your God can't even control me having a dump and you expect us to believe it can control something as complex as life? life is random because no one intelligent enough to create it would sit back then and watch it destroy itself

Yes the Miller Urey experiment did this ... and came up with a few biomolecules ... and plenty of tar and other biotoxins.
It also relied on an intelligently designed system to 'harvest' the molecules as soon as they were formed because otherwise they would be destroyed again by the other chemicals in the poisonous mix that was created.
Anyway, the issue in my posting 1660 is what happens when we have DNA ... and random changes are being made to it to produce different amino acid combinations in biomolecules.
There are 20 common amino acids that can be placed at each point in a protein chain. A protein chain of just 116 amino acids has a combinatorial space of 20^115 or 10^150 which is equivalent to the Universal Probability Bound (UPB).

... so the odds against the non-intelligently directed production of a specific functional protein is greater than the UPB ... in addition this is required in a specific biological process in a specific organ in a specific organism as well, thereby exponentially increasing the odds again.

kingchess

And yet here we are:;)