Mathematics, common sense and the origin of man.

BO XIAN
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

SOUNDS LIKE another distinction without a difference, to me.

Certainly not, to my mind, a significant difference in terms of probabilities.

Something is either likely or it isn't.

There's a huge difference. He's calculating the odds for some specific 1,000 amino acid protein just popping into existence from an abiotic environment. In real world, you have biological entities specifically polymerizing left-handed amino acids. His model is extremely unlikely. The real world model is not unlikely at all. One would think that after 40 years of reading related articles, one could appreciate the huge difference something like this makes..

In terms of theoretical probabilities, as I understand them . . .

when the probabilities get to be extreme enough . . . the functional reality is that the chance that something will happen is functionally zero.

The lottery proves that in millions of lives and those probabilities are NOT AT ALL as extreme as the ones involved in these issues.

You keep chanting your mantra without articulating any significant difference (in terms of probability theory etc) between the two things you are hollering so much about being different.

I told you why his calculations are completely meaningless. If you can't see the significance of this, there's nothing I can do. Enjoy your bubble. I can't recall the name for this fallacy, but in essence he's arguing against something that nobody ever claimed to be true to begin with. Straw man perhaps?

reply to post by BO XIAN


Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed, this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists.

The theory makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens, but the later falls into infinite regression .

Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations only apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.

If you understand what evolution is and understand that neither the origin of life nor the origin of the universe are not relevant to the truth or validity of evolutionary theory. Then you are being consciously and deliberately dishonest with our audience with this probability theory nonsense.
Perhaps you imagine that by confusing people as to the true nature of evolution, you will be able to gain more support for your own position?
Or, is your problem simply that you just don't have the first clue about it, so the things you think are part of the theory of evolution are actually not?
In any event try being honest and stick to the science and forget the rest, jebus will love you for it.

reply to post by rhinoceros


It sounds like

YOU ARE

arguing that

BECAUSE biological process exist now

they MUST HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED as You construe them NOW.

That almost sounds like you are carrying ID's and Creationism's water.

LOLOLOL

Enjoy your belief/Religion of Scientism Dogma bubble.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


I see now that y'all have moved the goal posts from when I bothered much about these issues 40 years ago.

What a slightly clever slight-of-hand argument.

Just declare that life has always been and redefine evolution as that!

LOLOLOL.

In terms of life now . . . I would say that God created life with a robust enough design that organisms demonstrate quite a capacity to adjust to changing environments.

Shoot--even our persistent thoughts and persistent speech CAN CHANGE OUR VERY DNA . . . so certainly organisms can change given changing contingencies.

That's a no-brainer.

Relatively minor adjustments to changing contingencies and conditions is merely a characteristic, capacity of a robust life design.

However, I do NOT believe that unique species evolved from earlier forms. etc. etc. etc. I believe that each species was created on its own by God Almighty.

Nevertheless, y'all's moving the goal posts does NOT deal with the issue of y'all's contention originally that

ONLY chance plus time resulted in life.

WHATEVER YOU CALL IT--that's the classic contention of the Religion of Scientism dogma from the so called "objectivist" . . . pile of cardinal doctrines.

And both ID and Judeo/Christian Creationism consider that an absurd and wholesale irrational claim.

I kind of have the impression that if ID and/or Creationism proponents take the OP to be talking about the ORIGINAL ORIGINS OF LIFE . . .

the Religion of Scientism folks will say

OH NO! We're talking about XYZ--totally unrelated. cough cough.

And if ID and/or Creationism proponents take the OP to be talking about XYZ,

the Religion of SCientism folks will say something akin to

OH NO! We're talking about ABC--totally unrelated. cough cough.

Slippery dudes.

BO XIAN
I see now that y'all have moved the goal posts from when I bothered much about these issues 40 years ago.

Who is 'y'all'? And the fact that scientific theories are constantly updated is one of the best aspects of academia, as new evidence accrues it is incorporated into the existing framework either further validating the process or causing it to be replaced with a more accurate version. The fact that evolutionary biology has stood the rigors of testing and is seeing additional information added yearly only strengthens it position as repeatable and testable.

Just declare that life has always been and redefine evolution as that!

I guess your 40 years of extensive research failed to locate the fact the evolutionary synthesis has been around since the 1920's.

However, I do NOT believe that unique species evolved from earlier forms. etc. etc. etc. I believe that each species was created on its own by God Almighty.

Oh, I see. God just went *snap* and everything appeared the way it is now. And what evidence are you citing for this viewpoint?

...Religion of Scientism dogma from the so called "objectivist" . . .

The only one mentioning religion here is you.

And both ID and Judeo/Christian Creationism consider that an absurd and wholesale irrational claim.

Neither one of those has anything to do with evolution unless the Judeo/Christian in question is intellectually disingenuous and wishes to confuse the two in a sad and rather pathetic attempt to conflate the issue. Troubling, as it would not be the first time I watched a 'Christian' lie for Jesus.

reply to post by Helious


It's a trick.

Odds only exist for one moment, they are a prediction of the probable outcomes of a specific event (the odds for flipping a coin are 2/1 it being heads and 2/1 it being tails). As soon as the coin is flipped those specific odds used to describe the probability of the outcomes of that event cease to exist, because the event has happened, it is in the past. We have no need for odds to predict the outcome of a past event, what would be the point of that, it's nonsense. Another set of odds for a second flip are also 2/1. These are not the same set of odds, they are a different set of odds that happen to be like the first set, but they apply to a totally different event (flip).

Applying odds to past events is utterly meaningless.

BO XIAN
I kind of have the impression that if ID and/or Creationism proponents take the OP to be talking about the ORIGINAL ORIGINS OF LIFE . . .

The Original Post has the same fatal error as the links you provided, they combine abiogenesis with evolution. It was pointed out on the first page what the Original Poster's mistake was and that is what is currently being argued.

BO XIAN
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

It sounds like

YOU ARE

arguing that

BECAUSE biological process exist now

they MUST HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED as You construe them NOW.

That almost sounds like you are carrying ID's and Creationism's water.

LOLOLOL

Enjoy your belief/Religion of Scientism Dogma bubble.

Here, I drew a picture. The scientific model has been simplified greatly, but that's besides the point. This is only to show why his conclusion is complete nonsense. As I already stated, he wasn't calculating the odds of biological evolution doing something. Instead, he was calculating the odds of a specific 1,000 aa protein just popping into existence from strictly abiotic environment. It seems like you have wasted 40 years reading articles from authors who lack the expertise to write about the topic. Here's a link a thread if you want concrete evidence for the gradual natural evolution of the genetic code.

reply to post by rhinoceros


It appears to me that you are merely breaking the left side down into stages.

I still don't think . . . in terms of probability theory . . . that there's been remotely enough time for your

stages

to do the trick.

BO XIAN
It appears to me that you are merely breaking the left side down into stages.

Odd, it appeared to me as an exemplary rendition of an exercise in compare and contrast. You know an argument based entirely on ignorance vs an informed educated breakdown.

I still don't think . . . in terms of probability theory . . . that there's been remotely enough time for your

stages

to do the trick.

I still don't think that your magic sky god is the cause for everything around us but I'm not arrogant enough that if evidence to support its existence were staring me in the face that I would still deny reality. In high school "I don't think" wasn't an acceptable retort against evidence so at this stage, if you've been "studying" this for 40 years "I don't think" is even less acceptable. If the information presented can be refuted then by all means do so with supporting evidence not platitudes on personal feelings.

reply to post by peter vlar


I think that for some, common sense . . . a rare commodity these days . . .

is sufficient evidence.

Breaking something into stages over the same time span

does NOT create more time.

You argue as though it does, evidently.

BTW, your snarky insults are slightly clever.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Well thanks, I impress myself with my own cleverness quite frequently so it pleases me that you enjoyed it as well. While a little snarky, I really wasn't trying to insult you. I also wasn't implying that by extending one side of a chart. Or graph that it imbues a more lengthy chronology. I was saying that it was a pretty good rendition of a typical argument between a proponent of evolutionary theory and a proponent of religious divinity. One sees it rather simply and Linear from A to B while the other seeks out the answers and evidence to understand the where and how. You're entitled to your insular worldview but remember, one mans common sense may be another's supreme ignorance. Don't get caught on the wrong side of the equation.

peter vlar
reply to post by BO XIAN

 

One sees it rather simply and Linear from A to B while the other seeks out the answers and evidence to understand the where and how. You're entitled to your insular worldview but remember, one mans common sense may be another's supreme ignorance.

1. I disagree. Christians . . . particularly authentic intrinsic Christians . . . have sought out answers--many relentlessly and thoroughly over years

--AT LEAST
--as much;
--as thoughtfully;
--as meticulously;
--as thoroughly;
--as objectively;
--as rationally;
--as reality-based . . .

as any "objectivist"
as any acolyte, high priest, &/or bishop of the Religion of Scientism.

2. We are convinced that we have found better answers.

Better answers based on more solid evidence

with a more robust understanding of the factors involved.

3. It is your world view that comes across as far more insular. The insularity is ensconced within a set of blinders that seem to automatically rule out a whole list of evidence and options, proofs--without remotely sufficient exploration and examination of any significant duration and/or objectivity and vulnerability to the facts involved.

imho

.

reply to post by BO XIAN

imho

Says it all.

And what's authentic intrinsic Christians?
Christians are not a homogenous group. It's impossible to represent all Christians, simply because they believe in so many different things.

Your confusing belief as evidence, beliefs are not valid. You have the absolute right to hold it, of course, but you have a preference, not a hypothesis supported by observational evidence. All of the evidence you've proposed so far is either not evidence at all, or it actually turns out upon even cursory examination that your evidence weakens the probability of your hypothesis, even as you claim that your belief is thoughtfully, meticulously, thoroughly, objectively, rationally, evidenced.

Let us not forget Occam's Razor, and the Principle of Parsimony.
If I have a hundred absolutely unevidenced claims, the most likely hypothesis is that none of those claims is accurate. It's really that simple.

Whatever the odds, IT Happened!

And it happened either
1) just by chance over billions or trillions of years
2) by the will of God causing the same thing over billions or trillions of years

Choosing #2 as the answer just multiplies the degree of difficulty by a huge factor.

flyingfish
reply to post by BO XIAN

 

imho

Says it all.

Wellllllllllllllll . . . your blather and pontifications are your opinions . . . regardless of how many share what %% of your opinions. Evidently only your opinions are sacred and every one else's are suspect.

LOLOLOL

And what's authentic intrinsic Christians?

I've written a fair amount about that on ATS.

I've posted a number of scientific articles on ATS about the differences. I guess I should have kept track of the links.

Basically, extrinsics put religion on like a coat for utilitarian purposes. They can sound quite intense, shrill or whatever but it's all external to their core heart values. It's hollow, hypocritical etc. These are the ones who are statistically MOST bigoted; most hostile; most prejudiced; most punitive; etc.

Intrinsics are the authentic believers who earnestly and authentically believe their faith and have a viable, honest, alive relationship with God etc. They are most humble; most loving; most generous; most forgiving; most gracious; most color blind; least prejudiced etc.

Your confusing belief as evidence, beliefs are not valid.

NONSENSE. You claim that YOUR BELIEFS are valid and mine aren't. THAT ITSELF is a belief.

You have the absolute right to hold it, of course, but you have a preference, not a hypothesis supported by observational evidence.

NONSENSE.

My hypotheses about cosmology etc. have been supported by at least as many observations--and probably many more of them my direct observations--than have yours. And, I'd wager . . . as objectively assessed as yours, if not more so.

All of the evidence you've proposed so far is either not evidence at all, or it actually turns out upon even cursory examination that your evidence weakens the probability of your hypothesis, even as you claim that your belief is thoughtfully, meticulously, thoroughly, objectively, rationally, evidenced.

Says you.

I've been on ATS a long time. And on other sites before that. I've written on the net for more than 30 years. I'm well experienced in the shredding inclinations and the closed mindedness of those of your perspective. I gave up trying to reason with the unreasonable a long time ago.

There are plenty of websites with the DEMANDED evidence if they honestly want to search the truth out. I don't need to play their silly hypocritical games any longer. Rain on em.

I know my cosmology has more backing it up than theirs does whether they ever realize that in this life, or not. That's their problem.

Let us not forget Occam's Razor, and the Principle of Parsimony.
If I have a hundred absolutely unevidenced claims, the most likely hypothesis is that none of those claims is accurate. It's really that simple.

Wellllllllllllllll, I'd say that your perspective has many MORE HUNDREDS of absolutely unevidenced claims than my cosmology does.

And, that Ockham's razor works much more in my favor than yours. That's just the nature of the facts as I observe them.

However, I can't imagine enough tanker fulls of absolute proofs sufficient to prove to closed minds without ears to hear or eyes to see that could possibly persuade those who have minds set in concrete against such proofs.

So, enjoy your fantasies. They'll likely last you this life . . . short of a miracle in your life.

BO XIAN
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

It appears to me that you are merely breaking the left side down into stages.

Into stages where we introduce things into the system that significantly affect the probability calculations, e.g. a filter that strictly passes left-handed amino acids through. This is why I stated that he wasn't calculating the odds of biological evolution doing something. Surely you must now admit that this was indeed the case.

I still don't think . . . in terms of probability theory . . . that there's been remotely enough time for your

stages

to do the trick.

Yeah? Go ahead and clarify..

BO XIAN

peter vlar
reply to post by BO XIAN

 

One sees it rather simply and Linear from A to B while the other seeks out the answers and evidence to understand the where and how. You're entitled to your insular worldview but remember, one mans common sense may be another's supreme ignorance.

1. I disagree. Christians . . . particularly authentic intrinsic Christians . . . have sought out answers--many relentlessly and thoroughly over years

--AT LEAST
--as much;
--as thoughtfully;
--as meticulously;
--as thoroughly;
--as objectively;
--as rationally;
--as reality-based . . .

as any "objectivist"
as any acolyte, high priest, &/or bishop of the Religion of Scientism.

There is no such thing as any of those things you just mentioned in the last sentence. They are just scientists.

As for the rest of what you typed above, I believe that wholeheartedly. I just don't believe that applies to you, but rather to Christians who have accepted that Evolution is real.

2. We are convinced that we have found better answers.

Better answers based on more solid evidence

with a more robust understanding of the factors involved.

Evidence that you haven't posted or originates from the bible (terrible source of evidence).

3. It is your world view that comes across as far more insular. The insularity is ensconced within a set of blinders that seem to automatically rule out a whole list of evidence and options, proofs--without remotely sufficient exploration and examination of any significant duration and/or objectivity and vulnerability to the facts involved.

imho

.

Kettle, hi my name is pot and you are black.

HanoiLullaby
reply to post by Helious

 

It's a trick.

Odds only exist for one moment, they are a prediction of the probable outcomes of a specific event (the odds for flipping a coin are 2/1 it being heads and 2/1 it being tails). As soon as the coin is flipped those specific odds used to describe the probability of the outcomes of that event cease to exist, because the event has happened, it is in the past. We have no need for odds to predict the outcome of a past event, what would be the point of that, it's nonsense. Another set of odds for a second flip are also 2/1. These are not the same set of odds, they are a different set of odds that happen to be like the first set, but they apply to a totally different event (flip).

Applying odds to past events is utterly meaningless.

That belies the point the op is trying to make. Just cause the coin has flipped and the outcome been set doesn't mean you can't look at the result and know that you had a 1 out of 2 chance of getting heads or tails. So all these things we see have happened but we can look back and see the odds. What the argument suggests is because the odds are as they are then it might point to it not being random at all. Not that I necessarily agree but I can understand and appreciate the point.