Darwin's theory

SaveOurLyric · 21-10-2014 12:16AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Smart people can still be wrong. Any further explanation needed really?

I think so. Their adherence to these old ideas stands out particularly from their ability to reason or be correct about most other matters in modern life. Is their any other aspect of thought where otherwise sensible people can be so blind to the facts in front of them ? I feel it has a deeper cause.

EoghanIRL · 21-10-2014 12:59AM

If you ask a Christian why then their answer always seems to be "because god allowed it to happen ".

When we discover what caused the Big Bang to occur etc religion will just claim it as god's work .

The idea of intelligent life spontaneously occurring is more credible than a god who just always existed .

For instance ,
Who creates god? - god allowed it to happen . God created himself .
This is the same as saying intelligent life spontaneously occurred from non intelligent sources except one isn't based on fairy tales and magic .

Chunners · 21-10-2014 01:00AM

Wibbs wrote: »

The arsenic metabolising organisms have since been disproven as a "different" form of life. They're just the same as every other form of life and related to every other form of life. So far we've not found "aliens" on Earth. All life so far found is related to each other. It seems life started the once here, or maybe it started more than once, but the only survivors from pretty early on were interrelated.

Very true, though we are very unusual animals in the history of evolution on this planet. Many fish shapes have evolved in different animals, from fish and sharks, through reptiles and mammals. Flight has equally been as diverse. However intelligence, particularly our type of abstract intelligence has happened the once. Even among humans before us we stand out as outliers to the party. We are pretty damned unique as animals on this planet.

In all fairness I never used the word "Alien" but since you did I do believe that with enough oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen Alien life is possible too, there are so many life forms on this planet that can live in extremes that we, as humans, can't that there is no bloody reason what so ever to think that life as a process couldn't happen anywhere else. JC sees us as this unique thing but look around, this entity he is spouting about didn't just create humans, it created cats, dogs, wolves, apes, flies, spiders all these species that really have no function other than to exist. If everything is created then what is the logical reason for a life form that can only survive on the edge of volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean to exist? What is the logical reason for the universe to be so large and constantly growing and put us (as it's biggest achievement) in a far corner of it from where we will never see all of it? if we are it's intention then why create the universe in the first place? why not just end at the solar system?

JC01 · 21-10-2014 01:35AM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I think so. Their adherence to these old ideas stands out particularly from their ability to reason or be correct about most other matters in modern life. Is their any other aspect of thought where otherwise sensible people can be so blind to the facts in front of them ? I feel it has a deeper cause.

Emmm Nazi Germany?

And in my experience the " deeper cause" is weakness.

Chunners · 21-10-2014 01:39AM

JC01 wrote: »

Emmm Nazi Germany?

And in my experience the " deeper cause" is weakness.

And yet again Godwins law is proven

laurinjames · 21-10-2014 01:40AM

Chunners wrote: »

In all fairness I never used the word "Alien" but since you did I do believe that with enough oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen Alien life is possible too, there are so many life forms on this planet that can live in extremes that we, as humans, can't that there is no bloody reason what so ever to think that life as a process couldn't happen anywhere else. JC sees us as this unique thing but look around, this entity he is spouting about didn't just create humans, it created cats, dogs, wolves, apes, flies, spiders all these species that really have no function other than to exist. If everything is created then what is the logical reason for a life form that can only survive on the edge of volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean to exist? What is the logical reason for the universe to be so large and constantly growing and put us (as it's biggest achievement) in a far corner of it from where we will never see all of it? if we are it's intention then why create the universe in the first place? why not just end at the solar system?

And most Ironically for poster JC the bible is full of what is technically alien life from God to angels.

No evidence for alien life has ever been found yet, but I believe its out there somewhere.

Chunners · 21-10-2014 01:52AM

laurinjames wrote: »

And most Ironically for poster JC the bible is full of what is technically alien life from God to angels.

No evidence for alien life has ever been found yet, but I believe its out there somewhere.

No it isn't, the bible is full of parables that are physically impossible based on our current knowledge of Physics and Biology but it is sweet that you believe it is all down to Aliens because that means that that your belief in a God is a lie since the human belief in a God is specific and says that humans are the only intelligent life form

laurinjames · 21-10-2014 01:58AM

Chunners wrote: »

No it isn't, the bible is full of parables that are physically impossible based on our current knowledge of Physics and Biology but it is sweet that you believe it is all down to Aliens because that means that that your belief in a God is a lie since the human belief in a God is specific and says that humans are the only intelligent life form

Bizarre
What are my beliefs ? Please tell me them as you seem to think you know them ?
Where did I say its all down to aliens, have you been kidnapped by them ?
Do aliens make up what people say and then attack that instead ?
Maybe they feel safer in their spaceship then. Na Nu Na Nu ?

Chunners · 21-10-2014 02:04AM

laurinjames wrote: »

Bizarre
What are my beliefs ? Please tell me them as you seem to think you know them ?
Where did I say its all down to aliens, have you been kidnapped by them ?
Do aliens make up what people say and then attack that instead ?
Maybe they feel safer in their spaceship then. Na Nu Na Nu ?

I think the big give away was when you said "the bible is full of what is technically alien life from God to angels."

laurinjames · 21-10-2014 02:10AM

Chunners wrote: »

I think the big give away was when you said "the bible is full of what is technically alien life from God to angels."

so in other words I didn't say what you claimed I believe at all i.e. "aliens did it" and you were lying.

and it is, regardless if the bible is fact or fiction, do you know what the term alien and extra terrestrial even mean ? now what are my beliefs you claimed to know of ? I'm very interested to hear what they are. or did you make a very stupid assumption as to what my beliefs must be and jump to a very stupid conclusion you know nothing of ?

Chunners · 21-10-2014 02:21AM

laurinjames wrote: »

and it is, regardless if the bible is fact or fiction, do you know what the term alien and extra terrestrial even mean ? now what are my beliefs you claimed to know of ? I'm very interested to hear what they are. or did you make a very stupid assumption as to what my beliefs must be and jump to a very stupid conclusion you know nothing of ?

Call me old fashioned love but you just said that God and Angles are alien lifeforms. you didn't say they transcend life, you said they exist on the same physical plane as us and as such are subject to the same laws as us ergo they have no more power than we do. You don't know it yet but what you just said is that God isn't a God, according to you now God and angles are nothing more that a slightly technology advanced beings that, contrary to what you and JC claim, must also have evolved in the face of that universal constant crap that it is physically impossible for it to happen

laurinjames · 21-10-2014 02:27AM

Chunners wrote: »

Call me old fashioned love but you just said that God and Angles are alien lifeforms. you didn't say they transcend life, you said they exist on the same physical plane as us and as such are subject to the same laws as us ergo they have no more power than we do. You don't know it yet but what you just said is that God isn't a God, according to you now God and angles are nothing more that a slightly technology advanced beings that, contrary to what you and JC claim, must also have evolved in the face of that universal constant crap that it is physically impossible for it to happen

are you hearing voices in your head ?, please post where I said anything of what you claim.
the bible, fact or fiction, claims god and angels are not of this planet. It's very simple, this is the technical defintion of an alien / extra terristial, now please seperate that very simple factual assertion and stop trying to pretend what I said. No where did i say what i believe regarding if god or angels exist or not, or if the bible is fact or fiction anywhere ? you have not one iota of what I believe or don't believe, this does not mean the bible god angels are true or not or that I am claiming they are or not. what a loon. IF IF IF IF God and Angels exist as the bible claims, and are not of this planet, they are not of this planet, comprende ?

Chunners · 21-10-2014 02:35AM

So what you are saying is that Gods and angels (where they to exist) are really just aliens?

laurinjames · 21-10-2014 02:39AM

Chunners wrote: »

So what you are saying is that Gods and angels (where they to exist) are really just aliens?

Anything that is not of THIS planet, IF it exists, IS by very definition an alien / extra terrestrial, that includes anything not of this planet, from a microbe, to a God, to an angel, to a little green man, IF IF IF it exists. Just because they all fit the term alien does not mean they are all just the same and all exist. That's all, no need to get your knickers in some big twist and make all sorts of wild claims about me and what I was supposed to have said.

Calibos · 21-10-2014 03:00AM

God and Jesus are Aliens etc. Thats Mormonism. Thats what the Republican Presidential candidate in 2012 believes.

Frank Bullitt · 21-10-2014 06:11AM

As if this thread couldn't get any weirder...

floggg · 21-10-2014 07:07AM

Chunners wrote: »

The insult post was a convenience for him, it gave him an opening where he could draw attention to that instead of all the questions he won't/can't answer

In fairness, calling somebody sub-human because of their particular beliefs is absolutely uncalled for, unmerited and offensive. It says more about the name caller than anything else.

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-10-2014 07:26AM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

While it is easy to understant the ignorant and uneducated still following the myths of religion, is there a Darwinist explanation for the otherwise seemingly well informed and educated minority, still holding the religeous delusions

Actually there is a lot in memology and biology that would give us strong suggestions as to why the ideas persist. We are essentially hard wired by evolution for what some people call "Hyperactive agency detection" and the "intentional stance".

Put into plain English, it means we are hard wired to look for agency and intent behind everything before we consider any other views or explanations.

On top of this even the most educated and well informed people can be wrong. In fact sometimes being highly intelligent and educated can lead one to invoke god because the Hubris of that intelligence, when confronted with questions it can not answer, is to assume a god much have done it rather than admit "I have reached the limits of my knowledge and intellect at this point and I can not explain it further".

Newton, one of the best minds our species has produced, did this. He invoked god to explain away the things his massive intellect simply failed to explain.

floggg · 21-10-2014 08:05AM

J C wrote: »

It is similar to needing a specific sequence of 104 cards for a specific 'result' ... to get this specific sequence would be an impossibilty for non-intelligently directed processes as the combinatorial space at 10^135 is approaching the Universal Probability Bound of 10^150.
However, somebody with two packs of cards can lay them out in a specific sequence in less than 10 minutes, using their intelligence.
So something that is a statistical impossibility for non-intelligently directed processes using all of the matter and time in the Big Bang Universe ... can be done by a person of average intelligence in less than 10 minutes.

It is observed that biomolecules with specific functionalities have specific amino acid sequences in a specific combination and any changes in these sequences produces non-functionality.

... I accept your contentions, if evolution is true, it wouldn't be working to create any particular result like Humans ... but then any process that doesn't work towards a particular result is unable to deliver any result and will result in destruction rather than construction.
... and all living organisms possess very purposeful biological systems.

... and any system producing and developing life (including spontaneous evolution) needs to produce specific functional biomolecules at specific times and places and in precise co-ordinated sequences for the viability of the organisms concerned ... and the combinatorial spaces of these specific sequences are so great that they are impossibilities for non-intelligently directed processes.

Lots of processes don't work towards a particular purpose yet still produce beneficial results. A bush fire doesn't have a particular purpose yet is vital to the well being of many ecosystems (that's not it's purpose - they just happen).

Is there any scientific evidence that our version of life is the only possible version?

Or that different sequences Nd processes couldn't produce similar or equivalent results?

Your argument supposes that's the case, without offering any reason or evidence in that regard.

J C · 21-10-2014 08:07AM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Yes it is amazing how many religious people are out there. You, for example are deluded into thinking yhwh exists.

... and you have an unfounded faith that He doesn't exist.:)

floggg · 21-10-2014 08:12AM

J C wrote: »

To produce a novel functionality would require a specific sequence ... and the combinatorial non-functional combinations is so massive (in excess of the UPB) ... and the specific functional combination is so small for a specific functional biomolecule that it will be statistically 'swamped' by the non-functional permutations.

There is no requirement to produce Humans ... but any system producing and developing life (of whatever type, including Humans) needs to produce specific functional biomolecules at specific times and places and in precise co-ordinated sequences for the viability of the organisms concerned ... and the combinatorial spaces of these specific sequences are so great that they are impossibilities for non-intelligently directed processes.

A particular result will require a particular sequence to have occurred.

That doesn't mean that either the sequence or the result was specified.

The sequence could only be identified or determined retrospectively by recording or identifying what happened.

if there was even one change in the sequence, you would likely end up with a different result. It would still be the right result simply by reason of the fact it was the only one that occurred.

Edited for clarity.

truedoom · 21-10-2014 08:16AM

the OP on this thread made me far angrier than it should have.

9/10 for effort.

floggg · 21-10-2014 08:27AM

J C wrote: »

The odds aren't simply 'high' ... they are beyond the Universal Probability Bound and they are therefore impossibilities.

The lottery is only won every week or so because on average the number of tickets sold every week or so are equivalent to the odds of winning.
... and if any lottery had odds against winning of 10^150 it would never ever be won ... irrespective of the number of tickets sold or draws made.

Can you point to any part reviewed published work in support of the existence of any such UPB?

As you claim to be a scientist yourself, you will know the untested assertions of one person should never be accepted as establishing or proving anything.

Tordelback · 21-10-2014 08:31AM

Dang it J C, you're right. You've discovered a very specific offshoot of probability maths that uniequivocally proves that the Christian God created the world and everything in it (including planting all that fancy evidence that he didn't), none of the objections to its applicability hold water just because, and all the scientists, mathematicians and philosophers in the world who for generation after generation have professionally studied these very matters somehow missed it and deluded themselves utterly into believing that everything they observe isn't just an elaborate con-trick by Yaweh. Well done, pat on the back, circumcisions all round.

Happy? Good. Can we go now?

floggg · 21-10-2014 09:13AM

J C wrote: »

That's one way that it is proposed for how life overcame the Universal Probability Bound ... by starting simple and becoming more complex ... but even just one simple specific biomolecule (and many hundreds are required for even the simplest cell) have combinatorial spaces in excess of the UPB.

I don't think anybody has proposed life ever over came the UPB. Its not a thing - just a name given by one particular person to his dodgy maths equation.

Hoop66 · 21-10-2014 09:24AM

J C wrote: »

... and if any lottery had odds against winning of 10^150 it would never ever be won ... irrespective of the number of tickets sold or draws made.

Or, in simpler form; "I really don't understand probability".

floggg · 21-10-2014 09:30AM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

While it is easy to understant the ignorant and uneducated still following the myths of religion, is there a Darwinist explanation for the otherwise seemingly well informed and educated minority, still holding the religeous delusions ? Surely they arent all trolls ?

the desire to feel special, the fear of death, the yearn for hope and meaning in life, the fact conservative mindsets tend to be resistant to new ideas or ideals and prefer tradition and continuity over change.

floggg · 21-10-2014 09:32AM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I think so. Their adherence to these old ideas stands out particularly from their ability to reason or be correct about most other matters in modern life. Is their any other aspect of thought where otherwise sensible people can be so blind to the facts in front of them ? I feel it has a deeper cause.

Slavery, women's equality, lgbt rights, immigration, global warming, etc etc.

Vivisectus · 21-10-2014 09:54AM

J C wrote: »

To produce a novel functionality would require a specific sequence ... and the combinatorial non-functional combinations is so massive (in excess of the UPB) ... and the specific functional combination is so small for a specific functional biomolecule that it will be statistically 'swamped' by the non-functional permutations.

Again this is only true if you expect any new structure to just randomly spring into existence from random recombination of molecules and expect any structure to have a single, immutable and defined function. But that is not what evolutionists say at all: moving the goalposts to functions does not do you any good either.

J C wrote: »

There is no requirement to produce Humans ... but any system producing and developing life (of whatever type, including Humans) needs to produce specific functional biomolecules at specific times and places and in precise co-ordinated sequences for the viability of the organisms concerned ... and the combinatorial spaces of these specific sequences are so great that they are impossibilities for non-intelligently directed processes.

An excellent example of tying the horse before the cart: it assumes no other forms are possible. Rather, the particular forms we see came into existence because of the environment that was present.

floggg · 21-10-2014 10:06AM

J C wrote: »

... and yet nobody is able to refute the basis for his ideas in my post 1660.

SW wrote: »

So by your own rules we can conclude that Dembski is wrong because you have not addressed the link I posted.

Akrasia wrote: »

Evolution is not a lottery. It's not a random process.
The chemicals that bond best under certain conditions, bond the most under those conditions.
It's a complex interaction of competing chemical interactions. Each interaction alters the conditions making future chemical reactions more or less probable which in turn affect future chemistry.

Life is simply chemistry that actively alters it's surrounding environment in order to maximise it's own ability to replicate. The simplest rule in nature, the survival of the fittest, is enormously powerful.

Simple lifeforms are simple chemical interactions, complex life are multi-layered eco-systems of interdependent organisms that are all synthesising their own environment.

The difference between pond slime and the human organism, is that the human requires more complex internal eco-systems, while the pond slime requires a biosphere equally as complex (relatively) but these are mostly external to the slime. (ie, if the atmosphere didn't have the right mixture of gases, it would not survive, and the atmosphic gases are regulated by all the other lifeforms on earth and the earth's non-biological geological activity

Vivisectus wrote: »

This would apply if you expect a fully functional single-celled organism to pop into existence. Multiply by every cell in every creature that ever existed, and you get a good idea about just how silly ID really is: that is how much the laws of nature need to be broken for fully developed life to be magicked into existence by a God!

Science does not simply allow "God did it by magic" as an explanation. It does not have to: the math proposed here is deeply flawed. It assumes:

a) That is only one viable instance of proto-life possible
b) That a fully functional single-celled organism is supposed to appear, in stead of much simpler self replicating molecules such as RNA, or even a simpler predecessor to it.
c) that life started as a result of completely random floating molecules interacting in an equally random way

As usual ID goes to great lengths to set up a strawman, which it then attacks in the hopes that everyone will just go home and stop trying to figure out how life appeared and accept a magical explanation.

Stil, it is interesting in that it shows just how different a ID argument is from a scientific one: ID never really explains anything. If you look for an answer, it is always "God did it by magic". If ID actually went on and stated " And this is how God did it!" then there would be something there to take interest in. But there never is: once they find any sort of confirmation of what they already believe, they lose interest.

Care to address the above?

I think the most glaring issues for you is the assumption in your maths that the universe was comprised of randomly floating particles and the failure of the equation to take into account (a) the chemical and physical laws and processes (ii) the fact that we do not have an equal distribution of elements and materials throughout the universe (or even on any particular planet) - both of which mean that some combinations/reactions/processes will be more or less common than others to occur.

Darwin's theory

Comments