is TIME a problem? Or is this guy retarded?

POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, May 26, 2007 14:33
VIEWED: 10984
PAGE 1 of 1

KANEMAN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:07 PM

I just got done reading an article. The guy made these assumptions in his calculations:

If there are 10^80 electrons in the universe.
And the universes age is 30 billion years(that being on the high end), which is 10^18 seconds.
And the chance of a simple 100 part protein randomly coming together is 10^158.
Now if the electrons equal the number of available particles for components. Only 10^78 such groups could exist at any one time. Far short of the 10^158 chances needed. Chances are it was not successful. Now if the particles have to reshuffle to try again, and that only takes a billionth of a second, than 10^9 trials can be made per second.

He than says with even these absurdly generous conditions there is only time for 10^105 tries( 10^78 * 10^9 *10^18 ) And that this makes it statistically impossible for the evolution of a protein, never-mind all known life in the universe......

This makes sense to me. Am I missing something here? Is there a flaw to his reasoning?

STORYMARK

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:11 PM

Yep. Much more statisticly likely that a giant invisible man with a beard said "Let there be life" and *poof*, here we are.

Makes much more sense....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

BIONICBATMAN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:11 PM

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:15 PM

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

If you ever have a question about evolution, check talkorigins.org, they probably have the answer. If they don't then the talk.origins newsgroup can probably find it for you.

KHYRON

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:17 PM

Does he assume a uniform distribution of electrons throughout the universe? By the sounds of it, yes he does, in which case he would be retarded.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Does he assume a uniform distribution of electrons throughout the universe? By the sounds of it, yes he does, in which case he would be retarded.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

No, I think he's actually allowing them all in one place (for arguments sake I guess). Which he says is even more generous than the actual dispersal.........

KANEMAN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Yep. Much more statisticly likely that a giant invisible man with a beard said "Let there be life" and *poof*, here we are.

Makes much more sense....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Trying to stay away from the religious shit. Just looking up the probability of life...

KANEMAN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

If you ever have a question about evolution, check talkorigins.org, they probably have the answer. If they don't then the talk.origins newsgroup can probably find it for you.

Thanks for this link.....

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:36 PM

As an addition to the link I posted.

There's two possibilities, either he's not very good at what he does or he's intentionally lying, my money's on the latter.

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

If you ever have a question about evolution, check talkorigins.org, they probably have the answer. If they don't then the talk.origins newsgroup can probably find it for you.

Thanks for this link.....

Did it answer your question?

OLDENGLANDDRY

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Yep. Much more statisticly likely that a giant invisible man with a beard said "Let there be life" and *poof*, here we are.

How do you know he has a beard if he's invisible?

MISSTRESSAHARA

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:00 PM

Mal's ship goes vroom.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
~*Peter* Peter*; power *re-peater*~
`@/
/Y
/_)

*Petrelli for President. Together we can soar.*
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HEROE'S IS MY CRACK!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

KANEMAN

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

If you ever have a question about evolution, check talkorigins.org, they probably have the answer. If they don't then the talk.origins newsgroup can probably find it for you.

Thanks for this link.....

Did it answer your question?

It did answer my question, but even in that forum they are talking a LONG time (not as long) to form a single sugar. My question now is, is there any way to take the statistical probability of life (lesser or higher) and determine how many mutations it would take, the time it would take, the route it would take... to get to us having this discussion.....Every thing I am reading is saying ...believing in god is retarded..and there is no way it could happen if the universe is 13.7 billion yrs. old never mind 30 billion.... Well, just trying to figure out how I climbed out of the primordial ooze to be come kaneman..........

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Misstressahara:
Mal's ship goes vroom.

And swoosh! Don't forget swoosh!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

MISSTRESSAHARA

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:04 PM

And *ooooooooooooooo* Look at the pweddy colors.
o_0

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
~*Peter* Peter*; power *re-peater*~
`@/
/Y
/_)

*Petrelli for President. Together we can soar.*
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HEROE'S IS MY CRACK!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:04 PM

Quote:
My question now is, is there any way to take the statistical probability of life (lesser or higher) and determine how many mutations it would take, the time it would take, the route it would take... to get to us having this discussion.....

Not really, the thing is that there are times when large chunks of the genome have been replicated, there are times when many mutations take hold in a short period, there are regressions, there is natural selection, sexual selection, extinction. There's just too many variables to get a clear picture. If you make a lot of assumptions you can arrive at a figure for how it COULD have gone, but there's no way to tell the way things actually happened since DNA doesn't fossilize.

Quote:
Every thing I am reading is saying ...believing in god is retarded..

I'm not sure if this is what you are implying but evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of a god.

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:38 PM

One other thing throwing a wrench into plotting our genetic past is the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium. Punk Eek basically says that evolution does not move continuously but rather runs in short spurts then plateaus for a while when the population lacks a sufficient evolutionary pressure to change. Evolution is extremely messy and convoluted in practice, though in theory it's pretty simple.

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
My question now is, is there any way to take the statistical probability of life (lesser or higher) and determine how many mutations it would take, the time it would take, the route it would take... to get to us having this discussion.....

Not really, the thing is that there are times when large chunks of the genome have been replicated, there are times when many mutations take hold in a short period, there are regressions, there is natural selection, sexual selection, extinction. There's just too many variables to get a clear picture. If you make a lot of assumptions you can arrive at a figure for how it COULD have gone, but there's no way to tell the way things actually happened since DNA doesn't fossilize.

Quote:
Every thing I am reading is saying ...believing in god is retarded..

I'm not sure if this is what you are implying but evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of a god.

Just asking....your link(I think) made the case that it is possible to make a sugar molecule in less than 10^158 SECONDS...how do we get the diversity we see on this planet after the smaller time?

I think getting something from nothing is wrong...I also believe GOD did not make it happen.....There has to be something we can't yet comprehend.......

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Just asking....your link(I think) made the case that it is possible to make a sugar molecule in less than 10^158 SECONDS...how do we get the diversity we see on this planet after the smaller time?

Massively parallel development + a wide variety of ways to mutate. I once heard an analogy that went something like this, give identical books to a few thousand different scribes and have them copy the books, each scribe will likely leave a couple errors in their copy, take the copy and give it to another scribe and have them copy that one, they will leave a few errors of their own, in a few thousand generations the books will be noticeably different but still obviously the same, but after a couple hundred thousand generations they will be barely recognizable as being related because of the accumulation of errors.

If you consider that some of the mutations were assisted by natural selection or sexual selection and also consider polyploidy (where entire chromosomes double) then the mutations add up very fast.

Quote:
I think getting something from nothing is wrong

All the building blocks were already there, they just followed the laws of chemistry and assembled themselves until one (or more) started a self-replicating reaction.

RUE

Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:22 AM

Stephen Wolfram showed that extremely complex patterns develop from the application of simple rules, over time.

I have thought that once formed a reproductive system (including life) has a survival edge over completely random systems. So it only needs to happen once, and then it takes over any random system. The other thing is that a system that uses limited random changes (evolves) will outpace a rigid system.

ANTIMASON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:21 AM

Quote:
posted by Fredgiblet- If you consider that some of the mutations were assisted by natural selection or sexual selection and also consider polyploidy (where entire chromosomes double) then the mutations add up very fast.

yet id venture to guess that this hypothetical species remained within its 'archetype', and didnt evolve into something different altogether. we all plainly see micro evolution, but the other two(macro/abiogenesis) require a burden of proof that i dont feel has been delivered. now please correct me if im mistaken, but we should at the least have thousands of examples available from the fossil record to support all these alleged billions of species successfully and unsuccessfully evolving and mutating. there should be a pretty sizeable gap between non life(billions of years ago), to present day.. i would think that we'd have more fossil evidence of every species progressive evolution from microscopic organisms to their current states. i am left with the impression that cats have always been cats, without any of these extreme biological deviances to its archetype. now i accept that this then poses the question 'then where did it come from'?.. to which id suggest it was uniquely designed that way. but then thats the flaw of ID, its either obvious or its not(apparently)

SERGEANTX

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
yet id venture to guess that this hypothetical species remained within its 'archetype', and didnt evolve into something different altogether.

I've heard this argument before, and I find it a little confusing. It sounds like you're imagining one complex creature 'turning into' another, like a cat turning into a horse or something. But that's not the way it works. Animals evolve through mutation and natural selection - I'm assuming this is what you mean by 'micro evolution'. Each individual organism will carry minor changes forward, some in one direction, some in another. If those lines evolve separately for a long enough period of time they might be considered two different species. It's a largely arbitrary distinction anyway.

I'd say that evolution isn't about creatures morphing into new creatures, it's more about life from common sources diverging as it reproduces.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ANTIMASON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
It sounds like you're imagining one complex creature 'turning into' another, like a cat turning into a horse or something. But that's not the way it works.

the way ive heard it explained is that life began in the oceans, as proteins, and from there progressed over vast, inconceivable amounts of time, from an amphibious life form, to a land bound species, and from there into all the different forms of life we see today(overly simplified of course). to me, this is an enormous leap in logic.. and maybe you can explain it better, but i dont feel we have anything remotely resembling evidence to support this contention

SERGEANTX

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
... to me, this is an enormous leap in logic.

To me, it seems like an inevitable conclusion. Once you buy the idea of genetic change and natural selection, how could you not end up with a bunch of radically different creatures after millions and millions of years?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

If there are 10^80 electrons in the universe.

This is where I call bullshit. This number could not possibly be known. And since everything is dependent on this, his house of cards get blown down.

I believe looking up straw-man and red herring arguments would shed some light on what this guy has done.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

ANTIMASON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

To me, it seems like an inevitable conclusion. Once you buy the idea of genetic change and natural selection, how could you not end up with a bunch of radically different creatures after millions and millions of years?

well, thats if you accept the premise that the earth is billions of years old. i think if we're honost with ourselves, we'll admit that we have no real way to establish a date on the earth(at this point). it seems baffling to consider where the earth came from... i can see why we'd assume its old beyond imagine, but i dont neccessarily know that to be the truth. someone above made a fair observation when he asked what the mathematical possibility would be that random change would produce everything in existence, with its intricate design, in such abundance... and you really have to wonder- are we here by accident, or by design? its really a pretty fundemental question

SEVENPERCENT

Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:46 PM

Sigh. You know, it's posts like this that really make me sad for the human race. The fact that we live in a society with (mostly, let's not turn this into a different debate here) free education and we still have posts like Antimason's convinces me that we will never get off this rock alive (as a species).

Look, it's -admittedly- hard for me to not be insulting in replying to this post, but for Pete's sake, if you're this deliberately obtuse in your way of thinking there's no hope for you left. You're obviously either retarded or trolling, and at this point I'm not sure which.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

well, thats if you accept the premise that the earth is billions of years old. i think if we're honost with ourselves, we'll admit that we have no real way to establish a date on the earth(at this point).

Yes, we do. There are lists of scientific methods a mile long that have given us an accurate picture of the age of the universe, and of the Earth itself. Radiocarbon dating. Isotopic decay. Mathmatics on the speed of particles (light, other radiation). Seriously, what more do you want? You're holding out such hope for God to come down from the Heavens and say, "I created the world on Sept. 5th at 3 am 6000 years ago" that you're losing your ability to grasp the rational. The problem isn't "we" aren't honest with ourselves, it's "you" aren't honest with yourself - you're so desperate to be a believer that you've given up any train of rational thought.

Quote:
it seems baffling to consider where the earth came from... i can see why we'd assume its old beyond imagine, but i dont neccessarily know that to be the truth.

This is what I mean by deliberately obtuse. How can you not know it? It takes a supreme act of mental blindness to ignore the evidence for the age if the Earth in 2007.

Quote:
someone above made a fair observation when he asked what the mathematical possibility would be that random change would produce everything in existence, with its intricate design, in such abundance... and you really have to wonder- are we here by accident, or by design? its really a pretty fundemental question

I think it's your choice of terminology that sends you into the downward mental spiral. "Accident." Why not "realization of a possibility?" Is random chance really that bad? In fact, I think that if it were true that we came about randomly, it would in fact make us more likely to care about one another and the planet we lived on. We too often don't worry about our planet or each other because of a belief in the supernatural, which is frightening. Besides, what difference does design make to the age of the universe? I believe that the universe was set in motion by God, and yet I have no problems believing in science and evolution. I can separate faith and reason in my brain. Why can't you?

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

SEVENPERCENT

Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Well, just trying to figure out how I climbed out of the primordial ooze to be come kaneman..........

Judging by some of your posts, I'm not sure you made the climb.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:54 PM

Are you a teacher Seven? And if so does this tone of lecture go over well with your students?

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:14 PM

Antimason,

"he way ive heard it explained is that life began in the oceans, as proteins, and from there progressed over vast, inconceivable amounts of time,"

Actually, the earth is about 4.567 billion years old. This guy used the age of the universe for his stats, which is 30 billion years. And still came up with zero chance. There is a link above from Fredg that shows how statistics can be misleading, however
there is a link at the bottom of that forum that brings you to another site That states http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

"The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20)32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040. This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10390 of the standard creationist "generating carboxypeptidase by chance" scenario, but still seems absurdly low."

Now that seems better if using 30 billion as time frame, the problem I am having is the earth is not that old making even the smaller number improbable.

Then for conclusion:

"The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies.

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.

However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping."

Not sure if he is saying... "at the present time evolution can't be proven"

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Well, just trying to figure out how I climbed out of the primordial ooze to be come kaneman..........

Judging by some of your posts, I'm not sure you made the climb.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

LOL....Wow!!!Seven has some humor!!! Never would have guessed it..............

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Actually, the earth is about 4.567 billion years old. This guy used the age of the universe for his stats, which is 30 billion years.

The age of the universe is irrelevant if other numbers are wrong. Please read my previous post.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:05 PM

@SevenPercent:

Brutal but brilliant!

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:07 PM

So I am looking around the Internet and all I read is how it isn't as impossible to make monomers or polymers if there was enough ingredients (I'll try not to ask where these ingredients came from) as some creationists make it seem.
Then I come across these:

"Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible if such a coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival."

"The fact that in all organisms living today the processes both of replication of the DNA and of the effective translation of its code require highly precise enzymes and that, at the same time, the molecular structures of those same enzymes are precisely specified by the DNA itself, poses a remarkable evolutionary mystery."

"Directions for the reproduction of genes, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth- all had to be simultaneously present at one moment" - Haskings

"Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the Arthropods. It's hard enough accounting for the origins of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to modern theory makes my head swim" -Salisbury
(That reminds me of Charles Darwin saying the thought that the eye could be made by natural selection made him ill.)

Have any of these questions been answered?

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

If there are 10^80 electrons in the universe.

This is where I call bullshit. This number could not possibly be known. And since everything is dependent on this, his house of cards get blown down.

I believe looking up straw-man and red herring arguments would shed some light on what this guy has done.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

Sig, Google it or wikipedia...this is the agreed upon number not his........

*edit*
If you so easily believe all the other "knowns" from scientists, why trouble with this one?

KHYRON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:11 PM

Sigma, 10^80 electrons in the universe is a fair estimate. Unless Wikipedia has it wrong too, but I think I remember seeing that estimate elsewhere before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Sig, Google it or wikipedia...this is the agreed upon number not his........

*edit*
If you so easily believe all the other "knowns" from scientists, why trouble with this one?

You don't get it. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron#In_the_universe

We have:

"""
Scientists believe that the number of electrons existing in the known universe is at least 10^79.
"""

Please note the use of the word "believe" and the use of the word "known" /before/ universe.

So, what about the part of the universe that we can't see? What about types of exotic matter that we don't know anything about nor even know exists that could seriously skew these numbers.

You aren't reading beyond the number nor where it came from.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

SEVENPERCENT

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Are you a teacher Seven? And if so does this tone of lecture go over well with your students?

I am. But I wasn't aware I was supposed to be teaching.

In the classroom, I am patient and attentive until I am sure my students "get it." In the RWED, I get tired of idiots who are willfully ignorant, and I can vent.

True story: My friends (outside of school) know me as a firecracker who is easily wound. On the other hand, my students have repeatedly been dumbstruck by the fact that I never lose my patience in the classroom. I can hold one set of emotions in one place, and one set in another - kind of like faith and reason. There are times and places for ways of thinking and reacting.

Besides - summer vacation started. I'm off the clock.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:33 PM

"So, what about the part of the universe that we can't see? What about types of exotic matter that we don't know anything about nor even know exists that could seriously skew these numbers."

I think you are making a better case for this guy. He thinks that that number 10^80 is generous, that in the calculations if we used the number of electrons on earth and a lesser 4.567 billion year age frame the statistical probabilities defy the human mind..........

KHYRON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So, what about the part of the universe that we can't see? What about types of exotic matter that we don't know anything about nor even know exists that could seriously skew these numbers.

Right, we should be taking into consideration as many hypothetical forms of matter it takes to make the numbers work out in favour of evolutionists. Not exactly sound science, but who cares, we need to disprove the creationists by any means necessary, right?

OR we can just look at the Talkorigins link that Fred supplied for a counterargument that actually works.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:34 PM

"I get tired of idiots who are willfully ignorant, and I can vent."

Tell me about it! I think the same way....You ass.

SEVENPERCENT

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Right, we should be taking into consideration as many hypothetical forms of matter it takes to make the numbers work out in favour of evolutionists. Not exactly sound science, but who cares, we need to disprove the creationists by any means necessary, right?

Why not take hypotheticals into account? Scientists have evidence that dark matter and other oddball sounding stuff exists; they just don't know how to measure its effects yet. All he was saying was "what we can measure right now may not be the only things influencing how the universe works." Admittedly, this in itself sounds almost like a creationist argument. The difference is that science says, "let's figure it out," while creationism says, "God did it, that's enough."

Besides. You can't "disprove" what they have never managed to "prove." That's the problem inherent with creationism and faith.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

SEVENPERCENT

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Tell me about it! I think the same way

God help me.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:54 PM

God?

KHYRON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Why not take hypotheticals into account?

Why should they be taken into account if there are better counterarguments available? Saying something like "That calculation isn't true because there's other stuff that we don't know much about that might have an effect" doesn't sound like an argument any creationist would accept, and trying to win arguments by invoking the magical realm of possibilities that hypotheticals allow doesn't seem like the solid, scientific counterargument I'd be comfortable with.

Quote:
The difference is that science says, "let's figure it out," while creationism says, "God did it, that's enough."

Right, but using Sigma's argument we'd have science countering "God did it, that's enough" with "Some stuff we don't know about did it, that's enough".

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

KHYRON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:04 PM

By the way, this is a completely pointless off-topic discussion, because presumably the reason why that creationist dude only took electrons into account is because they are what's necessary for atoms to combine and form molecules. Unless it was recently discovered that dark matter holds together proteins, I don't know what Sigma was on about.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

SEVENPERCENT

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Right, but using Sigma's argument we'd have science countering "God did it, that's enough" with "Some stuff we don't know about did it, that's enough".

But Sigma's not saying "that's enough." That's the difference. He's saying "we're still looking, so don't call the debate finsihed yet."

Wait a minute - what the hell are we arguing for, anyway? Aren't we on the same side? Forget I brought it up.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:15 PM

I think the Creationist model is followed more closely by measurable natural law, in that it would predict a decaying universe(it was created perfect and can only go down from there). We know matter can't be created or destroyed, but we also know that it is slowly decaying into useless matter. With evolution things are constantly evolving into higher tiers. Why would the matter act differently than life? In evolution new species would appear. In creationism species would disappear over time. What do we observe? The fossil records do show one clear thing a lot of species have gone extinct. At the same time not one fossil has ever been found in an intermittent stage, we don't see any new species. What does that show? And for an organism to 'change'- Two must evolve at the same time , find one another, and fuck each other...Right?

KHYRON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Wait a minute - what the hell are we arguing for, anyway? Aren't we on the same side? Forget I brought it up.

I think about good scientific counterarguments vs bad ones. See my previous post as to why this is pointless in this context.

But mostly I just wanted to see you in action again, 7%. Welcome back, hope you stick around during the summer break!

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

RUE

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:27 PM

'Electrons' don't bump into each other randomly. Atoms do, and they stick by attractive forces. That's how you get water (H2O) - which is two hydrogens sticking with an oxygen - or even gaseous oxygen (O2), hydrogen (H2), nitrogen (N2) etc. According to the 'theory' proposed these normal-state compounds shouldn't exist, simply because the probability is too low for it to happen by chance.

KHYRON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
With evolution things are constantly evolving into higher tiers.

Organisms may be complex, but the matter that they're made out of isn't. Note that there are no 'tiers' in evolution, unless fitness to its environment is defined as such. From an evolutionary point of view, a cockroach is more successful than an elephant, or human for that matter.

Quote:
At the same time not one fossil has ever been found in an intermittent stage, we don't see any new species.

Unless the fossil is that of a species that became extinct, every fossil is that of an intermittent species. And this argument is clearly a no-win argument for scientists, since if we have fossils A and C, then there's a "missing link" we need to find. Say paleontologists then find fossil B connecting A and C, then there'll be two "missing links", between A and B and B and C, etc.

Quote:
And for an organism to 'change'- Two must evolve at the same time , find one another, and fuck each other...Right?

Just one organism, and if it lives longer due to its beneficial mutation then it'll have more time to get its freak on and the chances of passing along the beneficial genetic mutation are increased. Doesn't need two organisms with the same random mutation finding each other to work, although I bet it'd make for funny personal ads... if animals had personal ads.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:41 PM

"Unless the fossil is that of a species that became extinct, every fossil is an intermittent species. And this argument is clearly a no-win argument for scientists, since if we have fossils A and C, then there's a "missing link" we need to find. Say paleontologists then find fossil B connecting A and C, then there'll be two "missing links", between A and B and B and C, etc."

I see your point, but would disagree. I think that if the missing link was extremely obvious most would except it. I'm sure some would argue about a need for even more missing links, but I think it is because people love to say 'missing link'.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
We know matter can't be created or destroyed, but we also know that it is slowly decaying into useless matter. With evolution things are constantly evolving into higher tiers. Why would the matter act differently than life?

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

Quote:
In evolution new species would appear. In creationism species would disappear over time. What do we observe? The fossil records do show one clear thing a lot of species have gone extinct.

And a lot have appeared as well.

Quote:
At the same time not one fossil has ever been found in an intermittent stage

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Quote:
we don't see any new species.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Quote:
And for an organism to 'change'- Two must evolve at the same time , find one another, and fuck each other...Right?

If an organism evolved yes, but organisms don't evolve, populations do. Massive single shifts in genes are rare and usually produce infertile creatures but a collection of small changes bring about new species gradually without infertility.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"Unless the fossil is that of a species that became extinct, every fossil is an intermittent species. And this argument is clearly a no-win argument for scientists, since if we have fossils A and C, then there's a "missing link" we need to find. Say paleontologists then find fossil B connecting A and C, then there'll be two "missing links", between A and B and B and C, etc."

I see your point, but would disagree. I think that if the missing link was extremely obvious most would except it. I'm sure some would argue about a need for even more missing links, but I think it is because people love to say 'missing link'.

The problem is that's exactly what happens, there a large number of transitional fossils between ape and human but creationists who look at them always say "This one is fully ape, that one is fully human"*. Most people looking at the set of transitional fossils between ape and human (r any other pair of species) can see that they are indeed transitional, but creationists simply say no they aren't.

*Note: The never agree with each other as to which ones are which though.

RUE

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:07 PM

"We know matter can't be created or destroyed, but we also know that it is slowly decaying into useless matter."
First a correction - matter doesn't decay, energy is proposed to undergo entropy.

"With evolution things are constantly evolving into higher tiers."
'Higher' (and 'lower') imply there is some kind of goal to evolution, which isn't the case.

"The fossil records do show one clear thing a lot of species have gone extinct."
The fossil record also indicates that humans or giraffes DIDN'T live alongside dinosaurs, and that dinosaurs DIDN'T live alongside trilobites.

"At the same time not one fossil has ever been found in an intermittent stage"
There are plenty of intermittent fossils, for example in the fossil record of land animal ----> whale. But as was pointed out, that won't satisfy you, because what you will insist on is intermediates between the intermediates.

Quote:

I think there are some useful things for you to remember as you think on the topic:

1) when it comes to the creation of life, time is your friend, because, with time, all sorts of things will happen by chance, and life is one of them
2) life only has to happen once, and then it will inevitably overtake the random system in which it spawned
3) when it comes to the evolution of life time is also your friend because random changes and natural selection will be at work

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"Unless the fossil is that of a species that became extinct, every fossil is an intermittent species. And this argument is clearly a no-win argument for scientists, since if we have fossils A and C, then there's a "missing link" we need to find. Say paleontologists then find fossil B connecting A and C, then there'll be two "missing links", between A and B and B and C, etc."

I see your point, but would disagree. I think that if the missing link was extremely obvious most would except it. I'm sure some would argue about a need for even more missing links, but I think it is because people love to say 'missing link'.

The problem is that's exactly what happens, there a large number of transitional fossils between ape and human but creationists who look at them always say "This one is fully ape, that one is fully human"*. Most people looking at the set of transitional fossils between ape and human (r any other pair of species) can see that they are indeed transitional, but creationists simply say no they aren't.

*Note: The never agree with each other as to which ones are which though.

I must say I have a hard time with anthropologists looking at bone fragments, jaws ,and teeth and coming to any conclusion at all...smells like junk science.......I do know there are a couple half fossils, but most are a piece here and a piece there. I think that some of these classifications are a little 'out there'.........

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:15 PM

"First a correction - matter doesn't decay, energy is proposed to undergo entropy."

Well, in any event the 'energy'(converted matter) is degraded to the point of randomness and unavailability.............

"There are plenty of intermittent fossils, for example in the fossil record of land animal ----> whale. But as was pointed out, that won't satisfy you, because what you will insist on is intermediates between the intermediates."

I am not saying that animals do not adapt or change environments. But, a whale is a whale and a gnat is a gnat and always will...Well, with slight changes.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I must say I have a hard time with anthropologists looking at bone fragments, jaws ,and teeth and coming to any conclusion at all...smells like junk science.......I do know there are a couple half fossils, but most are a piece here and a piece there. I think that some of these classifications are a little 'out there'.........

Actually there is many largely complete skeletons, most of the time conclusions aren't going to be based off of a few fragments and when they are they are usually only accepted as tentative until much better evidence is found.

RUE

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:18 PM

But entropy isn't a constant, and can be eliminated, even reversed, locally. The other thing to remember is that entropy is a theory.

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:20 PM

"The other thing to remember is that entropy is a theory."

Ditto for evolution.........

RUE

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:25 PM

Thats' true. And also remember ID isn't a theory, it's a religion.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"The other thing to remember is that entropy is a theory."

Ditto for evolution.........

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Thats' true. And also remember ID isn't a theory, it's a religion.

An argument can also be made that so is science

KHYRON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:37 PM

Let's not get too careless when it comes to entropy, it's a fundamental part of a physical law. And while in science a law outranks a theory, a theory is something pretty significant in its own right and can be taken as fact, different from the meaning of the word in everyday usage.

Kaneman is right, though, in that eventually the matter in the universe will become useless. It'll either be heavy elements, which can't form suns and all that stuff, or it'll be light elements too dispersed to get pulled towards each other to form suns and all of that stuff. But I don't think any of that is significant in the debate about abiogenesis and evolution...

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:39 PM

Later people, my memorial weekend begins shortly. I have to go pick up beer and fuck my girl friend. Enjoy your holiday. Remember don't drink and walk...drive fuckheads(you know who you are)

RUE

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:40 PM

Kaneman,

Science requires testing, religion forbids it. The two are distinctly different.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Thats' true. And also remember ID isn't a theory, it's a religion.

An argument can also be made that so is science

Just applies to evolution, but can easily be used to cover everything else.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Kaneman,

Science requires testing, religion forbids it. The two are distinctly different.

Disagree, I think there are many religious scholars that study and test religion

RUE

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:01 PM

"Let's not get too careless when it comes to entropy, it's a fundamental part of a physical law."
It's like the 'law' of gravity which people still treat as a theory, except entropy is far less quantified.

"eventually the matter in the universe will become useless."
Only if it all goes through the maw of an active sun. And no one knows quite what happens to the stuff which goes into a black hole.

RUE

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:02 PM

"Disagree, I think there are many religious scholars that study and test religion"

They may look into the history of the religion but faith is required for the tenets.

KHYRON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:17 PM

Show me somebody treating scientific laws as theories and I can find you as many scientists as you like not willing to take that person seriously.

"Only if it all goes through the maw of an active sun."
I also said that there will still be light elements, except that they too will be useless because they're too far apart for gravitational pull to have a significant effect, and hence they wouldn't be able to form anything.

"And no one knows quite what happens to the stuff which goes into a black hole."
Let's stick to what we know and not what might be. This is also the issue I had with Sigma earlier.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

RUE

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:45 PM

Khyron,

Are you claiming that no one is studying gravity? Or space/ dimensions/ quantum theory and gravity? That b/c it's a "law" there's no active research? UUhhh ...

"I also said that there will still be light elements ..."
In an ever expanding universe (as proposed) don't you think there will be non-light matter that escapes the various suns?

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Show me somebody treating scientific laws as theories and I can find you as many scientists as you like not willing to take that person seriously.

As it's been explained to me by a source I trust, the idea of a scientific law is no longer in favor. The reality is that given the progressive nature of science even something that is known to be true will not be immune to refinement, thus the concept of an immutable law is no longer considered valid and new discoveries that in previous generations might have had the title of law applied to them are now being left at the status of theory.

KHYRON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:09 PM

You're the one who brought up the law of gravity, maybe you need a reminder of what it actually is. Yes, I'm claiming that nobody outside of high school is studying this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_universal_gravitation

What causes gravity is a different matter, that's not what this law is about.

"In an ever expanding universe (as proposed) don't you think there will be non-light matter that escapes the various suns?"
Not sure what your point is. Unless a star is at the end of its life, no heavy elements are formed, so none can escape. Even if the star were to form them, I doubt it would emit them. But even without an expanding universe stars explode and hurl all sorts of heavy elemental junk into the cosmos... so? Where are you going with this?

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

KHYRON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:13 PM

Of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

From the first link: "Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens."

Fred, I still think there's a significant difference between laws and theories, but I don't object to the reclassification as long as it's understood that it doesn't mean that theories that have previously been accepted as laws are now less true or points of contention, they're just differently labelled.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

RUE

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:57 PM

Khyron

There are laws that have come under question. Entropy is one of them and gravity is another. When scientists probe into the beginnings the of the universe, its basic structure, and possible end the laws - as currently formulated - fall short. So yes, these supposedly immutable laws do come under scrutiny.

Your contention is that there will be either heavy or light elements. That isn't true unless you're considering that light is hydrogen and helium, and heavy is everything else. (In that case the final dead universe will be composed the same as the current one.)

edited: Einstein put a lot of stock in the idea of entropy. I was looking for the quote (I can't find it) but it went something like - even if all of his theories were to be proven untrue, and in fact if all other physics theories were proven untrue, he thought entropy would remain. For all the credit he gave the idea though, he still recognized it as being a testable theory.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
From the first link: "Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens."

By that definition a law would be reclassified as a fact.

Quote:
Fred, I still think there's a significant difference between laws and theories

There is, it's just that from what I've heard many if not most scientists are backing away from the idea of a law of science since nothing can be proven absolutely in science.

Quote:
but I don't object to the reclassification as long as it's understood that it doesn't mean that theories that have previously been accepted as laws are now less true or points of contention, they're just differently labelled.

This is the problem. One of the favorite tactics of the anti-evolution people is to say "It's only a theory" by playing off of the general publics definition of theory. A scientist will know that being shifted from law to theory isn't much of a downgrade, but to the ublic it seems huge.

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:15 PM

I am trying to say that if molecules and particles are the same throughout the universe, as claimed, where is the evolution? Why don't particles evolve? If they do, why the same everywhere in the universe? If one form of matter evolves shouldn't it all?
And if it is the same every where..can we conclude it comes from the same origin? If we can agree on that, how does it not evolve differently so far removed from its self? After all the whole premise of evolution is to turn the innate into living..but in the end it comes down to Protons, electrons, and such.............they should NOT act uniformly everywhere.........

*Kaneman washes his pecker and goes out for a drink.......*

*slaps his girlfriend, while yelling "hurry the fuck up bitch. I am getting thirsty!"

*slaps baby on her ass saying, "thata girl"*

KHYRON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There are laws that have come under question. Entropy is one of them and gravity is another. When scientists probe into the beginnings the of the universe, its basic structure, and possible end the laws - as currently formulated - fall short.

Sure, under extreme circumstances, such as the time after the Big Bang, or when the bodies are moving at high speeds relative to each other, etc, the laws need to be tweaked. But as far as I can tell we weren't talking about anything like that. In pretty much any given situation, the laws hold.

Quote:
Your contention is that there will be either heavy or light elements. That isn't true unless you're considering that light is hydrogen and helium, and heavy is everything else. (In that case the final dead universe will be composed the same as the current one.)

In this context I consider heavy elements to be the ones that couldn't form a star, i.e. one couldn't get nuclear fusion started. So basically what I'm saying is that there'll be lots of stuff with which one can't form new stars, and all of the stuff with which one could form stars is too few and far between.

Effectively, the universe will be dead. Unless there's a Big Crunch and everything starts anew.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

KHYRON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
By that definition a law would be reclassified as a fact.

Don't see why. 'The fact of universal gravity' sounds less impressive and commanding. Plus one can't use 'facts' to compute stuff, for instance gravitational attraction.

Quote:
There is, it's just that from what I've heard many if not most scientists are backing away from the idea of a law of science since nothing can be proven absolutely in science.

It's the first I've heard of it, but I guess that doesn't mean that it isn't happening. I'm a maths student and we don't hang out with the physicists too much (they have dandruff and watch Star Trek... *shudder*).

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

KHYRON

Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I am trying to say that if molecules and particles are the same throughout the universe, as claimed, where is the evolution? Why don't particles evolve? If they do, why the same everywhere in the universe? If one form of matter evolves shouldn't it all?
And if it is the same every where..can we conclude it comes from the same origin? If we can agree on that, how does it not evolve differently so far removed from its self? After all the whole premise of evolution is to turn the innate into living..but in the end it comes down to Protons, electrons, and such.............they should NOT act uniformly everywhere.........

I don't know where to start with this... so I won't.

Quote:
*Kaneman washes his pecker and goes out for a drink.......*

*slaps his girlfriend, while yelling "hurry the fuck up bitch. I am getting thirsty!"

*slaps baby on her ass saying, "thata girl"*

Aw, that's sweet. Just remember to practice safe sex!

You crazy kids...

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I am trying to say that if molecules and particles are the same throughout the universe, as claimed, where is the evolution? Why don't particles evolve?

Because particles do not reproduce. The components required for evolution are reproduction and heritable variation (a way for the new creatures to be different from their parent(s) and pass those differences on to their offspring), particles have neither of these.

Quote:
If one form of matter evolves shouldn't it all?

It is not the matter in our bodies that is evolving, it is the blueprint that controls how they are put together that is evolving.

Quote:
After all the whole premise of evolution is to turn the innate into living

No it's not. Evolution is separate from the idea of abiogenesis, evolution is strictly about the development of self-replicating structures that have the capacity for heritable variation whether they were created by chemistry, god or aliens.

Abiogenesis is in the domain of organic chemistry and biochemistry instead of biology and is an entirely different topic.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 25, 2007 12:50 AM

Can't even figure out what this person is trying to say...

If there are 10^80 electrons in the universe.
Mebbe. I dunno. How does that sound to the experts?

And the universes age is 30 billion years(that being on the high end), which is 10^18 seconds.
OK

And the chance of a simple 100 part protein randomly coming together is 10^158.
Did he just pull that outta his *ss or was there some sort of guesstimate behind this value?

Now if the electrons equal the number of available particles for components.
I have no idea what he's trying to say here. The number of electrons is not equal to the number of atoms or the number of amino acids ("parts").

Only 10^78 such groups could exist at any one time.
Well it follows his assumptions.

Far short of the 10^158 chances needed.
Still wondering how that figure was developed.

So, if the moon was made of green cheese...

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 1:03 AM

@Sig

I suspect that whoever Kaneman got those numbers from intended for them to discredit evolution, one of the defining characteristics of anti-evolution arguments is the smell of the ass that they were pulled out of.

KANEMAN

Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 AM

"Can't even figure out what this person is trying to say..."

I'll try to clarify.....

"And the universes age is 30 billion years(that being on the high end), which is 10^18 seconds.
OK "

That is generous...it is more like 13.7 ...Well, scientists say it's true....

"And the chance of a simple 100 part protein randomly coming together is 10^158.
Did he just pull that outta his *ss or was there some sort of guesstimate behind this value?"

No guesswork here..any 7th grader can tell you that is the possible number of ways 100 parts can combine to form a functional thingy?.........

"Now if the electrons equal the number of available particles for components....
I have no idea what he's trying to say here. The number of electrons is not equal to the number of atoms or the number of amino acids ("parts")."

Point made is he is being generous...thank him....

"Only 10^78 such groups could exist at any one time.
Well it follows his assumptions."

True........again thank him it is much lower!

"Far short of the 10^158 chances needed.
Still wondering how that figure was developed."

WAS MAKING AN ORIGINAL POINT THAT TO MAKE A SPECIFIC PROTIEN, THAT MEANS ANYTHING(functional) out of 1 hundred parts that is the chance that- that thingy would come into being.......again very generous.....

"So, if the moon was made of green cheese..."

I would eat it! I would not say it was a mushroom that mutated....Well, it's true.........

KANEMAN

Friday, May 25, 2007 1:32 AM

And, I feel like I am being attacked here, because I am asking a question...Using mathematical principles..not Jesus said stuff, to question our being here....What's wrong with that? Who are the fanatics? Clerics or scientists? and who has YOU brainwashed?

KANEMAN

Friday, May 25, 2007 1:39 AM

So, now I am going to go throw-up in the toilet....Oh, I will pray to god while doing so.....Well, it's true.........

RUE

Friday, May 25, 2007 2:30 AM

Yes, you will be on your knees, bowing to the cool hard white god in your bathroom. Well it's true.......

SIGNYM

Friday, May 25, 2007 1:56 PM

Kaneman- there is no reason to think that a 100-part protein has to achieve one SPECIFIC configuration in order to be useful. Take a look at any particular protein (say, hemoglobin) and you will find (in this case) at least a hundred functional variants. And that assumes that "hemoglobin" MIUST have been part of the development. So setting up a specific tempalte and saying that a combination of amino acids has to match that template is one big bad assumption.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KANEMAN

Friday, May 25, 2007 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Kaneman- there is no reason to think that a 100-part protein has to achieve one SPECIFIC configuration in order to be useful. Take a look at any particular protein (say, hemoglobin) and you will find (in this case) at least a hundred functional variants. And that assumes that "hemoglobin" MIUST have been part of the development. So setting up a specific tempalte and saying that a combination of amino acids has to match that template is one big bad assumption.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Not so sure. In the beginning, when there was nothingness. For a particular particle to be made and start evolving into everything else, does it not have to be a particle that can replicate somehow? And that particle would have to be specific and have function. Or now do we say it could be any combination. If the parts were ABC. Wouldn't we assume if BCA is the combination that would yield a functional particle, wouldn't we rule out AAB,CBA, etc....

KANEMAN

Friday, May 25, 2007 4:54 PM

And I read somewhere that all the bones we base human evolution on can fit in one coffin. Any truth to that?

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Not so sure. In the beginning, when there was nothingness.

Cosmology is where the (scientific) answers for where the universe came from, not evolution.

Quote:
For a particular particle to be made and start evolving into everything else, does it not have to be a particle that can replicate somehow?

No, particles don't evolve. We don't know exactly what happened during the Big Bang (or at least I don't) but since the Big Bang the number of any given particles has stayed largely (though not entirely) the same, there is no reproduction or evolution of particles though fusion and fission sometimes results in the conversion of some particles into energy.

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
And I read somewhere that all the bones we base human evolution on can fit in one coffin. Any truth to that?

No. There are quite a few fossils and more than enough to fill a coffin. This is simply more Lying For Jesus.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

KANEMAN

Friday, May 25, 2007 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
And I read somewhere that all the bones we base human evolution on can fit in one coffin. Any truth to that?

No. There are quite a few fossils and more than enough to fill a coffin. This is simply more Lying For Jesus.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

I gotta hand it to you...that is somekinda site....

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 5:52 PM

Yeah, it is (or was there doesn't seem to have been much activity lately) run by a wide variety of people from the talk.origins newsgroup who decided to make a comprehensive site rebutting anti-evolution arguments. This "debate" has been going on for over a century, there's an enormous amount of material rebutting the arguments against evolution. That's what makes this so frustrating, so much of what you will hear against evolution has been disproved decades or even a century ago, yet the anti-evolutionist either don't or won't check their facts. Some like Hovind even use arguments so bad that other anti-evolutionists consider him a joke, but people still believe him. *sigh*

ANTIMASON

Saturday, May 26, 2007 4:57 AM

Quote:
posted by fredgiblet- That's what makes this so frustrating, so much of what you will hear against evolution has been disproved decades or even a century ago, yet the anti-evolutionist either don't or won't check their facts.

but at the same time, would you honostly take to heart any information which contradicted a current theory and indicated ID? its not that there are no intriguing arguments, but most people just cherry pick what they want to believe(myself included). i see plenty of evidence of evolution, but to deduce all life on earth, or the entire galaxy(and beyond)... i mean there are a lot of processes and cycles, and likely other un-discovered laws at work in the universe, that we arent even aware of right now. is this something we can agree on?

my whole thought is that when we talk about millions of years ago, i think we leave the realm of 'hard science', and begin to speculate more theoretically, and ID does have a place there. IMO we have such a small sampling of data from the universe, that i dont believe we can honostly claim to know half of what we say we do. i know ill get criticized for this.. but a lot of the time i feel we just take this small observable sampling, combined with some other choice data, and we invent all these models and theories around it, as if to suddenly explain everything away.. and i almost feel thats dis-ingenuous. there are enough things that we dont know yet, that in light of the uncertainty, i am more open to considering arguments put forth by IDs. even if the IDs platform consists mostly of attemps at contradicting proven theories, i am enclined to encourage the skepticism, because just maybe theyre not wrong 100% of the time(like many would have us believe). its a nice break from the attitude put forth by most evolutionists, which is that 'we already know everything' there is to know about the subject, and everything definately happened by random accident(despite what i consider to be a lack of corresponding fossil evidence)

AZRIEL

Saturday, May 26, 2007 5:03 AM

I think that Puppies made the universe.....so they could rule over it with an iron fist.

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, May 26, 2007 7:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
but at the same time, would you honostly take to heart any information which contradicted a current theory and indicated ID?

If it came from a reputable peer-reviewed source? Sure, and if it held up and was confirmed later I'd be shocked but I'd accept it.

Quote:
i see plenty of evidence of evolution, but to deduce all life on earth, or the entire galaxy(and beyond)... i mean there are a lot of processes and cycles, and likely other un-discovered laws at work in the universe, that we arent even aware of right now. is this something we can agree on?

Sure but I don't think we'll agree on the nature of the processes and laws. I can't think of any reasonable reason why the rules that govern evolution and biochemistry here would be any different anywhere else. Outside of probability I don't see much chance of major processes or laws being found that would prove a serious challenge to evolution, but then there's a story I heard about a guy working in the patent office back around the beginning of the 20th century who said that they should close the patent office because there was nothing left to invent.

Quote:
my whole thought is that when we talk about millions of years ago, i think we leave the realm of 'hard science', and begin to speculate more theoretically

In some ways yes in others no. Geology is a science that deals with time frames exactly like that, physics deals with laws that have not changed appreciably in the time that we are aware of and as near as we can make out have never been significantly different then they are today. Certainly there is very little that we can know for sure from millions or billions of years ago. We can't say exactly how many of one kind of dinosaur there was, or even give a reasonable guess, but we can tell roughly when the were around and roughly when each species died out. We can't say for sure how long the days were, but we can look at coral that has specific behavior patterns and get a decent guess. But there is a lot that we can be reasonably sure of and as our knowledge increases the accuracy of the observations gets better and the number of things that we can expect to get reasonable answers for gets better.

Quote:
and ID does have a place there.

No, ID is not scientific, it never has been and likely never will be. This is not surprising considering that ID is not about science, it's about politics and religion.

Quote:
IMO we have such a small sampling of data from the universe, that i dont believe we can honostly claim to know half of what we say we do.

Most of what we know comes from the rules of the universe, to imply that because we have a small sampling we don't know what we think we know would imply that the rules of the universe are different elsewhere, this is an enormous claim that has never been sustained. In fact at present it's irrelevant whether or not things are different elsewhere as we can't go elsewhere in the first place, until we have the ability (which we will get by applying what you think we don't know) to go elsewhere it is perfectly reasonable to assume that things are the same everywhere because it makes no difference either way since we can't find out for sure and it has no effect on us right now. As an analogy, does it matter to someone in the Sahara (ignoring the butterfly effect for a moment) that it's raining in India? No, because rain in India has no effect on the Sahara.

Quote:
i know ill get criticized for this.. but a lot of the time i feel we just take this small observable sampling, combined with some other choice data, and we invent all these models and theories around it, as if to suddenly explain everything away

We are limited in our reach, until we can extend our reach we simply have to make do with the observations we can make. As for "choice data" we use the most accurate data we can get, that means that we throw out data as we get better readings, including old data or inaccurate data just keeps us from ref

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, May 26, 2007 2:33 PM

Quote:
Quote:
(despite what i consider to be a lack of corresponding fossil evidence)

You are free to disbelieve all you want, but the fossils are there.

I thought more on this before I went to sleep this morning (at around 2:30 (damn you brain, shut off for once!)). I'd just like to point something out, you seem to be saying that you don't like common descent because of a lack of fossils, were you aware that there are other lines of evidence for teh nested hierarchy of common descent?

1. Genetic. The genetic code for every living creature fits into a nested hierarchy, just like we would expect from common descent. The farther you get in the hierarchy the more genetic differences there are, humans are closer to chimps then to mountain lions, mountain lions are closer to housecats then to dogs, humans, mountain lions and dogs are closer to each other then to Gila monsters.

2. Biochemical. There are some chemicals that have hundreds of functional variants. These are distributed in a manner similar to the nested hierarchy. The variants that humans use are very similar if not identical to the variants used by the other great apes, which is closer to the variant used by mountain lions then the variants used by Gila monsters

3. Morphological. The evidence for this is admittedly much weaker as morphology (physical structure) can undergo huge changes (whales are closer to cows then tuna). However generally speaking creatures that are closer to each other on the nested hierarchy formed by the fossil, genetic and biochemical evidence have a greater tendency to look alike then creatures farther apart. Mountain lions, tigers and housecats share morphological similarities that set them apart from baboons, humans and chimps which also share traits.