25 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobhardly! for if by your own admission Noobster, you are not a biologist, and therefore you could not describe in your own words what is was that Galveston was seeking to ascertain,but simply provided links, then what chance has he , also a layman, of understanding the answers that you provided links to, considering you could not even explain them yourself? therefore his questions have remained, in effect, unanswered!
Which provided the relevant information that answered his questions.
25 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTwo points.
hardly! for if by your own admission Noobster, you are not a biologist, and therefore you could not describe in your own words what is was that Galveston was seeking to ascertain, then what chance has he , also a layman of understanding the answers that you provided links to, if you could not even explain them yourself? therefore his questions have remained, in effect, unanswered!
His questions will remain unanswered unless he goes to University and studies evolutionary biology, and that isn't going to be the case, so why keep harping on about something that he will never understand. And more importantly, if he doesn't understand it in the first place, how does he know it is wrong?
Secondly, i thought he'd studied evolution all his life?
25 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobtwo points
Two points.
His questions will remain unanswered unless he goes to University and studies evolutionary biology, and that isn't going to be the case, so why keep harping on about something that he will never understand. And more importantly, if he doesn't understand it in the first place, how does he know it is wrong?
Secondly, i thought he'd studied evolution all his life?
once the cloak of language has been removed and the very essence of the ideas have been discerned, how difficult can it be to understand a natural process? if it cannot be explained in simple terms, one is entitled to ask the question, why not. are there not levels or degrees of understanding?
secondly, you have no ideas what Glavo has read and what he has not, therefore what if the answers themselves are in fact unattainable or are not explained by evolutionary means? or if indeed they are, they are not satisfactorily explained, as i have found, in many cases myself, for example the evolutionary explanation for the emergence of conscience. it would not matter what Galvo had read or what he had not, would it? anyhow he was not the one professing this idea, you people were, and when called upon to give a simple and plausible explanation, it was beyond you.
25 Nov 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobI can't believe I'm even responding to this but here goes.
Two points.
His questions will remain unanswered unless he goes to University and studies evolutionary biology, and that isn't going to be the case, so why keep harping on about something that he will never understand. And more importantly, if he doesn't understand it in the first place, how does he know it is wrong?
Secondly, i thought he'd studied evolution all his life?
Ok..Tell me to the precise book, magazine, lecture, online articles of everything you've read about evolution all your life. No cheating...
Sounds silly huh?
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHis initial question was about bats (as per the title of the thread). I am trying to help him answer it, but he is avoiding my questions because he doesn't want an answer, he wants there to be no answer so that he can continue to claim there is no answer - thus supporting his own belief in an alternative solution.
if anyone is waiting for a response to his questions, its Galvo, he posted a whole list and got nothing but links to wikipedia websites for his troubles!
I am sure that you too would not like to investigate the particular case I am talking about as it also contradicts a number of your own claims regarding evolution.
26 Nov 09
Which is more mathematically probable? Evolution or Creation? Or is that even a good question? I know some of the arguments for design like example Earth to far from sun we freeze or too close we fry. Right balanced atmosphere for life to exist. Gravity no gravity we don't exist. Gravity to strong we don't exist. Take away some of the basic laws of physics of this universe we don't exist. I know it's not the best answer but too many factors for me personally to not believe in design. Even if not the god of the bible it just seems like we would be the biggest mistake of the universe if we just happened by accident. I used to think god started evolution because I wanted to be able to mesh my belief in a creator with evolution but I think classic evolution is flawed. This what I was taught in grade school that evolution is fact but I think it is what it is a theory. Good subject all! 🙂
Manny
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by menace71That is because you are making a very basic yet a very common mistake regarding probability.
Even if not the god of the bible it just seems like we would be the biggest mistake of the universe if we just happened by accident.
You are making the we are special error:
If you have 1 million possible outcomes and every possible outcome is equally likely then the probability of one special outcome occurring is one in a million. However, one outcome has to happen does it not? So the probability of an outcome is 1 or absolutely certain.
Your error is to take the certain outcome and label it 'special' because it happened.
To illustrate how flawed your logic is, go outside and pick up a grain of sand at random. There must be millions if not billions of grains of sand you could have chosen, but the one you hold in your had is the one you chose. A one in a billion chance! How improbable is that? It couldn't have happened by chance could it? No, you had better treasure that grain of sand, because God gave you that grain of sand! There is no other reasonable explanation!
26 Nov 09
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhy dont you answer the question? you are a mathematician are you not?
That is because you are making a very basic yet a very common mistake regarding probability.
You are making the we are special error:
If you have 1 million possible outcomes and every possible outcome is equally likely then the probability of one special outcome occurring is one in a million. However, one outcome has to happen does it not? So the probab n of sand, because God gave you that grain of sand! There is no other reasonable explanation!
there are roughly one hundred known amino acids 20 or so of which make up protein molecules, the basic building blocks of life. Not only do they make up the basic building blocks of life, but they need to be the correct ones. Not only do they need to be the correct ones, but they need to be in the correct sequence.
lets us make an analogy, we have a large pile of jelly babies, one hundred varieties of jelly babies (amino acids)! in order to make even very simple proteins from this large pile of jelly babies, we need to scoop out not only red ones, but we need to scope out twenty red ones in a specific sequence to make our jelly baby protein, for in the world of proteins a single mistake would cause the protein to malfunction. how many times would we need to stir our pile of jelly babies to scoop out only twenty red ones in a specific sequence. what is the probability of scooping only twenty red ones in a specific sequence? as far as i am aware any event that has a chance of 1x10 to the power of 50 (i cannot right small fifty) is viewed by mathematicians as almost never happening.
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by menace71I'm always curious by mankinds megolamanic, self-centered nature. We always have to assume that the universe is all about us. If you accept that the universe is 13.5 billion yrs old, man has only been around for 200,000 yrs (the date we left Africa), we are an insignificant blip in the history of the universe.
Which is more mathematically probable? Evolution or Creation? Or is that even a good question? I know some of the arguments for design like example Earth to far from sun we freeze or too close we fry. Right balanced atmosphere for life to exist. Gravity no gravity we don't exist. Gravity to strong we don't exist. Take away some of the basic laws of physics ...[text shortened]... that evolution is fact but I think it is what it is a theory. Good subject all! 🙂
Manny
We've been around for 0.000001423% of the universe's history, and yet somehow we're the main attraction, or so we're led to believe.
We don't even know if there is life in our solar system, let alone next door in Alpha Centauri, or if there is life surrounding one of the estimated 200 billion stars in our galaxy, or the estimated 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. We know of 404 exoplanets beyond our solar system, i couldn't even guess what the number could be in the entire universe.
Take away some of the basic laws of physics of this universe we don't exist.
But who's to say that under different circumstances other forms of life might arise? We can't because we don't know.
26 Nov 09
I don't mean to come off as a megalomaniac. Man sometimes thinks he is more than he is. LOL the center of the universe!! 🙂 However for life to exist in any form I would think it takes certain conditions (special conditions). I know RC can come off seeming crazy at times but what he is saying holds true about the amino acids being in just the right order. (Sorry RC not that you will care 🙂 ) I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed by any means but I do ask the question sincerely. Which is more mathematically probable creation or evolution. Hey? What if we did find life out there or they found us?
I admit my basis for my belief is just because I can't accept that we are just a cosmic accident and that I guess is megalomic!!
Manny
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou clearly didn't bother to read my post.
as far as i am aware any event that has a chance of 1x10 to the power of 50 (i cannot right small fifty) is viewed by mathematicians as almost never happening.
I pointed out that in your scenario an event with the chance of 1X10 to the power of 50 will happen with absolute certainity. What mathematicians would agree is rare is a special event that is special for reasons other than that it happened and which has such a low probability.
What you have not done is explained why your event is special for a reason other than 'it happened'. That is the basic flaw I was pointing out.
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by menace71But you don't actually know what conditions, or how special they are. Instead you argued that the current conditions are unique - which is a blatantly false claim.
However for life to exist in any form I would think it takes certain conditions (special conditions).
I know RC can come off seeming crazy at times but what he is saying holds true about the amino acids being in just the right order.
The right order for what? That is the error he made.
I must also point out that his example has other flaws - protiens are the result of evolution which is not in any way equivalent to a random draw.
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadi did read it and naturally completely dismissed it as evasive. Why shall you not calculate what the probability of getting twenty from a hundred of the one kind in the correct sequence? because the probability would be so astronomical high, as to render it greater than the sum of all the known atoms in the universe! oh and render the mathematical probability of life having arisen through non intelligent agencies as been preposterous! 1x10 to the power of fifty is now a certainty, perhaps in your 'special case', but in reality, well............
You clearly didn't bother to read my post.
I pointed out that in your scenario an event with the chance of 1X10 to the power of 50 will happen with absolute certainity. What mathematicians would agree is rare is a special event that is special for reasons other than that it happened and which has such a low probability.
What you have not done is explain ...[text shortened]... is special for a reason other than 'it happened'. That is the basic flaw I was pointing out.
26 Nov 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydIts not? thnx Pink Floyd(?)
I do not agree, and I don't think this is the dominant belief in Protestant churches karoly.
I can't agree with anyone who tells me "First you ....", then ...as if these are "MUST DO" things. When it comes to belief, I can believe anything or any way I wish. I happen to be a Christian evolutionist who accepts the Genesis account as NOT merely an allegor ...[text shortened]... f continuing His creation. That "it doesn't make sense" to one person is incidental.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBecause you either don't get it, or don't want to get it.
i did read it and naturally completely dismissed it as evasive.
Why shall you not calculate what the probability of getting twenty from a hundred of the one kind in the correct sequence?
You can if you want, nobodies stopping you. My point is that if the 'correct sequence' is defined as 'the sequence you picked' then the probability is 1 or absolutely certain and not 1x10 to the power of fifty.
oh and render the mathematical probability of life having arisen through non intelligent agencies as been preposterous! 1x10 to the power of fifty is now a certainty, perhaps in your 'special case', but in reality, well............
How is your calculation related to the probability of life having arisen through non intelligent agencies? I already pointed out that life arouse via a process not pure random chance. To demonstrate the difference: All the proteins in my body were created by non-intelligent agencies (chemical reactions in my cells) yet they have the 'special' sequences you refer to. If we calculate it your way, its 1x10 to the power of fifty times the number of cells in my body (billions) times the number of proteins per cell (make an estimate). Yet I am here via a process that started with one single cell with a number of pairs of DNA - and no intelligent agencies whatsoever.