Mathematics, common sense and the origin of man.

reply to post by bastion


Again, excellent post and thank you for your contribution. I can admit that some of the people that collaborate with ICR are considered fringe but then again, they have PHDs and I do not so it can be exceedingly difficult to cherry pick the "good" information from sources regarding evolution because there is such a huge divide in agenda between the two sides. This holds true with some accepted scientific sources as well. Those that have skin in the game that their theory is correct don't want to be proved wrong or even challenged and some of those people hold tremendous clout within the field.

I honestly do not take anyones word for anything regarding this matter, I do the best I can to research the available evidence myself to make a good decision for my beliefs but that can be hard sometimes when the math escapes you at a certain level. I would hate to think that my shortcomings with numbers have left me vulnerable to ignorance but I honestly don't think that is the case.

For people like me and I'm sure others, there is another level of belief and that is one that can not be explained or argued. I'll be the first to admit, it could be just an electromagnetic imbalance in my brain caused by a defect or external forces but I honestly don't think thats the case. That however, as you already know is subjective and can't be a productive topic of conversation.

bigfatfurrytexan
I think we should question the lack of imagination that makes it so hard to understand how genetic drift becomes evolution. Or how the universe is infinite, and therefore really good at throwing together every possible combination. LIkely countless times over.

How have you come to the conclusion the universe is infinite exactly? There is no such proof. If you believe in M theory, it would seem to dictate that our universe would be a mathematical certainty because every possibility of combinations would be reached because we would live in a multiverse that was filled with infinite universes and possibilities but I am unaware of any definitive work that declares our universe as infinite on a factual basis.

btw, I read your blog, it's entertaining!

reply to post by Helious


You honestly posted some 2 hour idiotic video promoting creationism that you expect everyone to buy on your word and youtube. If I was in the middle somewhere, your arrogance would have driven me to the side of evolution. I honestly hope all of you fundamentalist christian types find the hell you are expecting others to have to endure, because not a single one of you are pure, except for pure evil.

reply to post by BubbaJoe

You honestly posted some 2 hour idiotic video promoting creationism that you expect everyone to buy on your word and youtube.

Well, in all fairness, you just posted an idiotic comment to a thread you have obviously nothing productive to contribute too. Now, tell me, who is wasting whose time?

But please, allow me to shorten the topic for you, I mean, it's only the creation of mankind we are talking about, no big deal.

Helious
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

You honestly posted some 2 hour idiotic video promoting creationism that you expect everyone to buy on your word and youtube.

Well, in all fairness, you just posted an idiotic comment to a thread you have obviously nothing productive to contribute too. Now, tell me, who is wasting whose time?

30 seconds to read my reply, 2 hours to watch your video, no contest.

ETA: there is no particular reason my comment is idiotic, I have nothing productive to add to this thread because it promotes idiocy, I will leave that to you to promote.

reply to post by BubbaJoe


Except the video actually has information worth digesting, unlike your post.

Helious
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

Except the video actually has information worth digesting, unlike your post.

Your video only has information worth digesting if you wish to believe as you do, I don't, so there for it is nothing more than fundamental christian regurgitation.

reply to post by BubbaJoe


Well my friend, that is your choice. I don't ask nor demand anyone believe as I do, I ask for rational, intelligent discussion on the topic as I don't have any problems with discussing the issues I brought up in a reasonable way. This is after all how productive conversation and debate happens. Your post was borderline hate speech where you decided to label me and assert that your poorly contrived idea about what I believed or what was being debated in this thread deserved such a nonsensical approach.

Had you read through the thread (Which I know you didn't) before you decided to type that drivel, you may have found I'm slightly more reasonable than you give me credit for.

reply to post by Helious

There are many professionals within science that dissent on the idea of evolution but they do not garner much attention because despite solid arguments, they are chastised and ostracized by peers. This however, is not the issue at hand and to be honest is the same exact thing that happens within the religious community, try giving a sermon from the book of Enoch at the 11:00 Sunday and I think you will run into the same thing.

I first have to say that your statement: "try giving a sermon from the book of Enoch at the 11:00 Sunday" was laugh out loud funny. I've chuckled about that all day. I immediately thought: "This guy is one of those cool preachers."

Over the years, especially as I have lurked here on ATS, I have read the papers of several scientists with dissenting views about mainstream theories. And, of course, in order to deny ignorance I read many of their papers' critiques as well. Unfortunately, in at least a few cases, there is really no debate.

For instance, a paper is published that espouses a theory significantly different from what is generally accepted. Then a somewhat prominent (or maybe not) scientist publishes a blog entry calling into question the validity of that paper. The blog post simply restates the accepted theory and that the paper failed to prove otherwise, without actually addressing any of the papers' content. Then anyone else who may have at least reviewed the theories and evidence won't give the topic a second thought. Even if the paper is amended to address any valid criticisms, it's now DOA. Eventually the theory may gain some traction as other researchers blindly stumble across supporting evidence. The loss is that a valid theory was killed because of a seriously flawed review process.

With respect to evolution, I have had certain misgivings myself. I've looked at the Cosmic Ancestry (panspermia on steroids) theory and it does fill-in some of the blanks for me. Beyond the well-known abiogenesis aspect, Cosmic Ancestry also postulates that additional unique DNA material could be raining down on the planet all of the time. This DNA is incorporated into extant organisms' genomes and affects the evolutionary process. I would suggest reviewing the link for more information. Of course this simply pushes most of the evolution argument out-of-scope; in that the how and why of evolution is answered by saying that it happened somewhere else first.

Chandra Wickramasinghe, a leading proponent of Cosmic Ancestry, is one of those researchers that is ostracised by the scientific community for his unique theories. I'll admit that some of his claims are extraordinary. And he doesn't always play nice with his critics by letting them examine his evidence in detail. However, I've seen much of his work denigrated in blog posts that make a few valid points, but are otherwise full of cheap shots. At this point, the scientific community has such low regard for Dr. Wickramasinghe that his very association with a project calls its validity into question.

Thanks for a thought-provoking thread that is too heavy into religion...

Dex

What's the statistical probability, that during a particular season, a particular grain of pollen (of what must be many millions if not billions of other grains produced by the one plant), from a particular anther, on a particular flower, on a particular plant will land on a particular stigma of a different particular flower of a different particular plant (of the same genus), quite some distance away?

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Yeah that happend to some of my plants last year and I was pissed. Seeds all over them

reply to post by DexterRiley


Excellent post! Thank you for it. from my research, it would seem that the further we delve into the science behind DNA we get further away from evolution as it is currently postulated. It wasn't that long ago that our best minds thought our DNA was filled with junk.

Wisdom and technological proficiency should go hand in hand in my opinion. Creating an entire view of our origin and universe based on only the things that we can say for sure are most likely at any given time are limiting to our true understanding. That is my opinion only. We are but baby's peering over the crib.

That sentiment doesn't take anything away from science however. Science is what plucked us from the dark ages and what accelerates our knowledge on a forward path without the burden of persecution through such avenues as the church that has been so prevalent and destructive to societal growth through the years.

It's a tricky subject. Is evolution a completely credible theory? If so, who set it in motion? Did nature create the big bang if you believe in it? After you grapple with those questions and only after, you may start to humble your opinion on "physical" evidence here on Earth. While the arguments are completely different, make no mistake, they are intertwined.

I revel and delight in the conversation because we can pick from some of the best brains in human history. Charles Darwin, along with his father and grandfather were incredible examples of human intelligence. He was one smart guy and the work he did was nothing short of brilliant. With that said, there isn't enough evidence to claim absolutely that evolution on the scale being discussed happened.

There are VERY good arguments, there is some evidence and there is solid methods backing that up but there is not definitive proof and there is a lot of evidence that describes why that proof is lacking. It's shouldn't be about the pissing match that it is largely become, it should be a collaboration of an exploratory journey to find the truth....... Together.

Helious

bigfatfurrytexan
I think we should question the lack of imagination that makes it so hard to understand how genetic drift becomes evolution. Or how the universe is infinite, and therefore really good at throwing together every possible combination. LIkely countless times over.

How have you come to the conclusion the universe is infinite exactly? There is no such proof. If you believe in M theory, it would seem to dictate that our universe would be a mathematical certainty because every possibility of combinations would be reached because we would live in a multiverse that was filled with infinite universes and possibilities but I am unaware of any definitive work that declares our universe as infinite on a factual basis.

btw, I read your blog, it's entertaining!

edit on 27-9-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)

Well, whether it is infinite o not in a true sense.....the Hubble Super Deep FIeld View gives me relative comfort in there being a universe that can perceived as infinite. If not in reality, at least in practical reality. Just imagine, the hundreds of galaxies seen in that one tiny sliver of sky......each with billions of stars of its own. Countless iterations of possibilities.......

It is hard to even conceptualize.

My blog.....i haven't been there in awhile. ATS is light enough that I can say involved here. But life is a crucible, and time for the kind of mental musings needed for a blog is as infinitesimally small as the universe is large.

Helious
reply to post by DexterRiley

 

Creating an entire view of our origin and universe based on only the things that we can say for sure are most likely at any given time are limiting to our true understanding. That is my opinion only. We are but baby's peering over the crib.

THis is my primary beef with academia in general. It isn't just science as in astrophysics, but other areas as well. Like interpreting hieroglyphs....it is lost that the key word is "interpreting".

And it extends into the review process, where anything that can be labeled "supposition" can doom someone to obscurity.

However, we cannot say this on one hand, then require definitive proof on the other. Especially in science, where you are measuring and observing unprovable things (think Heisenberg). Short of mathematical proof. But that is about as good as you will get to ever "seeing" a big bang event (which is more properly described as "rapid expansion" instead....much less sexy sounding for sure).

I guess what I am saying is, definitive proof is not likely to be found in many cases and may be too high a bar to set. Unless we want to become the worst part of that "closed minded" skepticism the above quote describes.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Without doubt, to the human mind, our universe could be infinite. As we understand space and time in the current form, it is unreasonable to imagine man traveling beyond the heliosphere in any scope.

I have read cutting edge arguments on both sides and it would almost seem as if the main stream is leaning towards a finite universe. What I believe about that is of very, very little importance because realistically, at this point, we just can't know.

I am tickled however at every little piece of information that comes our way that expands our knowledge because it brings us closer to the truth. What that is and what it means, will be the first thing I concede I don't know for certain but it sure is fun as hell to speculate about.

reply to post by Helious


Problem is having a PhD doesn't mean you're right, especially when scientists have bought them online for their pets to show they can't be taken at face value. If you have a look at the list f recent publications, every single one is about some biblical event - this isn't Science, this is starting with the theory the bible is true and desperately 'lying with numbers' to make it appear like they have evidence.

I'm afraid without a thorough understanding of statistics and the methods used to dupe people when reading papers, you're completely at the mercy of the papers author.

Luckily there's guides from people like Goldacre that provide a basic outline in how to spot nonsense in papers (will post some guides later, got to rush out now).

kudegras
reply to post by Helious

 

Compare us now to say 2000 years ago in Rome for example. Genetically we are much the same, but on a mental level we seem to know so much more, this learning curve we are on is not accidental.

Just look at the milestones in the past 200 years, and you can see that the advancement in knowledge is actually accelerating. The Romans could only really store information on scrolls and stone, and despite their brilliance in architecture and military techniques, they were tied down by their dependence on Roman numerals to do arithmetic. Arabs had the advantage using ten digits including the zero to do their accounting calculations.

In the 1800's that Babbage invented mechanical calculators that many tedious calculations could be automated. Things like tide charts, planetary positions. Before then, anything "robotic" or "clockwork" was simply considered a novelty.

The in the 1980's, the microprocessor was invented, that small businesses and home user had access to the same kind of computing power that large corporations had traditionally had from mainframes.

Home access to the Internet became available in the 1990's, allowing the same with access to research papers and other information.

In the 2000's, GPU's, multi-core CPU's and cloud-computing allow the same access for computational mathematics.

It used to be that a single person publishing a research paper would be a groundbreaking event that would open a new research field for decades to come. Now there are so many papers being published that they become out of date within two years.

mathematically the chances of ONE universe occuring all on it's own, perfectly formed and having all the right parameters for evolution to proceed as it does is trillions and trillions to one, almost the same odds as just one god existing (but not quite as unlikely).

Therefore it makes more sense to think that maybe evolution is the key to universe formation also.

Or maybe that the nature of everything is simply potential.

It's only strange when you believe that this universe is all there is. Now THAT is a leap of faith and there is no evidence for it.

So...common sense wold tell us thats it's even less likely that a perfect god was the first thing that existed, that this universe is also not the 'first' thing that existed (allowing or the ambiguousness of time and space being a manifestation of this universe and our inabilty to understand anything outside of our senses...that have evolved within the limits of this universe)

Wobbly Anomaly
mathematically the chances of ONE universe occuring all on it's own, perfectly formed and having all the right parameters for evolution to proceed as it does is trillions and trillions to one, almost the same odds as just one god existing (but not quite as unlikely).

That is exactly what I thought when I was reading this thread, mathematically a 50% to 50%?

looofo

Wobbly Anomaly
mathematically the chances of ONE universe occuring all on it's own, perfectly formed and having all the right parameters for evolution to proceed as it does is trillions and trillions to one, almost the same odds as just one god existing (but not quite as unlikely).

That is exactly what I thought when I was reading this thread, mathematically a 50% to 50%?

Well, only 50/50 if your view of god is very very similar to this universe, that there were lots of 'potential' gods that didnt make it and, if there is a god, that it also underwent evolutionary development to achieve it's presently 'believed' form.

I'd have to disagree about the 50/50 though and say, if there is ever going to be a god, it will evolve in the distant future from our simpler conciousness.

looofo

Wobbly Anomaly
mathematically the chances of ONE universe occuring all on it's own, perfectly formed and having all the right parameters for evolution to proceed as it does is trillions and trillions to one, almost the same odds as just one god existing (but not quite as unlikely).

That is exactly what I thought when I was reading this thread, mathematically a 50% to 50%?

I think they were more pointing out that an infinitesimal chance is roughly the same as another infinitesimal chance - not in terms of real numbers, as that would require the mathematical identity of deities, which is something that we don't (can never?) have.

Though I disagree with the 'right parameters for evolution' part as to my knowledge one of, if not the, main driving force behind it is adapting to fit the environment. Though maybe I've completely misinterpreted what was said. EDIT: Yeah ignore all that, in the original post maths was used as a figure of speech, not maths as in maths. My bad.

On top of this there's things like Boltzmann Brains which are randomly occurring arrangements of particles that happen in space, are conscious beings and don't require planets, habitats, food or anything like that and are far more likely to outnumber Earthlike planet based lifeforms as a Universe gets older: theratchet.ca...

Decent guide on how to understand a scientific paper and ensure you don't get fooled: violentmetaphors.com...