Darwin's theory

looksee

I've kind of lost interest in this discussion since it went all boggly-maths. Much more interesting to discuss whether Noah managed to get dinosaurs onto the ark and if Adam had a belly button and how fossils happened.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

To produce a novel functionality would require a specific sequence ... and the combinatorial non-functional combinations is so massive (in excess of the UPB) ... and the specific functional combination is so small for a specific functional biomolecule that it will be statistically 'swamped' by the non-functional permutations.

No, it just requires a new sequence not a specific sequence. That's how we get various species from common ancestors.

There is no requirement to produce Humans ... but any system producing and developing life (of whatever type, including Humans) needs to produce specific functional biomolecules at specific times and places and in precise co-ordinated sequences for the viability of the organisms concerned ... and the combinatorial spaces of these specific sequences are so great that they are impossibilities for non-intelligently directed processes.

No. Life can happen in any number of places but may not survive for long due to conditions on the planet. The universe isn't slowly managing things so that humans/animals/planets. Those life-forms thrive because they adapt to the environment.

J C

Chunners wrote: »

Yet again small minded approach, they are not so great that it is impossible, the odds for every sequence is equal, you just think (incorrectly) that the odds for a viable sequence to lead to life is somehow higher than the odds for any sequence that couldn't lead to life because, again, in your head it stands to reason. The odds for every sequence is equal, there is no law at play that dictates that the life sequence couldn't have happened first, it had just as much chance as any other sequence

You're correct that the odds for every sequence are equal ... and that's the problem ... the chance of getting a specific functional sequence is statistically 'swamped' by the overwhelming odds of getting a non-functional sequence.

J C

kingchess wrote: »

That link that you so kindly provided has the answer-look up "the early Earth and the building blocks of life". life started off simple and over time became complex. Thank you for the link,:D

That's one way that it is proposed for how life overcame the Universal Probability Bound ... by starting simple and becoming more complex ... but even just one simple specific biomolecule (and many hundreds are required for even the simplest cell) have combinatorial spaces in excess of the UPB.

Chunners

J C wrote: »

The odds aren't simply 'high' ... they are beyond the Universal Probability Bound and they are therefore impossibilities.

The lottery is only won every week or so because on average the number of tickets sold every week or so are equivalent to the odds of winning.
... and if any lottery had odds against winning of 10^150 it would never ever be won ... irrespective of the number of tickets sold or draws made.

The Universal Probability Bound doesn't apply because it is a falsehood, it can only applied to one specific sequence at a time not every possible sequence, if you use it on all other possible sequences then you would see that they are impossibilities according to the UPB too

The odds of winning the lotto are like 14 mil to one but people still win, by your logic no one should ever win, the amount of tickets sold is irrelevant, there could be only one ticket sold and that person would still have an equal chance of winning. The odds for anyone winning don't change if others buy less tickets

Doctor Jimbob

Chunners wrote: »

The Universal Probability Bound doesn't apply because it is a falsehood, it can only applied to one specific sequence at a time not every possible sequence, if you use it on all other possible sequences then you would see that they are impossibilities according to the UPB too

The odds of winning the lotto are like 14 mil to one but people still win, by your logic no one should ever win, the amount of tickets sold is irrelevant, there could be only one ticket sold and that person would still have an equal chance of winning. The odds for anyone winning don't change if others buy less tickets

He's latched onto it now, we'll never hear the end of it no matter how many times it's refuted. It'll be like CFS feckin I all over again

Chunners

J C wrote: »

You're correct that the odds for every sequence are equal ... and that's the problem ... the chance of getting a specific functional sequence is statistically 'swamped' by the overwhelming odds of getting a non-functional sequence.

No it's not, are you saying that if I shuffled a deck of cards then the odds of me pulling out a 2 of hearts is lower than the odds of me pulling out a queen of diamonds? it's not, both cards have equal odds of being picked. See what you are doing is applying memory to a random function, it's like people who believe that that say coins have a memory and if I toss one 5 times and it comes up heads then next time it will come up tails because it remembers that the last 5 tosses were heads because it stands to reason doesn't it?

J C

SW wrote: »

No, it just requires a new sequence not a specific sequence. That's how we get various species from common ancestors.

It requires a specific sequence for functionality ... any non-intelligently produced 'new' sequence is certain to be non-functional due to the non-functional combinatorial space being much greater than the UPB.

SW wrote: »

No. Life can happen in any number of places but may not survive for long due to conditions on the planet. The universe isn't slowly managing things so that humans/animals/planets. Those life-forms thrive because they adapt to the environment.

Here is an abstract from a peer-reviewed paper on the fine tuning of the Universe for intelligent life.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647

...and here is the full paper
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf

jackboy

What about the universal probability bound with regard to the spontaneous formation of a god?

Ush1

I think I know who JC is and I think he drinks in my local pub.

J C

Chunners wrote: »

The Universal Probability Bound doesn't apply because it is a falsehood, it can only applied to one specific sequence at a time not every possible sequence, if you use it on all other possible sequences then you would see that they are impossibilities according to the UPB too

The Universal Probability Bound only applies to non-intelligently directed systems ... it can be overcome in 10 minutes (as in your cards example) by the appliance of intelligence.

Chunners wrote: »

The odds of winning the lotto are like 14 mil to one but people still win, by your logic no one should ever win, the amount of tickets sold is irrelevant, there could be only one ticket sold and that person would still have an equal chance of winning. The odds for anyone winning don't change if others buy less tickets

The odds for anyone winning don't change if others buy less tickets ... but the odds of the lottery being won at all do change, depending on the number of tickets sold.

kingchess

J C wrote: »

That's one way that it is proposed for how life overcame the Universal Probability Bound ... by starting simple and becoming more complex ... but even just one simple specific biomolecule (and many hundreds are required for even the simplest cell) have combinatorial spaces in excess of the UPB.

And is it not the case that life started with very very simple life forms and became more complex over the billions of years that the planet existed??:eek:

J C

Chunners wrote: »

No it's not, are you saying that if I shuffled a deck of cards then the odds of me pulling out a 2 of hearts is lower than the odds of me pulling out a queen of diamonds? it's not, both cards have equal odds of being picked. See what you are doing is applying memory to a random function, it's like people who believe that that say coins have a memory and if I toss one 5 times and it comes up heads then next time it will come up tails because it remembers that the last 5 tosses were heads because it stands to reason doesn't it?

The odds of picking one specific card is 1 in 52 just like the odds of any particular amino acid at one point in a sequence is 1 in 20.
All of these odds are eminently realizable by non-intelligently directed processes ... the problem (and the odds) rise when specific sequences of cards or amino acids are required ... and they rapidly shoot up from modest numbers like 20 or 52 to the distinctly immodest UPB.:)

kingchess

Ush1 wrote: »

I think I know who JC is and I think he drinks in my local pub.

the universal probability bound tells me that is impossible:(:p

J C

kingchess wrote: »

And is it not the case that life started with very very simple life forms and became more complex over the billions of years that the planet existed??:eek:

but even very simple life forms require many hundreds of specific biomolecules in specific combinations and each with combinatorial spaces in excess of the UPB.

Osgoodisgood

J C wrote: »

It requires a specific sequence for functionality ... any non-intelligently produced 'new' sequence is certain to be non-functional due to the non-functional combinatorial space being much greater than the UPB.

If the sequence was different, life would be different because it would've adapted to different conditions. Or it wouldn't have survived or formed at all.

The problem is you think you're special. You're not. At least not in the way your dusty old book of goat herding tales would have you believe.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

It is similar to needing a specific sequence of 104 cards for a specific 'result' ... to get this specific sequence would be an impossibilty for non-intelligently directed processes as the combinatorial space at 10^135 is approaching the Universal Probability Bound of 10^150.
However, somebody with two packs of cards can lay them out in a specific sequence in less than 10 minutes, using their intelligence.
So something that is a statistical impossibility for non-intelligently directed processes using all of the matter and time in the Big Bang Universe ... can be done by a person of average intelligence in less than 10 minutes.

It is observed that biomolecules with specific functionalities have specific amino acid sequences in a specific combination and any changes in these sequences produces non-functionality.

... I accept your contentions, if evolution is true, it wouldn't be working to create any particular result like Humans ... but then any process that doesn't work towards a particular result is unable to deliver any result and will result in destruction rather than construction.
... and all living organisms possess very purposeful biological systems.

... and any system producing and developing life (including spontaneous evolution) needs to produce specific functional biomolecules at specific times and places and in precise co-ordinated sequences for the viability of the organisms concerned ... and the combinatorial spaces of these specific sequences are so great that they are impossibilities for non-intelligently directed processes.

I've only read the last few pages and I can say that.

You sir, are a troll.

Chunners

J C wrote: »

The Universal Probability Bound only applies to non-intelligently directed systems ... it can be overcome in 10 minutes (as in your cards example) by the appliance of intelligence.

The odds for anyone winning don't change if others buy less tickets ... but the odds of the lottery being won at all do change, depending on the number of tickets sold.

Actually no twice, the UPB is in itself an impossibility, it requires that you ignore random chance because you anthropomorphize things like evolution (and call it God), or something like random chance (and call it lady luck) and convince yourself that it is in some way being guided. It's thinking like that that creates gambling addicts because they convince themselves that cards, a roulette wheel or even a coin toss have a memory. You are engaging in Anthropomorphic Personification because you don't want to admit that random chance is a viable possibility.

The odds of the lotto being won as a whole do change depending on the the amount of tickets sold but the odds for an individual winning don't change no matter how many tickets are sold just like the odds of life sequence existing from the start didn't change no matter how many other sequences were possible, the odds for the individual stay the same no matter how many participants and there is absolutely NO universal law (law as in a real law not just some made up math like the UPB) that says that life cannot exist

J C

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

If the sequence was different, life would be different because it would've adapted to different conditions. Or it wouldn't have survived or formed at all.

The problem is you think you're special. You're not. At least not in the way your dusty old book of goat herding tales would have you believe.

I'm not talking about Humans or me ... I'm talking about the simplest of life-forms.
... if the sequence was different it wouldn't work.

J C

Saganist wrote: »

I've only read the last few pages and I can say that.

You sir, are a troll.

... and you sir ... are mistaken.

Brian Shanahan

Terrlock wrote: »

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

Yes it is amazing how many religious people are out there. You, for example are deluded into thinking yhwh exists.

Chunners

J C wrote: »

I'm not talking about me or Humans ... I'm talking about the simplest of life-forms.
... if the sequence was different it wouldn't work.

Yes it would, did I not just post about a life form that lives on arsenic? did I not just post about a life form that lives by feeding on the debris spit out by volcanic vents miles under the oceans? the sequence has been different multiple times and life still thrives in the most inhumane environments possible. Humans are not the only form of life, humans are only one of the many myriad of forms that evolution makes possible

Saganist

J C wrote: »

... and you sir ... are mistaken.

I'm pretty sure I'm not. :pac::pac:

Enjoy your internal heaven... No point in arguing with you. :cool:

kingchess

J C wrote: »

That's one way that it is proposed for how life overcame the Universal Probability Bound ... by starting simple and becoming more complex ... but even just one simple specific biomolecule (and many hundreds are required for even the simplest cell) have combinatorial spaces in excess of the UPB.

So that is one way to overcome it?? and that is what science tell us happened, simple basic life forms becoming more complex as the hundreds of millions of years passed and here we are.:D

Wibbs

Look for me it boils down to this; the origin of life, the conversion of a "non living" chemical process to one we call "life" is a mystery waiting to be solved. There are all sorts of theories, but it's not quite nailed down as a process. Yet.

However jumping to the wild conclusion that it was the "magic" of a very culturally localised and emotionally and physically limited bronze age "god" of tribes of sheep herders and subsistence farmers who picked up memes of larger surrounding civilisations and evolved their theology, is a very big leap indeed. A leap of faith? More a leap of received bloody nonsense.

More, the only reason JC and his brethren have this meme down to today is purely an accident of history. If Rome had succeeded in feeding all Christians to the lions in the games, then today JC would be arguing for Zeus as the progenitor of the universe and humans and our place in reality. And it would be equally daft.

And this is coming from someone who leaves open the possibility of an "external force"(or internal forces. Take the Gaia principle to universal levels type of thang), someone who thinks "dark" matter and energy and quantum inflation and the multiverse are an intellectual fudge because the maths and observation don't quite tie up with theory, with a sideorder of philosophical onanism and hubris. For me bad science, or half formed science can often take the place of daft religion in the hubristic and dogmatic minefield and mindfield that is the human psyche. It seems that hubris is another thing that marks humans out as unique and long may it continue. It's a big reason why we are what are today.

However, "science", IE the evidence we thinking and abstract and reflective beings see and feel and measure is so far ahead of religious dogma to make it obsolete. The dogma and hubris of science changes over time and responds to observation and thought. Religious dogma doesn't or very rarely. For all its faults the Catholic church does and has responded and changed over time. The joke is because it was originally a classical faith and theology that brought in and bent the "barbarian" faith to its cultural will, it's more practical and indeed "scientific" and open to science and common opinion. Some Protestant faiths see this as a weakness, even signs of the "work of the devil". I find that ironic on sooo many levels.

laurinjames

Wibbs wrote: »

Look for me it boils down to this; the origin of life, the conversion of a "non living" chemical process to one we call "life" is a mystery waiting to be solved. There are all sorts of theories, but it's not quite nailed down as a process. Yet.

However jumping to the wild conclusion that it was the "magic" of a very culturally localised and emotionally and physically limited bronze age "god" of tribes of sheep herders and subsistence farmers who picked up memes of larger surrounding civilisations and evolved their theology, is a very big leap indeed. A leap of faith? More a leap of received bloody nonsense.

More, the only reason JC and his brethren have this meme down to today is purely an accident of history. If Rome had succeeded in feeding all Christians to the lions in the games, then today JC would be arguing for Zeus as the progenitor of the universe and humans and our place in reality. And it would be equally daft.

And this is coming from someone who leaves open the possibility of an "external force"(or internal forces. Take the Gaia principle to universal levels type of thang), someone who thinks "dark" matter and energy and quantum inflation and the multiverse are an intellectual fudge because the maths and observation don't quite tie up with theory, with a sideorder of philosophical onanism and hubris. For me bad science, or half formed science can often take the place of daft religion in the hubristic and dogmatic minefield and mindfield that is the human psyche. It seems that hubris is another thing that marks humans out as unique and long may it continue. It's a big reason why we are what are today.

However, "science", IE the evidence we thinking and abstract and reflective beings see and feel and measure is so far ahead of religious dogma to make it obsolete. The dogma and hubris of science changes over time and responds to observation and thought. Religious dogma doesn't or very rarely. For all its faults the Catholic church does and has responded and changed over time. The joke is because it was originally a classical faith and theology that brought in and bent the "barbarian" faith to its cultural will, it's more practical and indeed "scientific" and open to science and common opinion. Some Protestant faiths see this as a weakness, even signs of the "work of the devil". I find that ironic on sooo many levels.

I think dan brown's yarn telling is safe

Chunners

lol Wibbs the concept of Hell as fire and brimstone didn't even exist until there was a book wrote by a guy called Dante in the 14th century, the book was called "The Divine Comedy" and part of it was "Inferno" (better known as "Dante's Inferno" ) and it was a short story about his decent into Hell where he had to pass the gates of Hell and the gates said "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here" and inside were the 9 circles where various people were punished by demons shoving red hot pokers up their arse. The Catholic church jumped on this as a way to frighten their flock and thus the fear of burning in hell was born

Can't post links yet but google Dante and inferno and you'll find it, it's very interesting reading to understand how all the lies came about and why they still exist today. We like to think we are evolved now and know better but a Hell as a fear is over 6 centuries old and still going strong lol

yellowlabrador

looksee wrote: »

I've kind of lost interest in this discussion since it went all boggly-maths. Much more interesting to discuss whether Noah managed to get dinosaurs onto the ark and if Adam had a belly button and how fossils happened.

I keep on thinking I'm in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.
They had an inprobability drive, maybe Zaphod or marvin can show us the way.

a case of blinded by the math

SaveOurLyric

Wibbs wrote: »

For all its faults the Catholic church does and has responded and changed over time. The joke is because it was originally a classical faith and theology that brought in and bent the "barbarian" faith to its cultural will, it's more practical and indeed "scientific" and open to science and common opinion. Some Protestant faiths see this as a weakness, even signs of the "work of the devil". I find that ironic on sooo many levels.

The Catholic church has changed to some extent, because it has been dominated until very recently by western Europeans who could not escape their environment of being the most educated, enlightened, and influenced by science and reason. Its outer reaches have been less affected and so clung on more strongly to the myths. Other religions have remained with a higher proportion of ignorant people and so been less driven to change at all - or subject to internal conflict between those who do now have some degree of sophistication but also a significant portion still living in a medieval world and very resistant to any change. Islam for example.

KERSPLAT!

MOD

laurinjames, don't post in this thread again