29 Jun 05
I believe scientists even 30 years ago were using the term microevolution to refer to changes below the species level, macroevolution to refer to changes above the species level, and megaevolution to refer to very large evolutionary changes that occur over very long periods of time.
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerI am not saying that the your Maths is wrong. There is more than one way to calculate probability. You may have used two different methods and got slightly different answers. I will admit that Probability is not my field of study. So I will have to trust those that are experts in the field.
I am not saying that the your Maths is wrong. There is more than one way to calculate probability. You may have used two different methods and got slightly different answers. I will admit that Probability is not my field of study. So I will have to trust those that are experts in the field.
So seeing you claim to be an expert:
Would be so kind as to ...[text shortened]... probability of the simplest strand of DNA forming by chance given the four base pairs, C,A,G,T.
Which "alternative" measure are you referring to? I used exactly the same method that they did. I just showed that they really did not understand what they were writing. The answers were not "slightly" different. Mine was correct; the other was wrong. Given that probability is not your field, what makes you think that they were using a different method?
BTW: I am not a probability theorist so to be precise probability is not my field either. However, I use probabilities, statistics, stochastic processes, and the like extensively in my field and have had advanced training in these areas. Honestly, though you really don't need more than an undergraduate statistics class to do what I did.
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloJust for the edification of the audience, why don't you elaborate on the principle.
dj2,
have you ever heard of the Anthropic Principle? care to explain why you dismiss it's sound common sense?
care also to explain how the above thought experiments are in any way related to evolution?
let's apply your reasoning to something else: the standard 3x3x3 rubik's cube has over 43 quintillion possible distinguishable combinations ...[text shortened]... must mean that the sky is neon green. nope...see, your style of argument doesn't always work.
06 Jul 05
Originally posted by Langtreethe anthropic principle (AP) is devilishly simple, but it nevertheless houses quite a bit of gunfire against those who continually drone on about how improbable evolution seems to be. it highlights the simple fact that this creationist argument is really no argument at all. thankfully, as evidenced by this thread, many of the people at RHP already recognize this.
Just for the edification of the audience, why don't you elaborate on the principle.
the AP has many forms (weak, strong, what-have-you); the following is a form given by Hawking in one of his public lectures (http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html):
'if the conditions were not suitable for life (and evolution), we wouldn't be asking why they are as they are.'
if you think about that statement for a while, it is hard to ignore its implications. i really do not understand why creationists like dj2 keep making the 'evolution is highly improbable' argument. using a fair quarter, suppose i were to flip 50 straight heads in a row. there are at least a couple ways to explain such a situation. we could, for example, conclude that the 50 straight heads were obtained through natural events (namely, my flipping the coin fifty times subject to the laws of physics that govern our world), and that 50 straight heads obtained despite the fact that the probability of throwing 50 straight heads is exceedingly low. on the other hand, we could conclude that since throwing 50 heads in a row is highly improbable, there must then exist some supernatural Quarter God whom we cannot understand or know through our senses or rational thought; for Quarter God, probabilites are meaningless; according to his will, Quarter God can change any improbable fair-quarter-flipping outcome from improbable to certain. the 50 straight heads were then simply the result of Quarter God's supernatural influences. both theories explain the observed outcome of 50 straight heads; however, one is rational and the other is completely arbitrary and irrational.
if the example about Quater God seems ridiculous to you, then explain to me how it is any different whatsoever from the implied assertion that brought this thread into being -- namely, that the improbable nature of evolution must necessarily imply the existence of a creator. this assertion fails on so many levels that it surprises me that creationists continue to bring it up. improbability (as opposed to impossibility) demonstrates precious little, and that is one of the main points of the AP. i would also add that the improbability of evolution demonstrates even less than precious little when your proposed alternate view is something just as irrational and arbitrary as Quarter God.
07 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloAfter reading this, your point is?
the anthropic principle (AP) is devilishly simple, but it nevertheless houses quite a bit of gunfire against those who continually drone on about how improbable evolution seems to be. it highlights the simple fact that this creationist argument is really no argument at all. thankfully, as evidenced by this thread, many of the people at RHP already recog ...[text shortened]... your proposed alternate view is something just as irrational and arbitrary as Quarter God.
Kelly
07 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayAfter reading this
After reading this, your point is?
Kelly
since you read my post, which was in repsonse to langtree's request, you can certainly be more specific concerning which part of my post you fail to understand.
your point is?
my point is that this response of yours is misplaced -- it actually belongs at the beginning of this thread right after (and in response to) dj2's initial post.
KJ, please explain to me why the following arguments are not equivalent and also why one should be taken more seriously than the other:
argument 1: the improbable nature of evolution implies the existence of a supernatural creator.
argument 2: the improbable nature of throwing 50 straight heads with a fair coin implies that whenever 50 straight heads obtain, it must be the handiwork of a supernatural Quarter God.
07 Jul 05
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloI imagine it means that if something cannot happen because it is
[b]After reading this
since you read my post, which was in repsonse to langtree's request, you can certainly be more specific concerning which part of my post you fail to understand.
your point is?
my point is that t ...[text shortened]... ds obtain, it must be the handiwork of a supernatural Quarter God.[/b]
quite beyond all reasonable odds, it therefore didn’t happen the
way the odds forbid. Therefore it means the argument suggests
that if the event did happened anyway than something else that was
not accounted for needs to added to the mix. Therefore something
needs to help dispel the obstacles which put up the huge odds.
So your quote is a farce.
“ 'if the conditions were not suitable for life (and evolution), we
wouldn't be asking why they are as they are.'"
You can do a lot with odds if you are not careful; we look at a
single deck of playing cards 52 of them. We can write out one of
the possible sequences, figure out the possibility of getting that
sequence correct after a mixing and a random shuffling of the
cards. We can go through the process and see if we got our written
out sequence was right, odds are we will be wrong. Does that
mean that finding another sequence we were not looking for over
came those odds? The fact that a sequence occurred and that one
was going to occur was 100% after the mix and shuffle.
So now we are discussing, can an event occur this way or that
way. How life started is the question, seeing life does not by the
simple fact we see it, prove evolution as your quote suggests!
The only thing that is proven is that there is life, nothing more.
So will time and natural processes under any known conditions
cause life? Simply seeing life is not a yes answer to evolution
did it, it is the question.
Kelly
07 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJellousing a fair quarter, suppose i were to flip 50 straight heads in a row. there are at least a couple ways to explain such a situation.
the anthropic principle (AP) is devilishly simple, but it nevertheless houses quite a bit of gunfire against those who continually drone on about how improbable evolution seems to be. it highlights the simple fact that this creationist ...[text shortened]... is something just as irrational and arbitrary as Quarter God.
There is another naturalistic hypothesis if we do not assume right away that the quarter is fair. Let's say that all we can verify is that 50 heads were observed in fifty attempts. Now a supernatural explaination would be as you say, "Goddunnit!" A natural explaination is that the coin flipping isn't really "fair," rather "heads" is far more likely than "tails." The natural explaination is that the probability mass function is not uniform. Similarly, evolution is not guided by a uniform process. My critique of the coin analogy is that it concedes a uniform process which is not the case.
07 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are correct that one must be careful when calculating probabilities of events by not confusing an ex ante probability with an ex post probability.
I imagine it means that if something cannot happen because it is
quite beyond all reasonable odds, it therefore didn’t happen the
way the odds forbid. Therefore it means the argument suggests
that if the event did happened anyway than something else that was
not accounted for needs to added to the mix. Therefore something
needs to help dispel the obsta ...[text shortened]... life? Simply seeing life is not a yes answer to evolution
did it, it is the question.
Kelly
07 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJaythere is major premise flaws in any random odds calculation since they don't take into consideration what restrictions are placed on the possible chemical bonds . For example the 4 basic acids have only 4 ways of bonding. not the 16 that random calls for. And then having formed "base pairs" the next step is the bonding of 3 base pairs into a single part of the genetic code. This codexes also have rules of what can bond with what and further reduces randomness.
I imagine it means that if something cannot happen because it is
quite beyond all reasonable odds, it therefore didn’t happen the
way the odds forbid. Therefore it means the argument suggests
that if the event did happened anyway than something else that was
not accounted for needs to added to the mix. Therefore something
needs to help dispel the obsta ...[text shortened]... life? Simply seeing life is not a yes answer to evolution
did it, it is the question.
Kelly
Whatever the odds were , it's still a certainty that life is on this earth and that quantum mechanics can explain the process from non-life to evolution and beyond.
07 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompClaims can be made, that is all.
there is major premise flaws in any random odds calculation since they don't take into consideration what restrictions are placed on the possible chemical bonds . For example the 4 basic acids have only 4 ways of bonding. not the 16 that random calls for. And then having formed "base pairs" the next step is the bonding of 3 ...[text shortened]... nd that quantum mechanics can explain the process from non-life to evolution and beyond.
Kelly
07 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayIn the end though, that's all creationism is, just a claim and although it cuts against the grain for you , the simple fact is it's a claim that's totally unsupported by factual data. This is not the case with evolution , which has more than enough data behind it to raise the "claim's" level of certainty to theory status. I am assuming you know the difference between the folk usage of the word theory and it's use in the scientific method.
Claims can be made, that is all.
Kelly
08 Jul 05
Originally posted by telerionyes, good point. the coin-flipping analogy premises a fair coin, which is a premise that can easily be challenged. you are right to say that this premise does not couple well with the evolution conundrum...certainly not the best analogy.
[b]using a fair quarter, suppose i were to flip 50 straight heads in a row. there are at least a couple ways to explain such a situation.
There is another naturalistic hypothesis if we do not assume right away that the quarter is fair. Let's say that all we can verify is that 50 heads were observed in fifty attempts. Now a supernatural explaina ...[text shortened]... que of the coin analogy is that it concedes a uniform process which is not the case.
[/b]
however, to be clear, my point is that improbability does not justify a supernatural solution. if the coin is known without doubt to be fair, the supernatural solution is arbitrary at best -- most people would laugh aloud at such a suggestion.
08 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayseeing life does not by the simple fact we see it, prove evolution as your quote suggests!
I imagine it means that if something cannot happen because it is
quite beyond all reasonable odds, it therefore didn’t happen the
way the odds forbid. Therefore it means the argument suggests
that if the event did happened anyway than something else that was
not accounted for needs to added to the mix. Therefore something
needs to help dispel the obsta ...[text shortened]... life? Simply seeing life is not a yes answer to evolution
did it, it is the question.
Kelly
the quote suggests nothing of the sort. but it should make you think twice about seeing creationism as the only solution.
The only thing that is proven is that there is life, nothing more.
i agree strongly with the majority of your post. you are making complete sense. but i don't see how any of what you are saying is making the case for creationism. if anything, your words sound like agnosticism, which is my general hunting grounds on this issue. i go somewhat further and say that evolution makes much more sense than creationism, which is an arbitrary, irrational solution to the problem. what positive proof do you have for creationism?
08 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayThere's a saying that might help you here:
I imagine it means that if something cannot happen because it is
quite beyond all reasonable odds, it therefore didn’t happen the
way the odds forbid. Therefore it means the argument suggests
that if the event did happened anyway than something else that was
not accounted for needs to added to the mix. Therefore something
needs to help dispel the obsta ...[text shortened]... life? Simply seeing life is not a yes answer to evolution
did it, it is the question.
Kelly
There are lies ,and there are bigger lies,and then there is statistics.
If you want to look up the type of people that actually uses probability theory in their work . look up the guy I quoted earlier.
If he supports my position that Quantum Mechanics is all that's neccessary for life to form naturally out of non-life , its based of the laws of physics.
btw I also think "creationists" have a view of God that limits Him, and reduces Him to no more than any stone-age god.