Creationism...again (was Christianity Thread)

Danno

Dear Mods/Admins

I have noticed that the Christianity Thread was deleted. Will it be making a return? I have tried to email you about this, but no reply.

Can you post your answers in here please!!!

Danno

ecksor

The Christianity forum has moved to Soc -> Religion / Spirituality.

Danno

Thank You Buddy!!!

J C

Quote
The Irish Skeptics Society has the following aims:
To promote a scientific and rational point of view.
To promote the teaching and application of critical thinking skills.
To promote the active questioning of claims in a variety of areas, which is noticeably absent at present.
To provide a forum for debate, discussion and rational argument on a range of relevant topics.
To provide an access point for media for skeptical responses to questionable claims.
To encourage the active involvement of people from a wide range of backgrounds.

I would like to know why an organisation with such laudible aims has closed down a thread which was rationally debating and questioning one of the most important philosophical ideas of our time - Evolution?

robindch

> I would like to know why an organisation with such laudible
> aims has closed down a thread which was rationally debating
> and questioning one of the most important philosophical ideas
> of our time - Evolution?

As davros, wicknight and I pointed out, the debate had long since ceased to move forward, and had therefore become pointless.

Specifically, you were (a) still talking about, and criticizing loudly, a peculiar creationist concept, unbeknownst to, and unsupported by, mainstream biology, called 'random evolution'; (b) committing many of the the wide variation of fallacies of fact and logic which are documented, and rebutted, in detail on the http://www.talkorigins.org website, and you were ignoring the rebuttals; and finally (c) you were insisting on the accuracy of a decidedly Dembski-like calculation which led you to conclude not only that biogenesis is impossible, but also that the completely separate notion which defines the basis for all of the modern biological sciences and which is known as the theory of evolution, is nonsense.

As an aside for those who've not come across William Dembski before, he's a mathematician/philosopher who has, in recent years, proclaimed himself expert in biology and believes himself able to overturn the whole framework of modern biology within the space of a short lecture. He's raised the skeptical hackles of the good folks over in CSICOP too, who lent him their stage for a debate a few years back -- this article notes some of Dembski's complicated-sounding, but woolly and inconclusive, ideas concerning biogenesis and what creationists, such as himself, refer to as "intelligent design", and skeptics refer to as argument from personal incredulity, or ignorance. This page lists various reviews and further rebuttals of Dembski's half-baked opinions.

Finally, at the risk of starting up another one-sided, low-intensity flame-war, evolution is not a "philosophical theory" (which exists because some people think it does) but a scientific theory (which exists because it explains something, and it's disprovable).

- robin.

J C

I am genuinely interested in Evolution - please "sell" me the concept.

1. Please explain to me in your own words how Evolution "Muck to Man" 'WORKS'.

2. What is the postulated mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life - or is there one postulated?

3. What is the postulated 'primitive' mechanism that provided the diversity upon which Natural Selection supposedly worked?

4. What is the postulated "conservation" mechanism for the supposed earliest life forms that would allow any "accidental" positive changes to be preserved from one generation to the next?

You are correct that small changes have a higher probability of occurring - but a critical amino acid sequence has NO benefit until it is all completed - even one "wrong" amino acid changes the three dimensional shape of the protein making it functionally useless - and so an organism cannot "work up" to a critical amino acid sequence - it either "hits the jackpot" or no benefit (in relation to this critical protein) occurs for NS to work on - is this not true?

If there is a flaw in my logic - please point it out - and please be specific in relation to the above points - for a start.

I too used be an evolutionist. When I was fourteen years old I read Darwin’s ‘Voyage of the Beagle’ and his ‘Origin of Species’. Darwin’s writings and his keen OBSERVATIONS greatly impressed me. I found him to be a man of great logic and common sense, who based his conclusions firmly on OBSERVED REALITY. I also found Darwin’s writings to be a balanced and reasonably fair assessment of his OBSERVATIONS in the light of the scientific knowledge of his time. I also found him to be quite modest in his claims in regard to Evolution. I have had, and continue to have, a great respect for Charles Darwin and his original thinking.

As a professional scientist I am open to all possibilities including evolution - but I haven't yet seen any information or observations that would allow me to (re)accept it.

I'm sure, as a skeptic yourself, you also accept that I shouldn't take any idea on the basis of "blind faith" - so give me "hard" reasons why evolution is true - and don't direct me to any internet sites - I have been there and done that. I can 'surf the net' anytime I want - what I want from you is that you share with me why YOU believe in evolution - and what exactly it IS anyway.

I'm genuinely prepared to listen to you and evaluate what you have to say.

On the Philosophy / Science issue - I spent most of this week at a peer group Science Research Forum (not about evolution) - and every paper presented was based on OBSERVED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and EXPERIMENTAL REPORTS.
The hypotheses being tested were PRECISELY defined in all cases and the conclusions reached were confined to the evidence observed and reported upon by the particpants.

Debate revolved about the materials / methods and the logic of the conclusions - and nobody asked what anybody's religious convictions, if any were - it simply wasn't relevant - nor should it be relevant to a SCIENTIFIC evaluation of Evolution either.

I have never heard of William Dembski nor have I examined his writings. However, I do believe that Galileo who was a mathematician/philosopher who proclaimed himself an expert in astronomy WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE to overturn the whole framework of Classical Astronomy within the space of a short lecture. Such is the power of SCIENCE to debunk mythology - and isn't it marvellous?

I also think that it is a bit of an overstatement to maintain that Evolution "defines the basis for all of the modern biological sciences" - especially in view of the fact that Evolution itself does not conform to the requirements of a valid SCIENTIFIC Theory, in the first place.

There IS "life after Evolution" and I have a strange feeling that the Life Sciences are also about to come to this realisation.

pH

1. Please explain to me in your own words how Evolution "Muck to Man" 'WORKS'.

I would suggest reading the excellent "The Ancestor's Tale' by Richard Dawkins.

J C

Quote
I would suggest reading the excellent "The Ancestor's Tale' by Richard Dawkins.

pH, you’re also referring me to other third party sources – please give me YOUR distilled wisdom on the questions that I have asked.

I have read some of Professor Dawkins’ work already – his previous book on ‘The Selfish Gene’ already occupies ‘pride of place’ on my bookshelf!!! I will quote from an extract from The Oxford Times review, which appears on the cover of the said book. “The SPECULATIVE nature of the treatise will appeal strongly to those who find a special kind of excitement in the original ideas that good science FICTION offers”. I actually greatly enjoyed Professor Dawkin's original thoughts and writing. I didn't agree with everything he said, but I found his ideas intellectually stimulating.

I am not familiar with ‘The Ancestor’s Tale’ – or should that be Tail ?!!! I looked up the word Tale in a dictionary / thesaurus and I found the following :- “fictitious narrative, especially one imaginatively treated as in Folk Tale, Fairy Tale or Old Wives’ Tale”. The exact title of the book may be a misnomer, but it sounds like a really good science-based story written in a narrative style, rather than precise empirical conclusions based upon repeatable scientific observations. In any event, if YOU have read ‘The Ancestor’s Tale’ and it contains CONCISE answer(s) to any of my questions – please feel free to share these answer(s) with me.

If you are unwilling or unable to address the questions that I have raised about Evolution, from a scientific point of view – please nominate another Evolutionary Expert who is willing to do so. After all, Irish Skeptics claim to be capable of providing “an access point for media for skeptical responses to questionable claims”. Equally you claim to be in a position "to promote the active questioning of claims in a variety of areas, which is noticeably absent at present" - and Evolution is an obvious candidate.

You must know at least one expert on Evolution who can answer my fairly basic questions – and if no such expert exists, I rest my case that Evolution IS an invalid Scientific Theory.

pH

I am not familiar with ‘The Ancestor’s Tale’ – or should that be Tail ?!!! I looked up the word Tale in a dictionary / thesaurus and I found the following :- “fictitious narrative, especially one imaginatively treated as in Folk Tale, Fairy Tale or Old Wives’ Tale”.

Are you not tired of trolling this board yet?

J C

Quote
Are you not tired of trolling this board yet?

Certainly not, this is fascinating stuff - I have asked a few very basic questions about Evolution - and NO answer is forthcoming !!!

Are You an expert in Evolution?

Are you unable or unwilling to answer my questions?

bus77

J C wrote:

I am genuinely interested in Evolution - please "sell" me the concept.

1. Please explain to me in your own words how Evolution "Muck to Man" 'WORKS'.

I find that statement offensive to muck.

J C

bus77 wrote:

I find that statement offensive to muck.

Last time I checked muck didn't have feelings.

I can see, bus 77, why the concept of Evolution "Muck to Man" could be offensive to people with a sensitive disposition as well as some Bible-believing Christians (like myself) - but Irish Skeptics are surely fearless "seekers after the Truth" - so please answer my questions.

bus77

J C wrote:

I can see, bus 77, why the concept of Evolution "Muck to Man" could be offensive to people with a sensitive disposition as well as some Bible-believing Christians (like myself) - but Irish Skeptics are surely determined "seekers after the Truth" - so please answer my questions.

No, you misunderstood me. I find the phrase "M2M" offensive, becuase it implies there is a scale, and muck is at the bottom. I dont like the tone of that. Please refrain from using it again in future discourse.

KCF

J C wrote:

1. Please explain to me in your own words how Evolution "Muck to Man" 'WORKS'.

2. What is the postulated mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life - or is there one postulated?

3. What is the postulated 'primitive' mechanism that provided the diversity upon which Natural Selection supposedly worked?

4. What is the postulated "conservation" mechanism for the supposed earliest life forms that would allow any "accidental" positive changes to be preserved from one generation to the next?

Great, a few weeks looking at the skeptics board and so far the only threads have been by creationists and holocaust revisionists, pretty much the anti-thesis of skepticism :rolleyes: .

Anyway the answer to your questions is really very easy. To understand why your first two questions are trivial, you should realise that all that the theory of evolution depends upon is that at some stage in the chaotic unfolding of the universe's history a molecule came into being that tended to produce copies of itself, or replicate. Considering the size of the universe, the complexity of the system and the 15 billion years or so that the universe has existed, it does not take a great 'leap of faith' to imagine that a self-replicator happened to come into being at least once. In fact, considering how relatively simple a self-repicator could be, I'd be very surprised if it hasn't happened many times independently.

To answer question 3, I merely need to remind you that the universe is a complex place and nothing ever works perfectly. Any replication process in this universe will not work with 100% accuracy.

If you have to ask question 4, you just don't understand evolution. Differential survival probability is the one and only mechanism and there is nothing magic about it - it's pretty much pure mathematics and is easy to prove.

Danno

bus77 wrote:

No, you misunderstood me. I find the phrase "M2M" offensive, becuase it implies there is a scale, and muck is at the bottom. I dont like the tone of that. Please refrain from using it again in future discourse.

And dearest "Bus77" I find the evolutionsist concept of Ape to Man equally offensive! For a body of study that teaches Apes (Animals) and Man as equals is de-meaning and goes against the Bible teachings.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=235811 was setup, can I suggest that we debate it here? Any thoughts???

THE DEBATE HAS CONTINUED OVER ON THE SOC -> RELIGION -> CHRISTIANITY THREAD AT THE ABOVE LINK

robindch

> I also think that it is a bit of an overstatement to maintain
> that Evolution "defines the basis for all of the modern
> biological sciences" - especially in view of the fact that
> Evolution itself does not conform to the requirements of
> a valid SCIENTIFIC Theory, in the first place.

In this forum, you have been provided with ample references which, had you followed them up, would have permitted you to be able to understand what the Theory of Evolution is and why it is a valid 'scientific theory' (references here, here, here, here and here), and why it is that trained biologists regard the Theory of Evolution as the base working theory for their area of study (see, for example, Project Steve for a light-hearted poke at the creationists' claims that evolution is on the retreat amongst trained biologists, or this more serious page which backs up a more general claim that around one tenth of one percent of relevant scientists reject the Theory of Evolution, versus those who do not; in numerical terms, that's around 700 creationists versus 480,000 evolutionists).

> I have asked a few very basic questions about Evolution
> - and NO answer is forthcoming !!!

You have received plenty of answers from myself and other posters.

> I have read some of Professor Dawkins’ work already – his
> previous book on ‘The Selfish Gene’ already occupies ‘pride
> of place’ on my bookshelf!!!

I'm afraid that I'm having considerable difficulty in believing this.

> I will quote from an extract from The Oxford Times review,
> which appears on the cover of the said book. “The
> SPECULATIVE nature of the treatise will appeal strongly to
> those who find a special kind of excitement in the original
> ideas that good science FICTION offers”. I couldn’t have
> said it better myself.

While this might appear on the cover of your copy of the book, it doesn't appear on the cover of mine. However, here's the first three sentences of the preface to the 1976 edition, written by Dawkins himself:

] This book should be read almost as though it were science
] fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it
] is not science fiction: it is science.

...which bear an uncanny resemblance to your quotation.

> As a professional scientist I am open to all possibilities
> including evolution - but I haven't yet seen any information
> or observations that would allow me to (re)accept it.

In that case, I would suggest that you haven't seriously looked for any. There is plenty around and it is very easy to find; see the messages from the previous thread.

> 1. Please explain to me in your own words how Evolution
> "Muck to Man" 'WORKS'.

I don't really know what you are referring to here -- biogenesis or evolution? It's certainly not clear from your creationist-type question and I would politely suggest that if you are seriously interested in replacing your creationist notions with scientific ones, as I hope you are, then you should first stop using prejudicial terminology and try to write more like the scientist that you claim to be.

- robin.

J C

Quote
No, you misunderstood me. I find the phrase "M2M" offensive, because it implies there is a scale, and muck is at the bottom. I dont like the tone of that. Please refrain from using it again in future discourse.

There is of course, a SCALE of importance among living organisms – otherwise I could be accused of the mass murder of bacteria every time I use a disinfectant!!!

Could you suggest an alternative but equally descriptive term – and I will consider using it?



Quote
Great, a few weeks looking at the skeptics board and so far the only threads have been by creationists and holocaust revisionists, pretty much the anti-thesis of skepticism

You must be looking at all of the wrong threads!!!

Some of the most skeptical people that I know are creationists – and anybody that can believe in Evolution in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it is actually a person of very great FAITH.


Quote
Anyway the answer to your questions is really very easy. To understand why your first two questions are trivial, you should realise that all that the theory of evolution depends upon is that at some stage in the chaotic unfolding of the universe's history a molecule came into being that tended to produce copies of itself, or replicate. Considering the size of the universe, the complexity of the system and the 15 billion years or so that the universe has existed, it does not take a great 'leap of faith' to imagine that a self-replicator happened to come into being at least once. In fact, considering how relatively simple a self-repicator could be, I'd be very surprised if it hasn't happened many times independently.

1. But it does PRECISELY take a 'leap of faith' to IMAGINE that a self-replicator happened. As a professional scientist I am unaware that a self-replicating molecule has ever been observed – and so it remains outside of science. Science is strictly confined to the observable – everything else is a ‘leap of faith’ – and some faiths are more firmly grounded in reality than others, but they are all still FAITHS – and I respect everyone’s right to their beliefs. If you wish to BELIEVE that a “self-replicator” happened, great – but don’t expect me as a scientist to share your belief – and don’t be surprised if the Irish Skeptics Forum questions any claim by you that your belief is somehow “scientific”.

2. Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that such a self-replicating molecule ever existed – it would be ‘dead’ and likely to continue in a ‘dead’ way, making perfect or imperfect copies of itself ad infinitum – without any logical reason to believe that it would or indeed COULD ever start any process that would lead to the astronomical amount of information and organisation that is observed in even a so-called “simple cell”.


Quote
To answer question 3, I merely need to remind you that the universe is a complex place and nothing ever works perfectly. Any replication process in this universe will not work with 100% accuracy.

Firstly, you haven’t answered question 2 – you haven’t postulated any mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life. Your postulated “self-replicator” molecule would be just that – a simple self-replicating chemical molecule. How do you postulate that the “replicators” got together and organised themselves into anything that would even remotely resemble a functioning LIVING single celled organism – and why do we not observe such a process happening now? In fact Biological Science is so certain that this doesn’t happen that there is a scientific LAW of BIOGENESIS – i.e. that life only arises from other similar life.

Your answer to question 3 seems to be that a defective replication process ultimately created the amazing Human Beings that we all undoubtedly are. How is this supported by observation or logic?
For example, we all have about 3 billion base pairs in our genome and according to the head of the National Genome Research Institute (USA) a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old. It would appear that life is a complex “perfect” system running ‘down-hill’ and not a simple “imperfect” system running ‘up hill’ as evolution would have us believe.


Quote

If you have to ask question 4, you just don't understand evolution. Differential survival probability is the one and only mechanism and there is nothing magic about it - it's pretty much pure mathematics and is easy to prove.

Maybe I still don’t understand evolution – although I have been a scientist who believed in and studied Evolution for most of my life. In any event, differential survival cannot explain how an information ‘conservation mechanism’ (such as DNA) arose, in the first place. How do you explain the gradual origins of DNA when the production of DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery” in place and fully functional? Complex structures don’t work AT ALL unless all essential components are present and capable of functionality – and the GRADUAL production of a number of functional components INSTANTANEOUSLY is an oxymoron

On the pure mathematics issue, I can prove mathematically that even if EVERY ELECTRON in the known universe were harnessed to produce a critical amino acid SEQUENCE for a functioning protein it would still be an impossibility. EACH ELECTRON could produce a random 100 chain sequence, one thousand million times every second, for a quadrillion years and still not be remotely guaranteed to produce the critical sequence - a “feat” that a 10 year old child could perform in 20 minutes – such is the importance of applied INTELLIGENCE – as distinct from the blind forces of nature.

KCF

J C wrote:

Some of the most skeptical people that I know are creationists – and anybody that can believe in Evolution in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it is actually a person of very great FAITH.

Yet all creationists have 'faith' in a designing intelligence, without any positive evidence whatsoever. You are simply wrong.

J C wrote:

But it does PRECISELY take a 'leap of faith' to IMAGINE that a self-replicator happened. As a professional scientist I am unaware that a self-replicating molecule has ever been observed – and so it remains outside of science. Science is strictly confined to the observable – everything else is a ‘leap of faith’ – and some faiths are more firmly grounded in reality than others, but they are all still FAITHS – and I respect everyone’s right to their beliefs. If you wish to BELIEVE that a “self-replicator” happened, great – but don’t expect me as a scientist to share your belief – and don’t be surprised if the Irish Skeptics Forum questions any claim by you that your belief is somehow “scientific”.

As you are a practicing scientist, I am quite alarmed at the news that you think no self-replicators have been observed in nature. I had thought that news of Crick and Watson's results would have got around by now. To cut a long story short, there is this molecule called DNA and their is another class of molecule called viruses and these molecules are principally famous for their ability to self-replicate. It's fascinating.

J C wrote:

Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that such a self-replicating molecule ever existed – it would be ‘dead’ and likely to continue in a ‘dead’ way, making perfect or imperfect copies of itself ad infinitum – without any logical reason to believe that it would or indeed COULD ever start any process that would lead to the astronomical amount of information and organisation that is observed in even a so-called “simple cell”.

Just like DNA - a 'dead' molecule reproducing, mutating, selectively surviving depending on the 'fitness' of the mutations - nah, you're right, it's implausible it could never create something alive. It must be something else, but what? Maybe there is an all-poweful and unknowable entity called god fiddling with our atoms? Or maybe it's a bunny rabbit that dances across the milky way in 12 dimensions, is seen in our universe as dark matter and uses dark energy to assemble protein molecules? It's so confusing I can't decide.

J C wrote:

Firstly, you haven’t answered question 2 – you haven’t postulated any mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life. Your postulated “self-replicator” molecule would be just that – a simple self-replicating chemical molecule. How do you postulate that the “replicators” got together and organised themselves into anything that would even remotely resemble a functioning LIVING single celled organism – and why do we not observe such a process happening now? In fact Biological Science is so certain that this doesn’t happen that there is a scientific LAW of BIOGENESIS – i.e. that life only arises from other similar life.

Selective survival has sufficent explanatory power to answer all your objections. Complexity being what it is, the statistical probability of two replicating molecules happening to benefit (in terms of survival and replication chances) from the proximity of another, perhaps slightly different self-replicator is 1.0 given enough time (and we have _plenty_ of that). Natural selection will tend to progressively select those molecules of each 'co-operator' molecule which take better advantage of this potential benefit. There are, once again, well known and well observed examples of this happening in nature. Symbiosis is an example of DNA molecules engaging in mutually beneficial co-operation, which can be of an extremely complex nature. Indeed, it is now widely believed by molecular biologists that our cells' mitochondria were originally symbiotic parasites.

J C wrote:

Your answer to question 3 seems to be that a defective replication process ultimately created the amazing Human Beings that we all undoubtedly are. How is this supported by observation or logic?

To answer the question about observations, I suggest that you review the entirety of the output of the sciences of palaeontology, molecular biology, morphology, archaeology and a fair amount of the output of several other scientific fields. If you feel that the theory is not supported by this mountain of hard fact, then I await with baited breadth the comparable scientific output in peer reviewed journals that you can point me towards that show observational results that offer positive evidence of intelligent design.

When it comes to logic, I suggest you read up on Darwin, Dawkins or any other evolutionary biologist and you familiarise yourself with statistics and the concept of massively iterated processes and how they can lead to accumulation of enormous changes from initial states.

J C wrote:

Maybe I still don’t understand evolution – although I have been a scientist who believed in and studied Evolution for most of my life. In any event, differential survival cannot explain how an information ‘conservation mechanism’ (such as DNA) arose, in the first place. How do you explain the gradual origins of DNA when the production of DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery” in place and fully functional? Complex structures don’t work AT ALL unless all essential components are present and capable of functionality – and the GRADUAL production of a number of functional components INSTANTANEOUSLY is an oxymoron

Not only do you not understand evolution, you do not understand complexity. Each stage in the development of a complex adaptive system simply has to be slightly 'fitter' than the previous stage. There is no evidence that any known example of complex interactions between independent replicators could not be the result of progressive adaptations that made the componenets slightly fitter.

J C wrote:

On the pure mathematics issue, I can prove mathematically that even if EVERY ELECTRON in the known universe were harnessed to produce a critical amino acid SEQUENCE for a functioning protein it would still be an impossibility. EACH ELECTRON could produce a random 100 chain sequence, one thousand million times every second, for a quadrillion years and still not be remotely guaranteed to produce the critical sequence - a “feat” that a 10 year old child could perform in 20 minutes – such is the importance of applied INTELLIGENCE – as distinct from the blind forces of nature.

For a trained scientist, you do seem to be unusually happy to trot out well-known discredited arguments. If you limit yourself to the combinations that are possible by the laws of this universe, the numbers are far smaller. Furthermore if you accept that nobody believes that early replicators were as complex as current ones, then you should be ashamed to keep on flogging this strawman.

What type of a scientist are you by the way?

Poisonwood

J C wrote:

On the pure mathematics issue, I can prove mathematically that even if EVERY ELECTRON in the known universe were harnessed to produce a critical amino acid SEQUENCE for a functioning protein it would still be an impossibility. EACH ELECTRON could produce a random 100 chain sequence, one thousand million times every second, for a quadrillion years and still not be remotely guaranteed to produce the critical sequence - a “feat” that a 10 year old child could perform in 20 minutes – such is the importance of applied INTELLIGENCE – as distinct from the blind forces of nature.

Emm .... okey dokey ... please provide said proof.

By the way I hope you are still not relying on the probabilities you quoted from Hoyle. He infamously constructed his (im)probabilities by failing to include time and space as factors. One author (Andrew Parker) commented that it is almost unbelievable that he could make such a mistake ... except he did. Taken into account these factors reduce the odds by many orders of magnitude.

Its a little like saying that my chance of winning a world-wide lottery are many billions to one but the chance of its being won by someone is almost evens.

Turley

Poisonwood wrote:

By the way I hope you are still not relying on the probabilities you quoted from Hoyle. He infamously constructed his (im)probabilities by failing to include time and space as factors. One author (Andrew Parker) commented that it is almost unbelievable that he could make such a mistake ... except he did. Taken into account these factors reduce the odds by many orders of magnitude.

I am not a mathematician. I think each time I flip a coin the probablity is 50/50 that it will land on one side or the other. By performing this experiment over a period of billions of years, the 50/50 probability each time the coin is flipped remains. Am I correct?

Poisonwood wrote:

Its a little like saying that my chance of winning a world-wide lottery are many billions to one but the chance of its being won by someone is almost evens.

I think the odds of someone winning is much better than evens. Someone always wins a lottery eventually, 100% of the time. There are some events that occur 0 % of the time even over a period of billions of years. Am I correct?

Poisonwood

I think the odds of someone winning is much better than evens. Someone always wins a lottery eventually, 100% of the time.

Exactly!

Zombrex

Poisonwood wrote:

Emm .... okey dokey ... please provide said proof.

Don't bother. It has been pointed out to JC that this argument is nonsense a number of times and yet he still is hanging onto it with two white knucked hands.

He seems to ignore the 2 major flaws. Firstly life did not start out as complex as his example. Secondly chemcial reactions are not "random"

You throw a coin 1 billion times what are the odds you will get something like this (H=head T=tails)

..HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT
HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT
HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT
HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT
HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT
HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTT...

The odds of that happening over a billion throws are next to impossible. By JC's logic therefore Salt is a mathematical impossibility or a proof of intelligent design (what ever way you look at it) because the molecules in salt join up like this, even over a billion molecules -

NaClNaClNaClNaClNaClNaClNaClNa
NaClNaClNaClNaClNaClNaClNaClNa
NaClNaClNaClNaClNaClNaClNaClNa
NaClNaClNaClNaClNaClNaClNaClNa
NaClNaClNaClNaClNaClNaClNaClNa

The odds of them randomly forming in this structure are next to impossible, even over a 4 billion years. But of course they don't join this way randomly, they follow the laws of chemistry, just like evolution does.

His maths is fundementally flawed, he is ignoring some fundemental principles of science and his refusal to read the papers that show this is a sign that he is not interested in proof of evolution only in trying to disprove it

Turley

Poisonwood wrote:

Exactly!

Then we agree it is true that someone wins the lottery.

Is it not also true that hair does not grow on a billiard ball?

What if we wait for a whole year?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
What if we wait for 500 years?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Will hair grow on a billiard ball if we wait for 5 billion years?

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

You throw a coin 1 billion times what are the odds you will get something like this (H=head T=tails)

..HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT
HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT
HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT
HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT
HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT
HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTT...

I think you are talking about two different things. Each time a coin is thrown the odds are 50/50 for heads or tails. The odds of a pattern of heads and tails emerging on successive throws is an entirely different probablity.

Each time the coin is thrown the odds are (from a practical viewpoint) 100% that it will be heads or tails (although it could land on the edge). If a coin is tossed into the air it ALWAYS comes back down. It NEVER stays up in the air. Some might believe that if given billions of years and billions of tosses the coin will remain in the air. Some might also believe in abiogenesis.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

I think you are talking about two different things.

Actually I think you are missing the point of all this.

JC is saying that complex chemial patterns cannot form randomly, just as the pattern

HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT ... billion..

could not form randomly. He is right

But chemical patterns don't form randomly. If they did the odds of the Salt molecule appearing to constantly form the pattern NaClNaClNa etc would be out of this world. But the pattern forms in nature due to the chemical properties of the atoms that make it up.

Likewise, the idea that a self replicating molecule has to form its chemical bonds completely by random is nonsense

Poisonwood

Turley wrote:

Each time the coin is thrown the odds are (from a practical viewpoint) 100% that it will be heads or tails (although it could land on the edge). If a coin is tossed into the air it ALWAYS comes back down. It NEVER stays up in the air. Some might believe that if given billions of years and billions of tosses the coin will remain in the air. Some might also believe in abiogenesis.

What on earth are you blathering on about? We are all entirely familiar with coin tosses and their probabilities ... however, it is completely irrelevant here. Your point about an unusual event never happening is slightly more relevant but very badly chosen, being that it demands that the coin defy known laws of nature. Chemicals on the other hand do bind together and do have an affinity for each other. Complex molecules like amino acids are found all over space (72 in a meteorite that fell to earth a few years ago). So we are simply asking what chance is there that a self-replicating molecule could emerge? I don't know how possible it is but it seems entirely possible to me and I know that you can't prove that it is impossible (desite what old JC misguidedly asserts). It certainly has nothing to do with coins, hairy billiard balls or defiance of gravity.

KCF

Wicknight wrote:

But chemical patterns don't form randomly. If they did the odds of the Salt molecule appearing to constantly form the pattern NaClNaClNa etc would be out of this world. But the pattern forms in nature due to the chemical properties of the atoms that make it up.

Likewise, the idea that a self replicating molecule has to form its chemical bonds completely by random is nonsense

Exactly. We are bound by the underlying physical laws of this universe. Atoms, ions and molecules have a relatively small number of ways that they can become attached to other atoms, ions and molecules in this universe. It's primary school chemistry, which makes a fairly surprising that a professional scientist could misunderstand it (especially after the logical flaw has been pointed out to him many times).

robindch

Wicknight -

> His maths is fundementally flawed

Not quite true -- his maths is correct, because he's multiplied some numbers together correctly. What's wrong is (a) the basis upon which he produces the numbers he's multiplying together; (b) the meaning which he attaches to such numbers, and (c) the resulting conculsion which he draws from the result he gets from multiplication.

> his refusal to read the papers that show this is a
> sign that he is not interested in proof of evolution only
> in trying to disprove it

Trying to disprove something is a useful and highly worthwhile activity. However, JC's problem is that his alleged disproofs are worthless (because of the problems I mentioned above, plus many more), and he's failed to realise this worthlessness, or even address the possibility that they might be worthless.

Science, btw, is not the in the business of 'proving' anything -- that's the happier domain of mathematicians, working in the strict realm of axioms, operators and generative rules. The best that science can do is either to demonstrate the accuracy or applicability of a theory to some specific situation, or else, demonstrate that the theory is wrong in some situation where it was assumed to be accurate. A theory can *never* be 'proven' right, because a future observation may invalidate the theory.

The philosophical work of Karl Popper is worth studying for a more indepth treatment of the philosophical background to scientific theories, notions of disprovability, etc, etc.

Turley -

> If a coin is tossed into the air it ALWAYS comes back
> down. It NEVER stays up in the air. Some might believe
> that if given billions of years and billions of tosses the
> coin will remain in the air.

This is a good example of a frightfully common error that many people make -- namely, that since something has been observed to happen on some occasion or occasions in the past, that the same thing will always happen in the future. There are, of course, plenty of reasons why a tossed coin might 'remain in the air' -- the coin may be magnetic, and somebody might slide a suitably oriented magnet under the coin, while it's up in the air; it might be thrown with such speed, that it achieves orbital veolcity; somebody might grab it while it's in the air, and hold it there; it might stick to a downward-facing, glued surface; etc, etc.

The statement that "If a coin is tossed into the air it ALWAYS comes back" is simply a direct assertion of truth based upon observation, and as Popper says, yiz simply *can't* do that, if you wish to remain rigorous.

> Some might also believe in abiogenesis.

I don't want to remark upon the use of the word 'believe' in this sentence, beyond saying that it's inappropriate.

From a knowledge-based point of view, we must explain our existence upon this planet -- some people use their considerable knowledge in the physical sciences to propose methods by which this could have happened. Other people, generally uneducated in the same physical sciences, and certainly uneducated to the same level, invoke the existence of an external, and undisprovable, entity to do the creating instead. You can call this entity and its activities whatever you like, but invoking this is certainly not science and from an explicative point of view, is worthless, because it explains precisely *nothing*.

- robin.

J C

Absolutely excellent posts!!
Good original thought – well done – and I genuinely mean it.


I don’t have all the answers on this one either – and I would like your help – your recent posts are a very good start.

Let’s look at the “problem” as objectively as possible :

As scientists we all observe extremely complex systems within all life forms – and we naturally wish to know how all of this happened. There are two basic possibilities:

1. It was achieved by natural processes.
2. It was achieved by the intervention of an external intelligent source.

All speculation on EITHER possibility that doesn’t lend itself to repeatable observation is outside the realm of science – and proponents of both possibilities can create considerable speculation about their respective possibility that IS outside of science. I think that some claims by both “camps” may lend themselves to objective repeatable observation – and science should be prepared to carry out these tests. I don’t believe that science will deliver a “knock out” blow for either side – but that is unfounded speculation on my part – and who knows what may happen.

There are extremely well qualified people on both sides of this debate and I don’t think it is either helpful or objectively correct for either side to stereotype the other side as less intelligent or less scientifically qualified than the other. All that I expect as a scientist is that everyone will respect each other and approach the problem objectively and professionally.

As the achievement of life by natural processes hypothesis has had objectively more “work” done on it over the past 100 years – I would like to examine it first.

So what have we got :

A possible primitive self-replicating molecule to start the process off.
A possible “coming together” by these self-replicating molecules to produce some kind of primitive cell.
A possible primitive information conservation mechanism to “store” any accidental copying errors or mutations that Natural Selection selects to survive into the next generation.
A postulation that somehow all of these mechanisms lead to an “upwards and onwards” increase in organised information and the massive increase in complexity that eventually produced the first LIVING cell.
A postulation that somehow other mechanisms brought single cells together into groups and eventually allowed them to communicate with each other to form coherent independent multi-celled organisms – leading eventually to human beings.

I told you I used be an evolutionary scientist - and I have tried to be as fair and objective as possible about how life could be produced using natural processes. I don’t think that science has progressed very much in supporting any of these speculations with repeatable observations / experimentation. This may be because science has tried and failed or never tried in the first place – either way science certainly “must do better”.

You will note that the entire process is highly speculative and it is difficult though not impossible to construct hypotheses to test some of the speculations using repeatable observations / experiments – and that should be the objective of science.

I would also say that the second possibility of intervention by an external intelligent source is also speculative – but that shouldn’t stop science testing any observation-based hypotheses that may emerge in regard to this possibility as well.




I would now like to comment on some issues raised on the thread.

Firstly, in regard to the Lottery. Statistical theory states that, with large numbers, as the number of attempts approaches the number of permutations the “event” is likely to occur. That is why lotteries with say odds of 5 million to one are won on average every time 5 million tickets are bought – and the pattern is in accordance with the classical statistical “bell curve” – i.e. rarely 2 million or 7 million and most often 5 million.

When you are dealing with a “mind melting” number like Sir Fred Hoyle’s 10 to the power of 40,000 - statistical theory would also indicate that this “event” will occur on average every time that 10 to the power of 40,000 permutations are achieved. The only problem is that there are only 10 to the power of 82 electrons in all of the stars in the observable Universe. For this and other reasons, including the aforementioned "Bell curve", statisticians accept that events with probabilities in excess of 10 to the power of minus 100 are statistical impossibilities.
It should also be noted that Sir Fred Hoyle’s calculation related only to achieving the protein SEQUENCES for an Amoeba – and not the immeasurably more difficult task of producing and assembling the proteins and all of the other components into a coherent LIVING and reproducing organism.

Robin validly points out that the calculations are correct for “complex life now” but also points out that life may originally have been much simpler. Wicknight is correct to point out that smaller steps would reduce the probabilities somewhat as well – but then the probabilities begin to rise again as you factor in the chances of assembling the other cellular constituents as well as the “wastage” inherent in small steps, with one small step backwards for two small steps forward, etc – and 10 to the power of 40,000 is such a large number that even cutting it back significantly will have no practical effect on the chances of the “event” actually occurring.

The Salt example shows typical observed chemical behaviour – i.e. a simple repeating pattern that Wicknight correctly highlights as being NON-RANDOM chemical attraction in action. Salt, is an inert chemical that behaves in a totally predictable i.e. non-random way both in forming it’s own crystals and in it’s reactions with other chemicals. However, life is in a completely different league – with massive amounts of precise purposeful sequential information stored with no discernable CHEMICAL pattern evident at all – such as my previous example of the cause of Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The effect of one molecule of water among 3 billion salt molecules wouldn’t even be noticed – yet one “wrong” base pair among 3 billion other base pairs causes a catastrophic disease. The DNA molecule is the most complex and the densest information replication, storage and retrieval system known to science. DNA is to chemistry as a DVD is to tinsel – it may superficially “look” like tinsel – but the DVD stores purposeful sequential information placed there through the deliberate intervention of intelligent Human Beings. There is no comparison between primary school chemistry and DNA – it’s like comparing a flashlight with a super computer – only with a much greater difference (for DNA). One cubic MILLIMETRE of DNA is known to contain more information than the capacity of the largest supercomputers known to science – only the quality of the information in the DNA is vastly superior – one MICROMETRE of DNA has sufficient quality information to construct the most complex object known to science – the Human Brain – which leaves the supercomputer hopelessly trailing “in the quality stakes”.

KCF

J C, do you really expect people to keep on responding to you when you utterly ignore their informative and well-informed responses and merely repeat your incorrect assertions repeatedly. Have you ever considered that dialogue should be a two way process and that prosletysing on the internet in such a manner is rude and destructive?

J C wrote:

... snip ...
There are extremely well qualified people on both sides of this debate and I don’t think it is either helpful or objectively correct for either side to stereotype the other side as less intelligent or less scientifically qualified than the other. All that I expect as a scientist is that everyone will respect each other and approach the problem objectively and professionally - that is what science is supposed to be about.

There are mountains of peer reviewed scientific articles on one side, there is a single, pilloried article on the other. You are dishonestly misrepresenting the facts.

J C wrote:

A possible primitive self-replicating molecule to start the process off.
A possible "coming together" by these self-replicating molecules to produce some kind of primitive cell.
A possible primitive information conservation mechanism to “store” any accidental copying errors / mutations that Natural Selection selects to survive into the next generation.
A postulation that somehow all of these mechanisms lead to an “upwards and onwards” increase in organised information and the massive increase in complexity that eventually produced the first LIVING cell.
A postulation that somehow other mechanisms brought single cells together into groups and eventually allowed them to communicate with each other to form coherent independent multi-celled organisms – leading eventually to human beings.

We have natural selection, chaos and time. That's all we need. Nothing about this explanation expects people to 'believe' anything that is not commonly accepted and well-observed.

J C wrote:

Robin validly points out that the calculations are correct for “complex life now” ...

When you get this dishonest, do you really expect anybody to bother continuing to respond?

Turley

robindch wrote:

This is a good example of a frightfully common error that many people make -- namely, that since something has been observed to happen on some occasion or occasions in the past, that the same thing will always happen in the future. There are, of course, plenty of reasons why a tossed coin might 'remain in the air' -- the coin may be magnetic, and somebody might slide a suitably oriented magnet under the coin, while it's up in the air; it might be thrown with such speed, that it achieves orbital veolcity; somebody might grab it while it's in the air, and hold it there; it might stick to a downward-facing, glued surface; etc, etc.

Excuse me. I did not say if something happens on some occassion the same thing will always happen. I am saying, if abiogenesis is NEVER observed, it is unlikely.

You are quibbling. No person can throw a coin with the velocity to achieve orbit. And if someone grabbed the tossed coin and held it aloft until they dropped dead, the coin would still fall. Your arguments are as silly as your pink goat and crocodile god. They are as imaginary as the news stories invented by H.L. Mencken that I sent to you.

robindch wrote:

> Some might also believe in abiogenesis.

I don't want to remark upon the use of the word 'believe' in this sentence, beyond saying that it's inappropriate.

An abiogenist is defined as a person who believes in abiogenesis.

KCF

Turley wrote:

Excuse me. I did not say if something happens on some occassion the same thing will always happen. I am saying, if abiogenesis is NEVER observed, it is unlikely.

So, based on the few decades of research since the discovery of DNA and with a search area that is confined to a vanishingly tiny percentage of the universe, you are confident in saying that it is unlikely in the entire scope of the universe? A bit like declaring that rain is unlikely if a droplet hasn't hit your nose in the last nano-second.

Turley wrote:

An abiogenist is defined as a person who believes in abiogenesis.

An abiogenist is defined as a made up word. A rational thinker is somebody who accepts that, based on the current evidence, abiogenesis is by far the best theory for the inital emergence of replicating molecules in this universe that we have. In fact it is the only explanatory theory that I am aware of.

Turley

KCF wrote:

A bit like declaring that rain is unlikely if a droplet hasn't hit your nose in the last nano-second.

It is sunny now. I don't think it will rain today. It may rain later in the week but I do not foresee any abiogenesis.

KCF wrote:

An abiogenist is defined as a made up word.

Not true. The dictionary defines "abiogenist" as "n. a person who believes in abiogenesis."

"Double talk" and "gibberish" are terms defined as a made up words. Pink goats, the crocodile god, and people throwing coins into outer space are made up. Some news stories by H.L. Mencken were made up. Some official history is made up.

robindch

Hi Turley -

> I did not say if something happens on some occassion the
> same thing will always happen.

I would gracefully beg to differ. Your original text was:

> If a coin is tossed into the air it ALWAYS comes back
> down. It NEVER stays up in the air.

Anyhow, this is beside the point -- the actual point I was trying to make is that although an event might always have happened in the past, this is no indication that it's *always* going to happen in the future. In addition to suggestions I gave, there might be some as-yet-unnoticed physical law which will come into play at some stage in the future and cause the coin to remain suspended, mid-air.

At the risk of wandering completely off-topic, a story that Richard Feynman once told, might be appropriate here, in which he likened the scientist to a man who knows nothing about chess, but is allowed once every day to observe for one minute a small part of a chessboard while a game is in progress. It may take him many weeks to realize that bishops move only along diagonals and rooks move only along orthorgonals. Months later he may think he knows how all the pieces move and capture, but then come surprises. He sees a pawn captured en passant, or a king and rook castle. Then he sees that a player has two queens on the board, and it could take the scientist years to see that a pawn on the eighth row can become a queen, rook, bishop, or knight, or to determine the exact nature of checkmates and stalemates.

> I am saying, if abiogenesis is NEVER observed, it is unlikely.

I would amend this to read, "if abiogenesis is not observed under certain conditions, then it is unlikely to be observed in the future under the same conditions." We could, after all, be simply looking for it in the wrong place, or in the wrong way, or with the wrong tools, or simply for too short a time to observe all the applicable rules, which is the ultimate point of the Feynman story.

> An abiogenist is defined as a person who believes in abiogenesis.

My issue, as I said, is not with abiogenesis or any of its related definitions, but with the word 'believe', which I don't think has any place when discussing scientific matters. One might "believe" that a theory is an accurate description of some physical process, but one doesn't "believe" in the mechanism itself -- the concept has no meaning. I'm sorry to be pedantic about this point, but it is crucial to a correct and useful understanding of science and the scientific method.

JC -

> I don’t think it is either helpful [...] to stereotype the other
> side as less intelligent or less scientifically qualified than the other

I am not stereotyping, I am describing the facts of the matter, derived from two observations which I, and various biologist aquaintances of mine, have made -- firstly, we have yet to meet any trained biologist who subscribes to creationism; and secondly, all of the creationists we know (and we do know some), are scientifically and technically illiterate, usually hilariously so. This mirrors the statistic which I mentioned yesterday, in which, within the USA, there are estimated to be about 700 out of 480,000 'life science' professionals subscribing to creationism, with a much smaller percentage again outside of the USA. The notion that there is some equality between the two viewpoints, amongst trained professionals, is simply untrue.

> Sir Fred Hoyle’s 10 to the power of 40,000

As with your calculation, Hoyle's infamous one is based upon fallacious assumptions, rendering the 40,000, and consequently, your comments upon it, meaningless.

> Robin validly points out that the calculations are
> correct for “complex life now” [...]

I did no such thing and I would like you to retract this complete misrepresentation of my views.

> [...] but also points out that life may originally have
> been much simpler.

Neither did I say this, although, if you check, you'll find that KCF said something similar at the end his posting of 2005-04-21 00:06.

- robin.

KCF

Turley wrote:

It is sunny now. I don't think it will rain today. It may rain later in the week but I do not foresee any abiogenesis.

You're not very good with the abstract thought thing I see. I'll try to avoid it so. What percentage of the space-time of this universe have you checked for abiogenesis? What percentage of space-time would you say has been checked by anybody? Do you think that this is what statisticians would consider a significant sample size for declaring that something can definitely never happen.

Turley wrote:

Not true. The dictionary defines "abiogenist" as "n. a person who believes in abiogenesis." ... people throwing coins into outer space are made up. Some news stories by H.L. Mencken were made up. Some official history is made up.

As Robin points out, nobody 'believes' in abiogenesis. Also, when we are dealing with cosmological time scales, the probability of the coin not returning to your hand at some stage is 1.0.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

I am saying, if abiogenesis is NEVER observed, it is unlikely.

This is the great leap of faith that creationist take that is actually totally against any scientific reasoning or logic. And I have no problem with that, religion is totally faith based, but to attack evolution with it is rather silly imho.

There is no evidence for intelligent design. People who believe in ID are coming from a religious starting point anyway. God created life, so the idea of ID is not that foreign an idea. Then when presented with a very complex system that we don't fully understand, to a creationist the obvious answer is that God, or some inteligence did it. But that is a fundamental assumption, that actually has no basis other than religion, which is not science. It is evidence through pre-concieved assumption. Even if the odds of life happening are so huge as to be nearly impossible (which they aren't) that is still not "evidence" for intelligent design. Intelligent Design is an assumption we make to explain things we don't understand, which is something we have been doing for thousands of years, and is the basis for most religions. But there is still no evidence for ID at all.

If you ignore the idea of intelligent design, because there is not scientific reason to believe in ID, then you come to the logical conclusion that abiogenesis must have happened some how because we are here aren't we. And it must have happened due to a natural process, because there is not other logical explaination.

It is only at this point that one can then start to explore the possibilities of how that might have happened.

To answer the idea that a self-replicating molecule is impossible, or never has be observed, a quick search in Google shows this isn't true. Research into this has been going on since the late 80s.

http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html

Led by Professor Julius Rebek, Jr. of the Department of Chemistry, they have created an extraordinary self- replicating molecular system that they say might be regarded as a "primitive sign of life."
...
Amazingly, the laboratory-made molecule that Professor Rebek and his colleagues have created can reproduce itself without the "outside" assistance of enzymes.

Now, yes I am aware that humans created this, it was not discovered growing naturally. But as far as I know it wasn't created in anyway that couldn't be replicated naturally. It very least shows that the "chicken and the egg" response to creationists no longer holds. It is possible for self-replicating molecules to exisit independently of support systems. It is not a great jump to say they could have occurred naturally.

Turley

Science has shown that a monkey can push a key on a typewriter. Therefore, if we put enough monkeys in a room, with enough typewriters, and give them enough time they will type all of the classics.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Science has shown that a monkey can push a key on a typewriter. Therefore, if we put enough monkeys in a room, with enough typewriters, and give them enough time they will type all of the classics.

And .... ?

Are you deliberatly trying to miss the point or do you just not understand what people are talking about?

The way molecules form is not random. Getting the exact conditions on Earth so that life can begin is random (not totally random, more like chaos theory random), but once you have the conditions molecules will behave in predictable fashion, following a set of basis chemical rules.

It would be like teaching the monkeys English before you give them a type writer. The odds of them creating Shakespear are still very high, but a lot less than if they were just randomly pressing buttons.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Science has shown that a monkey can push a key on a typewriter. Therefore, if we put enough monkeys in a room, with enough typewriters, and give them enough time they will type all of the classics.

BTW religion (the bible) teaches that the number Pi is exactly 3, which it isn't, the Sun goes round the Earth, which it doesn't, and that if a man rapes a woman he should pay the womans father a compensation and then marry her, which I think we all agree isn't a good idea

Ridiculing science while coming from a religious stand point is rather silly. If we wanted to we could have a field day ridiculing the mistakes, contradictions and outright obsurdeties in the Bible

:rolleyes:

robindch

> Science has shown that a monkey can
> push a key on a typewriter.

I'm not aware of anybody who's carried out research in this area, though I've little doubt that a trained monkey could conceivably learn to press keys, rather than, for exampe, chuck the typewriter at his neighbour, or leave it and wander off in search of a banana, or a tea cup.

> Therefore, if we put enough monkeys in a room, with
> enough typewriters, and give them enough time they
> will type all of the classics.

Looking at this in two ways -- firstly, and faintly dully, according to the Law of Large Numbers, you're quite correct in stating this.

Secondly, and perhaps more interestingly, if we accept the following three reasonable assumptions:

1. That humans are highly evolved monkeys (as almost all biologists do)
2. That the notion of a 'room' can be extended to the world,
3. That the 'typewriter' can be extended to include a computer keyboard

...then we could propose the existence of a collection of all the classics -- and thanks to the excellent Project Gutenberg, we find that such a resource does indeed exist.

QED

- robin.

KCF

robindch wrote:

1. That humans are highly evolved monkeys (as almost all biologists do)
2. That the notion of a 'room' can be extended to the world,
3. That the 'typewriter' can be extended to include a computer keyboard

...then we could propose the existence of a collection of all the classics -- and thanks to the excellent Project Gutenberg, we find that such a resource does indeed exist.

QED

- robin.

And the experiment didn't even need that much time to succeed. Depending on what type of monkey we want to start with, we observed this phenomenon in only 6-40 million years. In your face, law of large numbers!

KCF

Wicknight wrote:

Now, yes I am aware that humans created this, it was not discovered growing naturally. But as far as I know it wasn't created in anyway that couldn't be replicated naturally. It very least shows that the "chicken and the egg" response to creationists no longer holds. It is possible for self-replicating molecules to exisit independently of support systems. It is not a great jump to say they could have occurred naturally.

I think that the distinction between 'self-replicators' and one's that do it with the assistance of other chemicals (like DNA and Virii) is not very significant. I argue this point thusly:

Replication, by it's nature, depends upon the presence of other chemicals in the environment. The 'copy' of the replicating molecule consists of matter that can not be created out of nothing and must be assembled from raw materials which exist in the molecule's environment.

At the very simplest level, we could imagine a primitive 'self-replicating' molecule which 'attracts' chunks of simpler molecules to itself and eventually builds up a copy of itself before splitting in two (sort of like a single strand of DNA's double helix which accumulates a copy of itself as a second strand and divides when it is complete).

However, we have no evidence that this simple 'self-replication' was what actually happened. It could well have been that the first replicators depended on the proximity of other chemicals to catalyse the process and that this type of pure 'self-replicator' never existed. In any case, I don't think it is an important distinction. If the molecule depended on its environment purely for raw materials or if it also depended on it for other indirect chemical 'helpers' in the process, then it is still a self-replicator in my eyes and it is still dependant on other chemicals in its environment. I also think that the distinction between molecules that replicate within an engineered environment and the hypothetical ones that did so in the chaotic environment of a primordial soup is not particularly significant. We can be pretty confident that the emergence and survival of replicating molecules in a chaotic enviroment requires some fairly unusual environmental conditions and thus we should be able to conclude that there would be an extremely strong selection pressure towards those molecules that were able to effectively engineer their environment to provide conditions where reproduction was less dependant on chaos.

I think a more important distinction than the self/assisted replication one, especially for the purpose of discussions with the followers of the palestinian man-god is between replicators which are just the playing out of the fundamental laws of the universe and those that require 'intelligent' intervention.

Turley

robindch wrote:

Secondly, and perhaps more interestingly, if we accept the following three reasonable assumptions:

1. That humans are highly evolved monkeys (as almost all biologists do)

"It is even harder for the average ape
to believe that he has decended from man." -- HL Mencken

KCF

Turley wrote:

"It is even harder for the average ape
to believe that he has decended from man." -- HL Mencken

And I suspect that it's harder again for you.

J C

Quote
Do you really expect people to keep on responding to you when you utterly ignore their informative and well-informed responses and merely repeat your incorrect assertions repeatedly. Have you ever considered that dialogue should be a two way process and that prosletysing on the internet in such a manner is rude and destructive?

All I will say to that is -

Touché.


Quote
There are mountains of peer reviewed scientific articles on one side, there is a single, pilloried article on the other. You are dishonestly misrepresenting the facts.

The FACTS are that there are thousands of well qualified creation scientists, many with multiple doctorates from mainstream universities. There are also many other good scientists out there who are afraid to reveal that they no longer believe in Evolution because of the “pilloring” (to use your own words) that they could be subjected to for doing so.

The FACTS are that there IS very high quality scientific research being carried out into creation on “shoe string” budgets and there are hundreds of PEER REVIEWED scientific PAPERS reporting on the OBSERVED findings every year.

The FACTS are that most evolutionary scientists refuse to review creation science literature – but any appropriately qualified scientist in good standing is as good as the next, when it comes to peer reviewing reports of REPEATABLE OBSERVATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS. So creation science papers are in as good a scientific standing as their evolutionary equivalents – only there are more of them and I have observed that they are in general of a higher quality.

I haven’t seen “mountains” of evolutionary literature. In FACT, I haven’t seen ANY scientific literature on OBSERVATIONS in relation to “self-replicators”, proto-cells, DNA pre-cursors, mechanisms that increase genetic information over time or any of the other basic phenomena that should be out there and OBSERVABLE if evolution is true. I have seen plenty of “old guff” and SPECULATIONS but NO repeatable OBSERVATIONS that support the critical claims of evolution.
As my previous post has shown, Evolution is a fairly “OBSERVATIONALLY CHALLENGED” and highly SPECULATIVE “beast” actually teetering on the verge of scientific extinction – but being kept alive by isolating it from critical questioning and ‘fobbing off’ anyone who enquires into it with pseudo-scientific arguments that simply don’t “stand-up” to rational objective examination.

Bye the way “pilloring” is hardly an appropriate activity for 21st century science to be engaging in. By all means, point out factual or logical errors – but the a priori rejection of Creation Scientists and their work is an unnecessary and inappropriate restriction on academic freedom to pursue knowledge wherever that knowledge may be found.

Quote
We have natural selection, chaos and time. That's all we need. Nothing about this explanation expects people to 'believe' anything that is not commonly accepted and well-observed.

EVERYTHING about this statement REQUIRES people to BELIEVE in it – as there has NEVER been a chaotic system OBSERVED that wasn’t either useless or downright dangerous and destructive. If somebody admitted that all of the systems and machinery in their factory were chaotic – they could forget about selling any more products to their customers and I think that “Health and Safety“ might also take an active interest in the premises and the danger to “life and limb” that it would represent.

Chaos is actually only a blind force of nature – all “raw energy” is chaotic and therefore either useless or randomly destructive – until order is imposed on it through the application of intelligence. For example, the chaotic flow of water in a river is either completely useless or downright dangerous, if you get in it’s way. However if order is IMPOSED on the river flow through the application of intelligent design and engineering, the chaotic raw energy can be safely harnessed to do useful work. Similarly living organisms use very complex systems that impose order on otherwise chaotic processes – such as chlorophyll capturing the chaotic energy of the Sun and converting it into sugars.

I too have seen the computer programmes that purported to “prove” that chaos produces design and I have observed the amazing multicoloured random designs they produced. I have a ‘machine’ that can do the same “trick” and it cost me only one Euro – it is called a Kaleidoscope. All Kaleidoscopes, whether virtual or real, are examples of intelligently designed ‘machines’ imposing order on chaotically behaving crystals / microchips by using deliberately engineered systems of prisms / computer programs.
The oft quoted example from Chaos Theory of a butterfly triggering a chaotic chain of events that could ultimately lead to a hurricane on the far side of the world is highly speculative - but even if it sometimes occurs, a hurricane is at best totally useless or at worst a dangerous and destructive "raw energy" force of nature. This type of mechanism shows NO POTENTIAL to construct the sophisticated purposeful integrated complex systems observed in living organisms. Then again the concept of the limits of POTENTIAL for any observed system may be difficult for somebody who believes that a monkey could ultimately produce the works of William Shakespeare. It is a similar fallacy to a theory that sticking a feather in the ground could grow a Hen - it just doesn't have the POTENTIAL to do so - even in a quadrillion years, all it CAN do is "return to the Earth from which it was made".
Unfortunately, you need much more than “the three blind mice” of natural selection, chaos and time to produce anything approaching the complexity of life.
Chaos Theory has actually become the “thinking Evolutionist’s” substitute for mutation – it sounds more sophisticated – but it is basically the same thing – a blind random force that is either useless or damaging unless CONTROLLED by a deliberately engineered system.


And now I wish to issue a challenge to the great FAITH of Evolutionists in CHAOS and MUTATION as the MEANS of evolving improved life forms:–

1. Stand in front of a CHAOTIC raging bull and see how he “improves” your phenotype.
2. Take a tan under an X-Ray machine for a week – and see how it’s MUTAGENIC effects “improves” your genome.

Any takers?

I have the bull and the X-Ray machine standing by – and I can arrange plenty of exposure time for you!!!!

KCF

J C wrote:

1. Stand in front of a CHAOTIC raging bull and see how he “improves” your phenotype.
2. Take a tan under an X-Ray machine for a week – and see how it’s MUTAGENIC effects “improves” your genome.

Any takers?

I have the bull and the X-Ray machine standing by – and I can arrange plenty of exposure time for you!!!!

End of the conversation for me. I have no problem with you believing ridiculous things, but there are no excuses for being deliberately and persistantly dishonest. You know perfectly well that these two claims are particularly flimsy and dishonest strawmen charicatures of evolutionary theory. It almost amazes me how the members of the cult of this tri-partite palestinian phantom man-god can reconcile such poor ethics with their avowed intent to follow the example of jesus. However, then I remember Philip Pullman's observation that "good people do good things, bad people do bad things, but it takes religion to make a good person do bad things" and it all makes sense again.

I'll tell you what, if you get onto the big man upstairs and have him create me an xray machine and a bull right here in my house, I'll get back to you. In the meantime, please go away.

Danno

Wicknight wrote:

BTW religion (the bible) teaches that the number Pi is exactly 3,

Ahem, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/pi.asp

Zombrex

J C wrote:

And now I wish to issue a challenge to the great FAITH of Evolutionists in CHAOS and MUTATION as the MEANS of evolving improved life forms:–

1. Stand in front of a CHAOTIC raging bull and see how he “improves” your phenotype.
2. Take a tan under an X-Ray machine for a week – and see how it’s MUTAGENIC effects “improves” your genome.

Any takers?

I have the bull and the X-Ray machine standing by – and I can arrange plenty of exposure time for you!!!!

How can you claim to be a "professional scientist" when you make such idiotic claims like this.

Read this please, before you come out with even more non-scientific rubbish.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

Danno

Wicknight wrote:

How can you claim to be a "professional scientist" when you make such idiotic claims like this.

Read this please, before you come out with even more non-scientific rubbish.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

QUOTED FROM THE ABOVE LINK: Q: Doesn't evolution depend on mutations and aren't most mutations harmful?
A: No. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful.

That's the short answer. The long answer is that mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), strictly harmful, strictly helpful, or (and this is important) whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment. Let's look at an example of a mutation which may be harmful or helpful, depending upon circumstances.
English peppered moths come in two varieties, light and dark. Before the industrial revolution dark moths were very rare. During the worst years of the industrial revolution when the air was very sooty dark moths became quite common. In recent years, since the major efforts to improve air quality, the light moths are replacing the dark moths. A famous paper by H.B.D. Kettlewell proposed the following explanation for this phenomenon:

Birds eat the kind of moth they can see the best.

In England before the Industrial Revolution trees are often covered with light colored lichens. As a result light moths were favored because they were hard to see on the bark of trees whereas the dark moths were easy to see; birds ate the dark moths. During the worst years of the Industrial Revolution the air was very sooty so tree bark was dark because of soot. Dark moths were hard to see whereas the light moths were easy to see; birds ate the light moths. As a result the dark moths became common and the light moths became rare.

Despite creationist criticisms, this explanation has stood the test of time. Before the Industrial Revolution, a mutation which changed light moths into dark moths was an unfavorable (harmful) mutation, whereas during the dark years it was a favorable (helpful) mutation.

HA! HA! HA!

WOW! Mutations - imagine! Birds eat more white moths causing more black moths to survive - PRIME example of mutation...

But then again - human INTELLIGENCE of the industrial revolution was an active input into the poor moth's fate.

WRONG AGAIN EVOLUTIONISTS...

KCF

Scientist wrote:

That's the short answer. The long answer is that mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), strictly harmful, strictly helpful, or (and this is important) whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment. Let's look at an example of a mutation SNIP....

Danno wrote:

HA! HA! HA!

WOW! Mutations - imagine! Birds eat more white moths causing more black moths to survive - PRIME example of mutation...

But then again - human INTELLIGENCE of the industrial revolution was an active input into the poor moth's fate.

WRONG AGAIN EVOLUTIONISTS...

Some questions:

What part of air pollution is not "the environment"?

Is Danno really claiming that the industrialists of the 19th century were intelligently engineering moth genes and their stated intent to amass capital was merely a smokescreen for the operation?

Why does ARBITRARY capitalisation seem to substitute itself for evidence in the WORLD of creationists?

What is it about Danno that allows him to circumvent the normal human antipathy towards being humiliated?*

*(Danno, anybody reading this contribution who understands anything about science at all will instantly interpret it as "Ha, Ha, I'm a moron and I'm actually proud of it)

robindch

> there are thousands of well qualified creation scientists,
> many with multiple doctorates from mainstream universities.

While there are millions of creationists in the USA, there are almost no "well qualified creation scientists", which phrase I assume you mean "creationists with relevant qualificiations". I've already quoted a Gallup report, twice, which shows that around 700, or 0.15%, of US 'life scientists' are creationists, with around 99.85% who are not. Your assertion that there are "thousands" is entirely false, based upon available evidence.

I would also point out that the vast majority of the 'scientists' you claim, have no qualifications in relevant fields -- see, for example, the team assembled by our old friend, Ken Ham, he of an honorary doctorate from a religiously-fundamentalist, and largely unaccredited, university. Ham lists three biologists qualified to doctorate level, with thirty-seven further teachers unqualified to this level, with quite a few of these from yet more unaccredited institutions (read: 'diploma mills'), including a guy from my own personal favourite fundie-forge, the wonderfully named Bob Jones University, the pleasantly-inappropriate "BJ-U" to its critics (of which there are many) and which has honored our very own fundie-fruitcake, Ian Paisley with a doctorate.

> I haven’t seen “mountains” of evolutionary literature.

As I said before, you don't appear to have looked for any -- you've been given with many references, and I assume, at this stage, that you're simply not interested in looking for any evidence which doesn't support your own notions.

> most evolutionary scientists refuse to review creation
> science literature

Yes, for two simple reasons: firstly, it's not scientific (see almost any of my previous messages); secondly, every bit that I've ever seen of it is thinly-disguised religious fundamentalism of a distinctly unpleasant kind. If creationists wish to be taken seriously as scientists, then, as I said before, they should start talking like them, and not like two-bit, tin-shed tub-thumpers.

> there has NEVER been a chaotic system OBSERVED that
> wasn’t either useless or downright dangerous and destructive.

<sigh> -- more nonsense. I really wish that you would check *something* before you post it.

There are plenty of benign, continuous chaotic systems -- at the molecular level, do a google search for Schrodinger's aperiodic crystals (a well-known lecture series upon these was delivered in Trinity College, Dublin, during his time in Dublin during WWII, and which topic exactly presaged the discovery of DNA by Franklin, Crick and Watson). More chaos can be observed, at the societal level, in the simple example of the dynamics of predator/prey interaction, where chaotic (fractal) behaviour is demonstrated remarkably simply -- see this page for some easy examples.

> Chaos [...is...] a blind random force that is either useless
> or damaging unless CONTROLLED by a deliberately engineered
> system.

As above, if you are ignorant in the matter of dynamic systems, emergent phenomena, chaos, limited change-over-time systems such as evolution (etc, etc), then I've little doubt that it appears that way to you.

Finally, two brief things you've not yet addressed:

1. In his message of 21-03-2005, 00:06, KCF asked you to explain your scientific credentials and you've not yet done so. Given that you have consistently demonstrated a *total* ignorance of science and the scientific method, and not much more than contempt for the findings of both, it seems reasonable to conclude that you have either forgotten what you learned during your education, or that you have been less than honest in claiming such a qualification. Which is it?

2. In my message, of 22-03-2005 00:56, I asked you to retract your misrepresentation of my view and you've not done so. Why not?

- robin.

PS - Oh, yes. The word "pilloried", which KCF used, is the passive past participle of the verb 'to pillory'. There is no such word as “pilloring” (to use your own words).