27 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheaddid i pick the sequence of amino acids which make up the 'blueprint', for forming proteins, did I? no then what are you talking about? your argument is completely absurd and evasive for either you do not understand the relationship between amino acids and the proteins that their specific sequence provides the basis for or you are claiming that I sequenced their order to give credence to my argument.
Because you either don't get it, or don't want to get it.
[b]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 absolutel ne single cell with a number of pairs of DNA - and no intelligent agencies whatsoever.[/b]
as for the latter part of your argument it is seriously flawed and once again quite evasive, for until you can explain how the sequence of amino acids was arrived at, through a non intelligent agency all else is open to question.
you hold a degree in mathematics and yet you could not answer a relatively simply question with regard to probability with honesty and integrity and seemed intent to evade it with an irrelevant counter argument, my estimation of these ideas which has limited the search for truth to a non intelligent agency is now at an all time low.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't know. I don't remember you saying what sequence you picked or why. You simply made the ridiculous conclusion that because the probability of picking out a given sequence from a box of jelly beens was low then it would "render the mathematical probability of life having arisen through non intelligent agencies as been preposterous!"
did i pick the sequence of amino acids which make up the 'blueprint', for forming proteins, did I?
You have not explained what the connection is or how you proceeded to draw such a conclusion.
All I have done is shown that there is no connection between your conclusion and your probability calculation and further that your probability calculation is subject to the basic flaw that I pointed out from the start.
you hold a degree in mathematics and yet you could not answer a relatively simply question with regard to probability with honesty and integrity
I did answer it with honesty and integrity. You just don't like my answer because it shows up your bad logic.
27 Nov 09
The probability of life appearing spontaneously on Earth is so small that it is very
difficult to grasp without comparing it with something more familiar. Imagine a
blindfolded person trying to solve the recently fashionable Rubik cube. Since he can't see the results of his moves, they must all be at random. He has no way of knowing whether he is getting nearer the solution or whether he is scrambling the cube still further. One would be inclined to say that moving the faces at random would "never" achieve a solution. Strictly speaking, "never" is wrong, however. If our blindfolded subject were to make one random move every second, it would take him on average three hundred times the age of the Earth, 1,350 billion years, to solve the cube. The chance against each move producing perfect color matching for all the cube's faces is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1.
These odds are roughly the same as you could give to the idea of just one of our body's proteins having evolved randomly, by chance. However, we use about 200,000 types of protein in our cells. If the odds against the random creation of one protein are the same as those against a random solution of the Rubik cube, then the odds against the random creation of all 200,000 are almost unimaginably vast.
Just googled this to see what would come up.
Manny
27 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by menace71thankyou Manfred, you have confirmed what someone with an apparent degree in mathematics somehow could not bring himself to either calculate nor admit.
The probability of life appearing spontaneously on Earth is so small that it is very
difficult to grasp without comparing it with something more familiar. Imagine a
blindfolded person trying to solve the recently fashionable Rubik cube. Since he can't see the results of his moves, they must all be at random. He has no way of knowing whether he is 00 are almost unimaginably vast.
Just googled this to see what would come up.
Manny
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by menace71Great post...
The probability of life appearing spontaneously on Earth is so small that it is very
difficult to grasp without comparing it with something more familiar. Imagine a
blindfolded person trying to solve the recently fashionable Rubik cube. Since he can't see the results of his moves, they must all be at random. He has no way of knowing whether he is ...[text shortened]... 00 are almost unimaginably vast.
Just googled this to see what would come up.
Manny
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by menace71Firstly you are almost using a contradiction of terms. Evolution is not random, evolution is a process. To say 'evolved randomly' is a contradiction in terms.
These odds are roughly the same as you could give to the idea of just one of our body's proteins having evolved randomly, by chance.
Secondly, you are making the fundamental mistake that I was referring to earlier. You are assuming that the result of a random event is special and calculating the probability from there. The truth is that if probability worked the way you suggest then everything in existence would be so highly improbable it couldn't exist.
I just looked outside at a pile of sand. The probability that the grains of sand would fall in just that exact way is approximately 1 in 1X10 to the power 10,000. It couldn't happen. Yet there it is in front of me. Either you don't understand probability and its implications or the pile of sand I just saw doesn't exist. Which is it?
29 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadSorry I'm not trying to be dense. You don't think that life is a special circumstance? I'm just thinking how hostile the universe is to life. Gamma rays , Black holes, on & on. I think I see the point about evolution being a process. I have trouble with evolution though to think over millions of years we became what we are now? It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does in design or creation. (I'm not even trying to argue that the Christian God did it at this point) I can see where it is or seems self centered that man is somehow special. I used to believe in classic evolution but honestly for me it just did not make sense. Can we look at this backwards so to speak and ask how special is life on earth? Are/is there life in other places in this universe? I think I will look at probability today. My math was never the best.
Firstly you are almost using a contradiction of terms. Evolution is not random, evolution is a process. To say 'evolved randomly' is a contradiction in terms.
Secondly, you are making the fundamental mistake that I was referring to earlier. You are assuming that the result of a random event is special and calculating the probability from there. The truth ...[text shortened]... robability and its implications or the pile of sand I just saw doesn't exist. Which is it?
Manny
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by menace71We can only investigate whether there is life in a very tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of the universe. Nevertheless, even if the Earth is "special", that doesn't mean that the evolution of lifeforms on Earth itself is inplausible (and that's after all what biological evolution is about).
Sorry I'm not trying to be dense. You don't think that life is a special circumstance? I'm just thinking how hostile the universe is to life. Gamma rays , Black holes, on & on. I think I see the point about evolution being a process. I have trouble with evolution though to think over millions of years we became what we are now? It takes just as much faith t ...[text shortened]... his universe? I think I will look at probability today. My math was never the best.
Manny
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by menace71The Theory of Evolution is not a religion and does not require faith of any kind. There is lots and lots of evidence that evolution is taking place now, that it has taken place in the past and that most life forms in existence today evolved from simpler life forms in the past. The Theory of Evolution describes how this is possible and why evolution happens. It does not take 'faith' it takes understanding.
I have trouble with evolution though to think over millions of years we became what we are now? It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does in design or creation.
Creation (as in without evolution, not as in creating the big bang) on the other hand has such overwhelming evidence against it that it does take faith and a significant amount of it at that.
05 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/13/bat.evolution
Just wondering how some animals such as bats evolved with echo location? When did it start to be used by them?
Looks like flight evolved first... perhaps they hunted insects by day. Excellent hearing as well as eyesight is clearly an evolutionary advantage. More insects start flying at night, eyesight becomes less important... perhaps navigating caves has something to do with it too. Clicking is a behavioural trait which some humans who go blind are known to use. Clicking mechanism and hearing improves as better navigation is an evolutionary advantage.
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadi agree with Menace , and naturally all those who believe that we are not the product of evolution, and I read the countless posts on this forum by very smart people much smartet than and try to understand their reasoning , try to see if the scientific community has a leg to stand on and in many instances all parties have credible and in some cases beleivable cases but... I keep going back to the following... If we have evolved over many years and come from an animal species of some kind then please explain to me how in the past 200 years all that has actually evolved in the human form as we know it today is that fewer people ( actually, 2 or 3 in a 100 children are born with fewer wisdom teeth as they had 200 years ago when the need to chew meat was much more important. Wouldn't you think that if the human being was the product of an everchanging evolutionary process for all these years that we would see an occasional glimpse of a baby being born with some change that is there to prepare itself for something in our future? I f it this rate of 200 years to simply loose a back set of teeth a mathamatician could probably calculate how many billions of years it would take bit by bit to actually morrph aan Ape into a finely tuned human being. Anyone ever thought about this? Additionally, if we were a product of evolution taking into consideration that no species develops perfectley , if we were from an ancient form of animal then wouldn't logic dictate that in that line of species that we supposedly came from their would be at least the remnants of a half human half Ape ( or some type of animal) in their lineage , you know sort of a mistake tucked away in the animal family closet. It just seems all to perfect of an explanation to cast our beginnings to evolution then again logic would tell you that it is probably all too easy to dismiss our beginnings to creationism as well. Bern
The Theory of Evolution is not a religion and does not require faith of any kind. There is lots and lots of evidence that evolution is taking place now, that it has taken place in the past and that most life forms in existence today evolved from simpler life forms in the past. The Theory of Evolution describes how this is possible and why evolution happen ...[text shortened]... erwhelming evidence against it that it does take faith and a significant amount of it at that.