Mathematics, common sense and the origin of man.

Cypress

leostokes


Morphological changes do not define new species.

Morphological changes are evidence for evolution whether you want to acknowledge it or not (technically, morphological differences do add to the definition of new species and is the prime indicator differentiating extinct species). Predictions can be made by studying fossils between different eras as well as living species, and determining changes that would be expected to be seen in fossils that would be an intermediary between the two. We can examine what changes are found. Its not a hard concept.

I agree, right up to the limits of my understanding (so maybe i should say believe..., maybe trust ?...)

Anyway, i can see leostokes point, a dogs a dog, a cats a cat and you do want to be able to see the missing link between the two (if indeed there is a link, have they evolved seperately rather than being closely related ? Eyes have evolved distinctly more than once)

Are the missing links extinct ?

should we look for 'crossovers' between species or is that misunderstanding how evolution works ? A Cheetah is a bit like a dog, but it's still a cat.

I guess we need to say what defines a new species and at what point evolution changes one into another.

Single cells have a lot to answer for !

Wobbly Anomaly

Cypress

leostokes


Morphological changes do not define new species.

Morphological changes are evidence for evolution whether you want to acknowledge it or not (technically, morphological differences do add to the definition of new species and is the prime indicator differentiating extinct species). Predictions can be made by studying fossils between different eras as well as living species, and determining changes that would be expected to be seen in fossils that would be an intermediary between the two. We can examine what changes are found. Its not a hard concept.

I agree, right up to the limits of my understanding (so maybe i should say believe..., maybe trust ?...)

Anyway, i can see leostokes point, a dogs a dog, a cats a cat and you do want to be able to see the missing link between the two (if indeed there is a link, have they evolved seperately rather than being closely related ? Eyes have evolved distinctly more than once)

Are the missing links extinct ?

should we look for 'crossovers' between species or is that misunderstanding how evolution works ? A Cheetah is a bit like a dog, but it's still a cat.

I guess we need to say what defines a new species and at what point evolution changes one into another.

Single cells have a lot to answer for !

The evolutionists exaggerate. They have never presented an example of a species that fits between two other species.

Kaboose
reply to post by Helious

 

Right mathematics, (along with common sense) rules out life creation by accident and the macro-evolution process. The mathematical impossibilities of life forming on its own, let alone a life permitting universe and planet, are beyond belief, yet the evolution believer claims this to be true by randomness. They don't talk about this in schools because the only alternative is admitting to God, and Bible, and Creation as being true, and they will never admit this. No matter how absurd the idea, and how oppose to real science, as long as it isn't God, its ok with the main stream secular view.
They will go to great lengths to deny God and his creation even if it is blatantly obvious.

edit on 28-9-2013 by Kaboose because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2013 by Kaboose because: (no reason given)

If you have no knowledge of mathematics or probability theory, don't make assertions pretending that you do. It's painfully transparent that you don't know what you're talking about.

Furthermore, you're conflating abiogenesis and evolution, which are distinct. To top it off, the only alternative to spontaneous abiogenesis and evolution is NOT the Christian creation story. Wherever did you get that idea? There are dozens of perfectly good creation stories that are just as plausible - if not more so - than the one proposed by Christianity.

This has nothing to do with "denying" god. The fact of the matter is that there is NO evidence for the Christian god, there is NO evidence for the Christian creation myth, and there is plenty of evidence for evolution. Indeed, a literal interpretation of the bible is so contradictory of well-established fact, history, physics, and reality that it is easily demonstrated as erroneous and false.

Jonjonj
Having ignored all the so called brainiacs and such, I am responding to the original premise.
Mathematics as a tool to consider probability is either proved to be true (within our understanding of such) on this idea or breaks down in the face of fact: We exist, therefore the question makes no real sense.

Whatever the odds may have been when considering the possibility, the fact that we exist renders such an idea redundant.

Wrong. Our existence does not render any questions about the probability of our existence redundant. If I roll a die and the result is a 1, it does not render the question of "what is the probability that I would have rolled a 1" redundant.

Your first sentence here in the quote makes no sense to me. "Mathematics as a tool to consider probability is either proved to be true or breaks down in the face of fact"? Please elaborate, because I suspect that this statement is either wrong or nonsensical.

AbleEndangered
reply to post by Helious

 

Oh crap, I thought this was gonna be one of the bad 170 minute long videos....

This guy needs an animator and Morgan freeman and he could release this in theaters!!

Getting Morgan to do it is the easy part, just gotta find an animator.

edit on 26-9-2013 by AbleEndangered because: changed 150 to 170

I finally started to watch the video because of this post, so thank you for your enthusiastic response. I've had this one bookmarked for a long time and just haven't gotten to it, and then I read your post again....so, thanks. I'll write further on the vid once I watch it, which may not be all at once, but now I'll make sure to view it. Live and learn, that's my dogs motto.

reply to post by Helious


ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

However, every time I've noted that the universe has not been in existence REMOTELY BEGINNING to be long enough for even minimal evolution to occur . . . it's like eyes glass over and brains go blank and all one gets back is irrational dogma from the Religion of Science high priests, bishops and acolytes.

BO XIAN
reply to post by Helious

 

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

However, every time I've noted that the universe has not been in existence REMOTELY BEGINNING to be long enough for even minimal evolution to occur . . . it's like eyes glass over and brains go blank and all one gets back is irrational dogma from the Religion of Science high priests, bishops and acolytes.

Right. This opinion of yours that 13.8 billion years isn't enough time is based on?

reply to post by rhinoceros


Various mathematics articles I've read over the last 40 years.

Given the complexities involved . . . that amount of time doesn't BEGIN to afford remotely sufficient time to even get to first base of extremely simple one celled organisms.

reply to post by Helious


Evolution is a process and not random therefore statistical analysis does not apply

Kaboose
reply to post by Helious

 

Right mathematics, (along with common sense) rules out life creation by accident and the macro-evolution process. The mathematical impossibilities of life forming on its own, let alone a life permitting universe and planet, are beyond belief, yet the evolution believer claims this to be true by randomness. They don't talk about this in schools because the only alternative is admitting to God, and Bible, and Creation as being true, and they will never admit this. No matter how absurd the idea, and how oppose to real science, as long as it isn't God, its ok with the main stream secular view.
They will go to great lengths to deny God and his creation even if it is blatantly obvious.

edit on 28-9-2013 by Kaboose because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2013 by Kaboose because: (no reason given)

No it is not random. Protiens and molecules organize themselves based on define chemical processes. Evolution itself is a process. It is not random and therefore cannot be defined using statistical probabilities.

reply to post by Helious


How does DNA move us further from evolution? The examination of DNA has only supported the theory of evolution

reply to post by Cypress


Sounds like you are arguing both sides.

Purportedly evolution BEGINS from totally random events plus time.

Period.

Now you pretend to be arguing from the other side of the fence.

Where does the ordered chemical processes come from?

You can't logically have it both ways.

BO XIAN
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Various mathematics articles I've read over the last 40 years.

Given the complexities involved . . . that amount of time doesn't BEGIN to afford remotely sufficient time to even get to first base of extremely simple one celled organisms.

Surely you can cite these articles? Or maybe you can point out one good and recent review article? Are these mathematics taking into account that things tend to happen in parallel? Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's see your articles first..

reply to post by rhinoceros



Did you keep track of all your recreational reading over the last 40+ years?

I didn't.

I will, however, see what I can dig up . . .

even though I'm extremely skeptical that you have much fair-minded open-mindedness toward such info. I confess I'm lumping you in with those who typically take your stance on such issues. I don't really know your degree of open-mindedness or fair-mindedness on the topic. Your post doesn't reveal much, such, though.

reply to post by rhinoceros


This is a decent article on the topic:


The Probability of Evolution
Apr 09 2008 | 104 Comments

It seems to be one of the more informed and more reasoned presentations on the topic.

www.dyeager.org...

reply to post by rhinoceros


This is a decent one . . . briefer than some . . . a bit tedious . . . but that goes with the territory.

www.universitycad.com...

BO XIAN
This is a decent article on the topic

It would appear he is arguing against abiogenesis and as such the blog does not disprove evolution. Instead it appears he is arguing against one person's choice of relating the statistical probability of evolution occurring to the odds of drawing specific playing cards. It says nothing of there not being enough time which is the argument you postulated. Further, he appears to be a Bible-literalist which makes him rather unscientific in my opinion.

BO XIAN
This is a decent one . . . briefer than some . . . a bit tedious . . . but that goes with the territory.

This one also argues against abiogenesis and through that attempts to discredit evolution.

It would appear that the sources you are using do not understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution and that they are two different topics.

reply to post by rhinoceros


This one deals with one of the evolutionists' more common rebuttals to probability presentations from ID's or Creationists.

darwins-god.blogspot.com...

Sunday, March 11, 2012
Here’s That Monumental Evolution Blunder About Probability Again

From website:


Darwin's God

How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters

= = = =

This one discussed one of the rebuttals to Hoyle's probability argument:

library.thinkquest.org...

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.
.

People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.
.

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.
.

It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.

= = =

I think this is a better article talking about some of the 'finer points'

about such probabilities and evolutionists' flawed attempts to debunk valid probability calculations, hypotheses.

creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com...

Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Re: Improbability of Abiogenesis Calculations (A Response to Ian Musgrave)

= = = =

I think this stalwart does an above average job on the topic. Part 1:

The Evolution of Life, Probability Considerations and Common Sense-Part 1

www.jashow.org...,_Probability_Considerations_and_Common_Sense-Part_1

Part 2:

www.jashow.org...,_Probability_Considerations_and_Common_Sense-Part_2#The_Evolution_of_Life.2C_Probabil ity_Considerations_and_Common_Sense.E2.80.94Part_Two

. . .
shows that given all the time evolutionists claim is necessary, the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations “is so small as to constitute a scien­tific impossibility”— “the chance that it could have happened anywhere in the universe...is less than 1 [chance] in 102,999,942.”[1] A figure like this is termed exponential notation, and is the figure one with almost three million zeros after it. Figures like this are terminal to evolu­tion. (We will discuss exponential notation shortly.)
.

In another article, Dr. Rodabaugh takes the argument to absurd levels to show that “It is impossible that evolution occurred.” Even giving evolution every conceivable chance and even “assuming that evolution is 99.9999% certain, then ‘evolution [still] has only a 1 in 10132 chance of being valid.... Therefore, even with the beginning assumption that evolution is a virtual certainty, a conditional probability analysis of the fossil record [alone] results in the conclusion that evolution is a demonstrable absurdity.’” [2]
.

According to the French expert on probability, Emile Borél, his “single law of chance” (1 chance in 1050) beyond which things never occur, “carries with it a certainty of another nature than mathematical certainty... it is comparable even to the certainty with which we attribute to the existence of the external world.” [3] Here we see that one chance in 10132 is no chance.
.

Using probability and other calculations, James F. Coppedge, author of Evolution: Pos­sible or Impossible?, concludes concerning the origin of chirality, or “left-handed” amino acids that, “No natural explanation is in sight which can adequately explain the mystery that proteins use only left-handed components. There is little hope that it will be solved in this way in the future. Even if such a result occurred by chance, life would still not exist. The proteins would be helpless and nonliving without the entire complicated DNA-RNA system to make copies for the future.” [4] Indeed, “The odds against the necessary group of proteins being all left-handed ‘is beyond all comprehension. ’” [5]
.

= = = =

.

Anyway . . . enough.

I don't expect folks who are dyed-in-the-wool acolytes, priests and bishops of the Religion of Scientism to learn anything from the above links. Their minds were made up a long time ago.

However, they are there for the fair-minded.

I don't plan on getting into the details of such discussions . . . they are far too tedious to be fun and they bore me a lot.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


By all means outline the differences per your perspective.

Sigh.

I think it's a distinction without a meaningful difference in terms of probability but have at it anyway.