Air Between The Notes Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 (edited) The probability of a protein developing by undirected natural processes has been "Odded, lol" out to 1 in 10 to the 164th power. The probability of a single cell developing by undirected natural processes 1 in 10 to the 340,000,000th power. How about a single gain of sand lets look at it for a moment, pull it out of your shoe or from under the strap of your flip-flop, one from behind your ear or worse yet trying to get one out from your eye! There's estimated to be approx 1 million grains of sand in 1/2 of a cup, jumping to the size of the earth's volume in sand gains the # would be around the 1 in 10 to the 30th power, 10 with 30 zeros behind it. The volume of our sun filled with sand would be the equivalent 100 million earths. The sun would need to be multiplied by 10 trillion to fill our solar system & again remember we are talking of equivalents in sand now not gasses or empty"ish" space. Next move out to a cubic lightyear that would take 10 trillion of our solar systems, solid sand again. Then take all of that sand & you need 100 trillion light years worth to fill the Milky Way Galaxy with sand gains. 10 billion Milky Ways to fill the know universe. Back to that pesky little grain of sand we 1st blotted out from the corner of our eye on the tip of a twisted Kleenex after so much pain, tears & staring into a mirror. The chances of grabbing it out of the known universe's volume filled with sand? 1 in 10 to the 96th power. Recap now: Universe filled with sand gains = 1 in 10 to the 96th power A protein evolving from nothing = 1in10 to the 164th A cell forming via evolution = 1 in10 to the 340,000,000th Scientists generally consider anything with less than an operational power of 1 in 10 to the 70th power operationally impossible. Now there is always the chance that evolution didn't take the whole 10 to the 340,000,000 rolls of the dice but really even at the 70th power we are getting near the volume of the universe full of sand possibilities of it happening? Really? The complexity of 31 proteins & the thousands of sub assemblies to organize them all into meaningful information or from meaningful information in the 1st place? With laws to order it all & from the elements & all of their laws & forces working upon them & their order & operational laws? Science came about to order nothing x's a whole bunch of time (10 billion years & growing) to = chance as queen? Supernatural designer makes time places building blocks in it, builds the rest of what we see ordering it by natural laws for us to see Him through our study of it via our senses & minds. Who's stretching who's paradigm? lol Edited January 28, 2017 by Air Between The Notes -1
Arete Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 The probability of a protein developing by undirected natural processes has been "Odded, lol" out to 1 in 10 to the 164th power. The probability of a single cell developing by undirected natural processes 1 in 10 to the 340,000,000th power. Citation needed.
Lord Antares Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 /cut That is faulty logic. First of all, we need a citation for this. These numbers seem random to me. But more importantly, I will tell you why that doesn't make sense at all. Take an example of a person for whom the following statements are true: This person is 27, he is a banker, he lives in Finland. He has been to 3 Asian countries and 2 American countries. He hates bagels. He has a strange fascination with pencils. He doesn't like any seafood. He was an extra in the movie ''Inception''. He has a rating of 1837 in chess. He drives a Honda Civic etc etc. What are the odds of all these things being true for a person? They're incredibly small, so it can't be a coincidence, right? Do you see the problem with this logic? The odds of a combination of all things being true for any person in the world are incredibly small. The odds of any world being the way it is are comparably small because there are SO MANY variables. This is why that doesn't mean anything.
Sensei Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 (edited) The probability of a protein developing by undirected natural processes has been "Odded, lol" out to 1 in 10 to the 164th power. (...) You can create amino acids, even the one not existing in the world naturally, repeating Miller-Urey experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment See "Chemistry of experiment" section. There is just needed carbon dioxide CO2, water H2O, and nitrogen N2. Eventually methane CH4, ammonia NH3, and water H2O. Hydrogen is primordial particle, Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen are created during fusion in star. Spark in experiment, exists in the nature, it's simply thunderbolt. And source of energy f.e. volcano heating water. Source of energy for planet's core is radioactivity of unstable isotopes present in it. Every time you see thunderbolt on the sky there are created some compounds. Multiply average quantity of compounds created per single thunderbolt, by quantity of thunderbolts per year worldwide, then by the age of the planet.. Two amino acids can join together and create even longer amino acid and release water, f.e. NH2CH2COOH+NH2CH2COOH -> NH2CH2CONHCH2COOH + H2O https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycine (Gly) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycylglycine (Gly-Gly) Edited January 28, 2017 by Sensei
Air Between The Notes Posted January 29, 2017 Author Posted January 29, 2017 Still sifting for the data quote for you, had some computer problems lately & lost all of my book marks. Till I find the exact one for you it was from the evolution site & the work of one of the original ICR guys. Odds of the theoretical guy you quote are not out of the box for me as we are all completely unique & very complex, so why not? But this example you give is talking of someone & not the building blocks of life plus the complexity of manipulating them into theoretical guy as well as the universe he lives in. My quote is about coming up with the building blocks of life in the 1st place out of nothing & the building blocks are not simply lego or painted wooden block with letters & numbers on the sides but a far more complex with the ability to self replicate, heal, learn, enjoy life. The usages of atomics & empty spaces plus all of the laws need to direct it all are far more complex in that light of theoretical guy than where he's been & what he likes to eat. Absolutely you can make amino acids! It just show the input of intellect on the raw elements is all not nature coming up with it herself. Adam & Eve are only acceptable to one who is moved upon by the Supernatural & those who can't see the possibility of such happening can't possibly get or allow their head to wrap around submission to a higher power over a self directed existence with an end not unlike it's beginning, yet did come from something or someone into this physical sense (parents for a pattern), so are we really going to finish out into nothing? Or return to Someone?
Essay Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 The probability of a protein developing by undirected natural processes has been "Odded, lol" out to 1 in 10 to the 164th power. That can't be right, unless you are just talking about random processes, instead of unidirectional, natural processes. ...the building blocks of life plus the complexity of manipulating them... My quote is about coming up with the building blocks of life in the 1st place out of nothing & the building blocks are not simply lego or painted wooden block with letters & numbers on the sides but a far more complex ... plus all of the laws need to direct it all are far more complex.... Actually the laws are not too many, and they are all fairly simple, acting directly and immediately. There are many examples showing that stable complexity will emerge whole, out from any limited but energized collection of simple, diverse, robust, and chaotic “building blocks.”
Air Between The Notes Posted January 29, 2017 Author Posted January 29, 2017 That can't be right, unless you are just talking about random processes, instead of unidirectional, natural processes. Actually the laws are not too many, and they are all fairly simple, acting directly and immediately. There are many examples showing that stable complexity will emerge whole, out from any limited but energized collection of simple, diverse, robust, and chaotic “building blocks ____ 1st we need information to come up with the concept of time & space with great power to put all mater under all the governing laws associated with them & that is no Cole's Notes tablet. Then the beauty & diversity of living things which is much more complexity. To believe this is simple is a belief that is simplistic beyond comprehension, the individual pieces might be simple here or there but universe with it's complexity & variety? Or just the proteins on their own? Out of nothing & all you need is a whole bunch of time? That requires more faith than Eternal, Limitless Power & Perfect Knowledge putting it all together allowing freewill to run it's course within it & this is an example of freewill at work my friend as we choose how we are going to sift through the data before us & apply what we see.
Essay Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) 1st we need information to come up with the concept of time & space with great power to put all mater under all the governing laws associated with them & that is no Cole's Notes tablet. Then the beauty & diversity of living things which is much more complexity. To believe this is simple is a belief that is simplistic beyond comprehension, the individual pieces might be simple here or there but universe with it's complexity & variety? Or just the proteins on their own? Out of nothing & all you need is a whole bunch of time? That requires more faith than Eternal, Limitless Power & Perfect Knowledge putting it all together allowing freewill to run it's course within it & this is an example of freewill at work my friend as we choose how we are going to sift through the data before us & apply what we see. Sure, it is not simple to create a protein, or any complexity, but the beautiful complexities and stability are built up from simple parts following simple rules. And there is not much diversity among those simple parts and rules, but just enough to make things interesting and unpredictable. Being "robust" is just a measure of how strongly the simple parts will resist change and how strongly the simple rules will stay the same. Being "chaotic" refers to the freedom for parts to mix and match in different ways and times, but also within certain relatively strong yet simple limits. And out of that simple chaos, stable complexity is born, the beauty of proteins and planets and people is born, and a diversity much much more vast than the puny diversity of the original parts is also born. ...or words to that effect ~ Edited January 29, 2017 by Essay
Endy0816 Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 Not really. Even the improbable becomes a certainty given enough chances.
Air Between The Notes Posted January 29, 2017 Author Posted January 29, 2017 No, chance has no power, chance is a word you used to convey an idea like "If I go over there I might see her." or " If I move into that community there's a possibility I might be able to generate interest in my business. Yet today, in order to give the faith of evolution power in coming up with everything from nothing we put chance as the queen over all giving it power supreme but it is nothing, it can do nothing nor make anything happen as it is impudent & even that is giving the word to much credit as a causal force. -1
Delta1212 Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 No, chance has no power, chance is a word you used to convey an idea like "If I go over there I might see her." or " If I move into that community there's a possibility I might be able to generate interest in my business. Yet today, in order to give the faith of evolution power in coming up with everything from nothing we put chance as the queen over all giving it power supreme but it is nothing, it can do nothing nor make anything happen as it is impudent & even that is giving the word to much credit as a causal force. What?
Air Between The Notes Posted January 29, 2017 Author Posted January 29, 2017 How many times will a printshop explode in order to get a complete dictionary or how many times do you need to ash a scrap metal pile to "Evolve please" before you end up with a 747 ? -1
Acme Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) How many times will a printshop explode in order to get a complete dictionary or how many times do you need to ash a scrap metal pile to "Evolve please" before you end up with a 747 ? That's an air between the ears red herring argument. Life happened here, there are valid scientific theories about how that may have happened, and just because we're in the religion forum it does not excuse you from presenting valid scientific evidence for a divine creator. Since scientific evidence for divinity is a contradiction of terms, you have no legs to stand on. Edited January 29, 2017 by Acme
Essay Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 How many times will a printshop explode in order to get a complete dictionary or how many times do you need to ash a scrap metal pile to "Evolve please" before you end up with a 747 ? See? You're still treating the emergence of complexity as a totally random event, instead of seeing how complexity emerges fairly easily out of any system composed of simple, diverse, robust, chaotic parts. Do you see the big difference? ~
Acme Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 See? You're still treating the emergence of complexity as a totally random event, instead of seeing how complexity emerges fairly easily out of any system composed of simple, diverse, robust, chaotic parts. Do you see the big difference? ~ ... Even the improbable becomes a certainty given enough chances. I disagree with both these assertions, not the least because they employ contradictive terms. 'Complexity' is not 'easy', and 'improbable' is not 'certain'. Sensei has come the closest to home when he invoked Miller & Urey in post # 29, and to that I would add self-organization and emergence as scientific principles that bear on the OP question, "how is evolution a reason to doubt creationism?".
Air Between The Notes Posted January 30, 2017 Author Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Ok, how about walking up to a sheep & saying "Oh please little sheep with your fleece as white as snow, clone yourself.", is the sheep going to be able to do that with countless chances & billions of years? You need intelligence to intercede on the part of the sheep for it can not clone itself or even have any idea what you are saying. Now I know, "Give the sheep time buddy & it will be able to do it for itself!" Far to much is downloaded onto the shoulders of chance & time in the connivence of our trying to eliminate the supernatural injection of time, space & mater for our lives. It's faith not science we are chasing yet if we get enough people on board with the faith & call it something else say like science then we have the escape we are looking for. The reality is with our degrees, papers, inner circles, choosing who gets to speak & patting each other on the back we are not following true science but pseudosciences which is why it is a faith, no different than any of the other seekers of this world trapped in futility of trying to make themselves into a god of some sort. Edited January 30, 2017 by Air Between The Notes
Moontanman Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 Ok, how about walking up to a sheep & saying "Oh please little sheep with your fleece as white as snow, clone yourself.", is the sheep going to be able to do that with countless chances & billions of years? You need intelligence to intercede on the part of the sheep for it can not clone itself or even have any idea what you are saying. Now I know, "Give the sheep time buddy & it will be able to do it for itself!" Far to much is downloaded onto the shoulders of chance & time in the connivence of our trying to eliminate the supernatural injection of time, space & mater for our lives. It's faith not science we are chasing yet if we get enough people on board with the faith & call it something else say like science then we have the escape we are looking for. The reality is with our degrees, papers, inner circles, choosing who gets to speak & patting each other on the back we are not following true science but pseudosciences which is why it is a faith, no different than any of the other seekers of this world trapped in futility of trying to make themselves into a god of some sort. Would you mind clarifying how chance and time figure into it? Science prohibits faith, evidence always trumps belief. Please explain what you mean by pseudoscience and provide some evidence for the "supernatural"...
Arete Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) How many times will a printshop explode in order to get a complete dictionary or how many times do you need to ash a scrap metal pile to "Evolve please" before you end up with a 747 ? Of course the flaw in these types of analogies is that there is no such thing as a codon which cannot be transcribed. There are 64 possible codons, 3 encode "stop" and 61 encode 20 amino acids with considerable redundancy. It is therefore not possible to have a genetic code which is incapable of translating a protein, and the majority of changes to the code will not alter the translation. Even so, the ex post facto use of low probability of an event to claim the event is impossible is unconvincing. Say I rolled a dice 100 times and got 100 sixes. The probability of that outcome is 1/(1/6x10100). The problem with claiming divine intervention is that EVERY outcome of 100 dice rolls has the same probability, and an outcome is inevitable if you were to conduct the experiment. Claiming impossibility of an event based on a low probability of the event is never a compelling argument, as it's a argumentum ad ignorantium logical fallacy. Ok, how about walking up to a sheep & saying "Oh please little sheep with your fleece as white as snow, clone yourself." Of course the problem we have here is the use of strawman argument. Evolutionary theory does not predict spontaneous parthenogenesis in ruminants (although if you had of used a lizard or a fish as your example we could have identified examples of them cloning themselves). Evolution, is simply the change in allele frequency (i.e., genetic variation) in a population, over time. We routinely observe this in all organisms. Evolutionary theory postulates that changes in allele frequency over time explain the diversity of life on earth. divergence between populations, resulting in the creation of new species has been directly observed. Edited January 30, 2017 by Arete 1
Air Between The Notes Posted January 30, 2017 Author Posted January 30, 2017 Thank-you, the use of theory & postulate in your post explain it all so well. The use of these words are what pseudosciences are built upon & therefore not real/true science because no-one was there & the thing can't be duplicated in whole it becomes a faith & not true observable science, now I expect just like revisits history has been used to try alter the past before, eventually pseudoscientists will just change the meaning of the word science to support their religion as well as any calendar references to BC/AD in an attempt to make their faith something that is substantially undeniable. A change within a "kind" is possible for evolutionary type forces because of environmental pressure on a creature for sure! But they return to their original state when the pressure is removed & never do we see any change from one species to another. That is the stickler, the disingenuous nature of pseudoscience has been show here many times as people build their theories on other animal bone/fragment, teeth or hide the piece from the world they have made their claims on. It rocks one's world for sure to say it is based on something other than what they want to see, I understand that but we can't be making the broad claims that are tossed out all the time that are faith supposing all will fall inline because we want that faith to be real science. -2
Memammal Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) the use of theory & postulate in your post explain it all so well. The use of these words are what pseudosciences are built upon & therefore not real/true science because no-one was there & the thing can't be duplicated in whole it becomes a faith & not true observable science, You are either a troll, or embarrassingly ignorant. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, not pseudoscience. Here, spot the difference: Pseudoscience consists of claims, beliefs, or practices presented as being plausible scientifically, but which are not justifiable by the scientific method. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, predefined, protocol of observations and experiments. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of the word 'theory' in science. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) PS. Not sure what you implied by the BC/AD reference. It seems entirely irrelevant (and historically inaccurate w.r.t. its reference to the alleged birth of biblical Jesus). Edited January 30, 2017 by Memammal
Daecon Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 Even if you "disprove" evolution, Christian creationism doesn't win by default, you still need to actually prove Christian creationism is the true one. Be careful you don't prove another religion's creation story true by mistake!
Air Between The Notes Posted January 30, 2017 Author Posted January 30, 2017 BC/AD, a time keeping device that divides & keeps religion in the face of an evolutionary mindset. I am not trying to disproving the idea of old world nor secular evolution but pointing out to you that even if may people buy into an idea it does not make it true & so to say evolution is indisputably the facts based on science we are twisting the truth. Science can only prove what it can do/reproduce so to take it into conjecture is turning it into a religion that one is placing faith in. If I were a troll I would then be going on about our faith in pseudoscience & the cost of buying it is in the selling your eternal soul, I haven't been doing that, just making you think about what true science can prove or discover & how pseudoscience tries to deceive the simple while overpowering any opposition to it's validity through repeatability. I guess since the word troll was used here it does make me smile a bit in the image of just how many of us tap away at our keyboards thinking we are enlightened when one might question are we trolling try to drown others in the exuberance of the faith we have in our religion of psuedoscience?
Phi for All Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 BC/AD, a time keeping device that divides & keeps religion in the face of an evolutionary mindset. I am not trying to disproving the idea of old world nor secular evolution but pointing out to you that even if may people buy into an idea it does not make it true & so to say evolution is indisputably the facts based on science we are twisting the truth. Science can only prove what it can do/reproduce so to take it into conjecture is turning it into a religion that one is placing faith in. If I were a troll I would then be going on about our faith in pseudoscience & the cost of buying it is in the selling your eternal soul, I haven't been doing that, just making you think about what true science can prove or discover & how pseudoscience tries to deceive the simple while overpowering any opposition to it's validity through repeatability. I guess since the word troll was used here it does make me smile a bit in the image of just how many of us tap away at our keyboards thinking we are enlightened when one might question are we trolling try to drown others in the exuberance of the faith we have in our religion of psuedoscience? You don't know what you don't know, so trying to argue from this position is extremely weak. You're misusing terminology, you don't understand the basics of science (or you wouldn't claim it's trying to "prove" anything). You should be ranting about religion, it's what you know, because it's abundantly clear you don't understand science in the least. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm pointing out where your discussion strategy is weak; it's like when the US president makes the mistake of thinking a tariff will punish a foreign exporter instead of his own consumers, and you suddenly realize he doesn't understand what he's talking about.
Recommended Posts