Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability
by pomegranate 145 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Crazy151drinker
Why dont you two find the middle road: God started Evolution.
There, now you both are happy........
-
JanH
Crazy,
That something is the middle road between two extremes doesn't make it true. It is perfectly possible that either of the extremes are true. In the case of naturalism/supernaturalism, evidence has steadily favoured naturalism since the inception of scientific thought.
But you are right about one thing: all species now living have evolved from a common ancestor. That is a fact. Those forming theories about origins, naturalistic or supernaturalistic, must begin with the facts. Abiogenesis cannot be called a fact. There is, however, a very good case made that life orginated from non-life on this planet through natural processes.
- Jan
Blogging at Secular Blasphemy -
funkyderek
Why dont you two find the middle road: God started Evolution.
There, now you both are happy........
I think you'll find neither side is happy with that 'compromise'.
It seems ridiculous to invoke a supernatural entity for one little act of abiogenesis. That deus ex machina approach never sits well with skeptics. If you mean that god actually directed (or directs) evolution, then that abolishes the need for or possibility of natural selection, the cornerstone of modern evolutionary theory.
A god would have to be cruel or at least pitiless to allow progress to happen in such a slow and brutish manner. If humans are simply primates with very evolved brains, then it's hard for fundamentalists to argue that God has any interest in us. And a god who uses such an inefficient means of creation is hardly awe-inspiring.
-
Realist
i guess i should hit myself for writing back again...
a) your calculation is irrelevant because no one is talking about a 300 amino acid long protein. very short polypeptides have already enzymatic activity.
b) there are transitional forms. take archeopterix as the most prominent example. there are many many others. however transitional forms are of course rare since species stay in more or less the same form for most of their existence. transitional forms gain importance only if environmental changes occur that allow the adaptaion to a new niche.
c) if you would have a scientific mind then you would try to come up with an alternative scientific explaination instead of refering to God who somehow and miracously put everything here (despite a gigantic pile of evidence against that idea)
d) just on the side: biological evolution does NOT depend on how the first cell formed.
e) here is an abstract from a rather new review about peptide formation:
Peptides and the origin of life. Rode BM.
Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Institute for General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Innsbruck, Austria. [email protected]
Considering the state-of-the-art views of the geochemical conditions of the primitive earth, it seems most likely that peptides were produced ahead of all other oligomer precursors of biomolecules. Among all the reactions proposed so far for the formation of peptides under primordial earth conditions, the salt-induced peptide formation reaction in connection with adsorption processes on clay minerals would appear to be the simplest and most universal mechanism known to date. The properties of this reaction greatly favor the formation of biologically relevant peptides within a wide variation of environmental conditions such as temperature, pH, and the presence of inorganic compounds. The reaction-inherent preferences of certain peptide linkages make the argument of 'statistical impossibility' of the evolutionary formation of the 'right' peptides and proteins rather insignificant. Indeed, the fact that these sequences are reflected in the preferential sequences of membrane proteins of archaebacteria and prokaryonta distinctly indicates the relevance of this reaction for chemical peptide evolution. On the basis of these results and the recent findings of self-replicating peptides, some ideas have been developed as to the first steps leading to life on earth. -
Zechariah
Both Rem and Realist have made the blunt statements that Evolution is FACT. Rem admits that as far as original cause is concerned there must still be doubt but their working on it. But after the Original Cause issue (Abiogenesis) its evolution all the way , baby. I just love his arrogance :).
Science has made great progress in the field, but I'm in no position to defend it because there are not enough facts yet.
Maybe in another quantumkizillion years there will be. :)
There are, however, enough facts to support Evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Is another Scopes Monkey Trial necessary to convince you evolution is even more so a theory now than then. In fact I think a trial in a court of law would be very advantageous right now. Let us hope.
Anyone who looks at the facts and denies the reality of Evolution is being intellectually dishonest. They are forcing the observed facts to conform with their ancient religious text. And when that doesn't work, they outright deny the facts. That is intellectual dishonesty in the extreme.
How can you say those that do not believe in Evolution are being dishonest. Creation conforms to their common sense and understanding. It would be intellectual dishonesty to blindly accept the word of someone that is a scientific God who proports to know more than we and should decide for us what is fact.
If the socalled fact of evolution is only evident to those specially trained adherents to this Godless religion then I say do not teach this stuff to my children in school.
Evolution is not a theory that tries to avoid giving creative credit to a personal original cause. It is just a scientific theory that explains the facts well.
Which is it fact or theory? If it is so provable why hasn't it been proven.
It says nothing of the origins of life... only of the origins and changing of species.
You obviously don't believe that the origins and changing of the species that evolution holds out is seriously questioned and unright disputed by intelligent men of science. I'm am desirous of pursuing this question is detail. I will be starting a thread on this later. At that time please tell me what evolutionists have proven as to the origin of the species. Lets have our modern Scopes Monkey trial right here.
it becomes really pointless to discuss science with people who have no idea what they are talking about. i don't blame anyone for nothaving the time to study physics, biology or whatever science. but then they should at least not try to argue against proven scientific facts.
non of the people here who are defending creation have a clue about the facts that support evolution. in fact they have no clue about how science works. otherwise they would keep their rediculous statements to themselfs.The only thing ridiculous is your constant insistence evolution is fact. Lets give you opportunity as outlined above to show what uninformed, uneducated people we believers in creation are.
i think decency would require that they read the scientific facts and explanations before they post. but unfortunately they are not even willing to read summaries like that provided on talkorigins.
I know what I am sure of and satisfied with believing. When that is the case one is not looking for another answer and don't want to be convinced contrary. I wouldn't even suggest you read a creationist book. I do not think you would be indecent because would choose not to. You likewise are satisfied with your point of view. Your intelligence supports that point of view. But each of our seperate points of view is only credible to ourselves and hopefully to some who are are uncommitted to theirs. My participation in these debates is for the benefit of these individuals.
[quote]the best is probably to leave them in their ignorance and if it makes them really happy let them keep their naive views about the world
What you suggest is wise if your purpose is to change our committed points of view. But for the sake of the general public let us offer up our best cases in support of our points of view.PS- Pomegranate, your defense has been wonderful giving creationist already a strong case for the trial.
Zechariah -
pomegranate
Here is what Jan says:
"Pome, Your intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking."
And also:
But you are right about one thing: all species now living have evolved from a common ancestor. That is a fact.
Here is what his linked article reveals:
"Common descent is a general descriptive theory..."
"Simply put, the hypothesis of common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions; these predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the hypothesis fairs in light of the observable evidence."
Didn't you read that Jan? HYPOTHESIS. NOT FACT.
You calling something a fact that your OWN ARTLICE says is just a hypothesis and theoretical postulation I believe is dishonest, don't you?
PS. Dig this sentence of spectaculor scholarly reasoning from the same article introduction:
"In fact, without assuming the truth of universal common descent, it is highly probable that the hypothesis will indeed fail for most of these predictions - and this is exactly why many of these predictions are such strong evidence for common descent."
In order for you to understand this HYPOTHESIS, you have to assume it is a universal truth first, otherwise it's predictions wil FAIL.
That's A FACT.
Edited by - pomegranate on 18 October 2002 17:17:8
-
expatbrit
Pomegranate:
I have already poked a hole in talkorigins "math" with no refute.
What you've done is prove the author's point nicely. I'll requote a sentence from the introduction of the essay:
I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way.
The whole point of the essay is to show that probability calculations are pointless regarding abiogenesis. The statistical errors explained by the essay illustrated that. Your response pointing out where you thought there were further statistical errors merely emphasized that point.
Expatbrit
p.s. there are in fact other theories addressing chirality in nature. I'm sure you're aware of them.
-
pomegranate
The whole point of the essay is to show that probability calculations are pointless regarding abiogenesis. The statistical errors explained by the essay illustrated that. Your response pointing out where you thought there were further statistical errors merely emphasized that point.
First, the essay uses WRONG starting numbers. An elementary mistake right from the beginning.
Second, how is it that probabilty math is usable in the infinite complexities of atomic quantum mechanics AND BE GOOD AND USEFUL, and of no use to the SIMPLE NUMBERS of connecting biological elements into CHAINS of life? Of course evolution has to try and release itself from probability math, because the numbers show IMPOSSIBILTY.
Evolutionists want the theory to be EASIER than the math shows.
-
pomegranate
It seems ridiculous to invoke a supernatural entity for one little act of abiogenesis. That deus ex machina approach never sits well with skeptics. If you mean that god actually directed (or directs) evolution, then that abolishes the need for or possibility of natural selection, the cornerstone of modern evolutionary theory.
A god would have to be cruel or at least pitiless to allow progress to happen in such a slow and brutish manner. If humans are simply primates with very evolved brains, then it's hard for fundamentalists to argue that God has any interest in us. And a god who uses such an inefficient means of creation is hardly awe-inspiring.
I agree.