Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[viole]

As you note, the odds of anything are low, the odds of any 10 random people winning the lotto with any 10 random numbers- is exactly the same as the lotto couple winning 10 times with the same number, right?

so why do we suspect cheating? not because the odds of chance are any different, but because the odds of cheating are far better, there is simply a better explanation- that the result was designed, intended, tampered with by creative intelligence, offers a superior power of explanation, even where we can't possibly figure out how it was done.

similarly with the word 'help' being spelled with rocks on the deserted island beach- the waves might wash that pattern up as well as any other, but does this 'even chance' mean it's the best answer?

Your point assumes a well defined experiment involving lottery balls that allows us to calculate the odds of winning. This is the mathematical framework that casinos and insurance companies use to make profits. And this is what you need to make sense of probability, chance or whatever you want to call it:

1) A well defined set of possible outcomes
2) The procedure, or experiment, that leads to one of the outcomes in the set (e.g. rolling dice)

Only when you have that you can compute probabilities, distributions, deviations from the mean, possible cheating, etc. Without those, any discussion about probability is meaningless and it usually betrays a deep ignorance about the concepts surrounding it just by addressing it.

Now, do we have the set of all possible Universes and the mechanisms that produce one of those in the set? What do you think?

Do you think you can lay down here for me the set of all possible Universes and the physical processes used to generate one in the set, so that we can check whether that has a stochastic component, and, in case it has a stochastic component, what would be the most likely outcome without a tinkerer?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Duplicate

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Your point assumes a well defined experiment involving lottery balls that allows us to calculate the odds of winning. This is the mathematical framework that casinos and insurance companies use to make profits. And this is what you need to make sense of probability, chance or whatever you want to call it:

1) A well defined set of possible outcomes
2) The procedure, or experiment, that leads to one of the outcomes in the set (e.g. rolling dice)

Only when you have that you can compute probabilities, distributions, deviations from the mean, possible cheating, etc. Without those, any discussion about probability is meaningless and it usually betrays a deep ignorance about the concepts surrounding it just by addressing it.

Now, do we have the set of all possible Universes and the mechanisms that produce one of those in the set? What do you think?

Do you think you can lay down here for me the set of all possible Universes and the physical processes used to generate one in the set, so that we can check whether that has a stochastic component, and, in case it has a stochastic component, what would be the most likely outcome without a tinkerer?

Ciao

- viole

That was a better argument 50 years ago, before we knew that the primeval atom was composed of a long set of universal constants with specific interacting values, information, equations, algorithms which if altered infinitesimally, would not even have resulted in a space/time for anything to happen in- far less a structured functional universe, with great fusion reactors creating elements needed for life... which would develop sentience to ponder it's very existence

The odds are astronomical, Stephen Hawking sees it as practically infinitely improbable- hence the number of multiverses needed to fluke this one.

what are the entire set of possible outcomes for the resting position of a golf ball- other than a hole in one? it's incalculable, we're never going to know exactly how many places in every tree the ball could become lodged- so we have to assume a hole in one is not very improbable?


The most likely random outcome would be oblivion, again you could argue this with Hawking and many other scientists theist and atheist

 

[viole]

That was a better argument 50 years ago, before we knew that the primeval atom was composed of a long set of universal constants with specific interacting values, information, equations, algorithms which if altered infinitesimally, would not even have resulted in a space/time for anything to happen in- far less a structured functional universe, with great fusion reactors creating elements needed for life... which would develop sentience to ponder it's very existence

The odds are astronomical, Stephen Hawking sees it as practically infinitely improbable- hence the number of multiverses needed to fluke this one.

what are the entire set of possible outcomes for the resting position of a golf ball- other than a hole in one? it's incalculable, we're never going to know exactly how many places in every tree the ball could become lodged- so we have to assume a hole in one is not very improbable?


The most likely random outcome would be oblivion, again you could argue this with Hawking and many other scientists theist and atheist

I cannot possible argue with Hawkins for two reasons:

1) he is not a member of this forum
2) he does not know how the Universe came into being either, if it came into being. Nobody knows.

The fact that this is object of intense research seems to suggest that we have no clue about it. And we have no clue about it, mainly because we do not know how relativity and gravitation work in a regime mainly driven by quantum mechanics. Or how quantum mechanics work in a regime ruled by gravitation.

And I think it is fairly obvious that we cannot draw any probabilistic conclusion about something we don't know about at fundamental level. I mean, we do not even know whether the Universe is finite or infinite, so any conclusions in this area are premature and unsubstantiated. If the Universe was really a point, or a primeval atom, as you call it, then it should be finite (finite sizes do not turn easily into infinite sizes), but what we know is that our currently VISIBLE Universe was a point. Extrapolating the finiteness of the whole Universe out of it would be utterly silly... and question begging.

But if you have physical information or insights that escaped all of our current scientists, then I am all ears, ..., or eyes. Who knows, we might meet in Stockholm for a beer when you collect your Nobel prize.

So, what have you got, apart from some quote mining?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The fact that this is object of intense research seems to suggest that we have no clue about it
- viole

well kinda we do, and that in itself is pretty interesting. many prominent cosmologists including Einstein have noted how odd it is, that the universe so lends itself to our exploration and understanding, continually testing our curiosity, ingenuity to it's limits, the best way creation could be appreciated.

Once again this is entirely consistent with the work of a creator, and us being the primary beneficiaries of that creation.
And once again, for the great mythical auto-lotto tumbler in the sky to accidentally achieve the same remarkable reality, would have to be chalked up to yet one more staggering fluke, one more drawing of the winning lottery ticket.

At some point, 'cheating' simply becomes the least improbable explanation, and that's the conclusion the vast majority of mankind has always come to, including many of our greatest scientists- like Lemaitre, who's unparalleled discovery was not deemed academically popular enough to ever be awarded a Nobel prize, so apparently that trophy is a poor substitute for actual scientific progress.

 

[JerryL]

As you note, the odds of anything are low, the odds of any 10 random people winning the lotto with any 10 random numbers- is exactly the same as the lotto couple winning 10 times with the same number, right?

Man Doubles His Luck to Win Same Lottery Twice - ABC News
Lotto Luck: Indiana Man Wins Big Twice in Three Months - ABC News

There are actually several other examples. If we run lotteries for enough years, someone will win 10 times.

so why do we suspect cheating? not because the odds of chance are any different, but because the odds of cheating are far better, there is simply a better explanation- that the result was designed, intended, tampered with by creative intelligence, offers a superior power of explanation, even where we can't possibly figure out how it was done.

So why do you suspect cheating instead of divine provenance?

similarly with the word 'help' being spelled with rocks on the deserted island beach- the waves might wash that pattern up as well as any other, but does this 'even chance' mean it's the best answer?

Clearly then there are creatures with faces on Mars:

 

[JerryL]

At some point, 'cheating' simply becomes the least improbable explanation, and that's the conclusion the vast majority of mankind has always come to, including many of our greatest scientists- like Lemaitre, who's unparalleled discovery was not deemed academically popular enough to ever be awarded a Nobel prize, so apparently that trophy is a poor substitute for actual scientific progress.

And if we had some universes that we knew to be created, and there was this universe, then "created" would be the most supportable explanation because, statistically, created had happened more than random.

But that assumes the consequent, which is a fallacious argument. You must first establish the odds of a diety making a universe and the odds of any other method (you've done neither).

And there's another problem... the basic difference between science and pesudo-science. The models that science uses make testable predictions. "If this is true then that will be the outcome". We test then to see if those predictions are true. Creationism has never passed such a test. It does not make predictions... it attempts to conform the facts to match the belief.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Man Doubles His Luck to Win Same Lottery Twice - ABC News
Lotto Luck: Indiana Man Wins Big Twice in Three Months - ABC News

There are actually several other examples. If we run lotteries for enough years, someone will win 10 times.

So why do you suspect cheating instead of divine provenance?

I know somebody personally who won twice, and big. A little while back we both entered a raffle, and he won that too...
does make you scratch your head, but he gambles a lot so a run of luck now and then doesn't raise too much of an eyebrow.

But again if he won 10 times in a row, was dating the lotto machine girl, and left for Brazil, we'd be nuts not to expect cheating- not because the odds are any lower than anyone else winning by chance, but that there is a better explanation in this case. And 10 lottery wins is selling the universe a little short...

similarly that face on Mars was interesting enough to take a closer look and another photo, had it revealed more symmetry, detailed geometric designs etc, then yes at some point we'd consider alien intelligence. Just as Seti would consider a simple mathematical sequence evidence for alien life- yet a long list of highly specific universal constants, interacting equations and algorithms can be written off as 'probably a fluke'?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And there's another problem... the basic difference between science and pesudo-science. The models that science uses make testable predictions. "If this is true then that will be the outcome". We test then to see if those predictions are true. Creationism has never passed such a test. It does not make predictions... it attempts to conform the facts to match the belief.

Creationism- theism in general predicted a beginning, a specific creation event for the universe
atheism predicted a static/eternal universe which would make a creator redundant-

I believe Lemaitre and Hoyle tested those predictions a while back, remind me which was validated and which debunked? science v atheism

 

[JerryL]

I know somebody personally who won twice, and big. A little while back we both entered a raffle, and he won that too...
does make you scratch your head, but he gambles a lot so a run of luck now and then doesn't raise too much of an eyebrow.

But again if he won 10 times in a row, was dating the lotto machine girl, and left for Brazil, we'd be nuts not to expect cheating- not because the odds are any lower than anyone else winning by chance, but that there is a better explanation in this case. And 10 lottery wins is selling the universe a little short...

Is that because there are established instances of cheating by which we can compare the odds?

Why do you assume cheating and not genie wish fulfillment?

There's no establish instance of a created universe.. it's assuming the consequent.

similarly that face on Mars was interesting enough to take a closer look and another photo, had it revealed more symmetry, detailed geometric designs etc, then yes at some point we'd consider alien intelligence. Just as Seti would consider a simple mathematical sequence evidence for alien life- yet a long list of highly specific universal constants, interacting equations and algorithms can be written off as 'probably a fluke'?

There may only be one universal constant. That's something of a search for physicists.

You are making an appeal to ignorance. Is there any other way that could be? You don't know (it's like asking "why is there something"). What would have happened under those other conditions? You don't know. How many universes actually exist(ed)? You don't know.

I'm trying to resist pointing out that you merely move the goalposts even if you won your case that "not made by God" were impossible... as God would be impossible for the same reasons.

Creationism- theism in general predicted a beginning, a specific creation event for the universe atheism predicted a static/eternal universe which would make a creator redundant-

"Atheism" predicted no such thing.

Creationism predicted a beginning? Describe the beginning predicted by Creationism. Describe a test that would determine if that beginning happened in that way.

 

[viole]

well kinda we do, and that in itself is pretty interesting. many prominent cosmologists including Einstein have noted how odd it is, that the universe so lends itself to our exploration and understanding, continually testing our curiosity, ingenuity to it's limits, the best way creation could be appreciated.

Nope. We do not know. We do not even kinda know. For that, we need confirmed theoretical support which is not existing at the moment.

But if you really insist, we could say that string theory is a good candidate. It is actually the only game in town at the moment. Alas, for you, it expects 10^500 possible universes, each one with very different properties, rendering the question of the fine tuning of this one for life as moot as the question why earth is so finely tuned for life, given that there are about 100 billions stars for each of the 100 billions galaxies in the observable universe. Actually, much more moot than that, given that 100 billions multiplied by 100 billions is in the order of 10^22, which 10^478 smaller than the amounts of universes which are possibly existing. That is, there are
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

more universes than stars in our universe.

So, if the only theoretical game in town is right, the existence of Universes with properties like this one is ridiculously likely.

Therefore, it is your call really. Either you accept that we do not know, or you accept string theory which renders your questions completely moot. Or do you have a better theory?

Once again this is entirely consistent with the work of a creator, and us being the primary beneficiaries of that creation.
And once again, for the great mythical auto-lotto tumbler in the sky to accidentally achieve the same remarkable reality, would have to be chalked up to yet one more staggering fluke, one more drawing of the winning lottery ticket.

We are beneficiaries of creation? Each one of us will presumably live some decades before vanishing into the same place we come from, and the whole human race has less relevance for the whole Universe than bacteria on earth. That computes to zero, basically. You seem to suffer from an exaggerated form of anthropocentrism. It seems that theists, in general, suffer from this weird form of megalomania that assumes the Universe exists for them, lol.

And again, without a clear cut fundamental theory about the existence of Universes, your analogies with lotto can be dismissed out of hand.

At some point, 'cheating' simply becomes the least improbable explanation, and that's the conclusion the vast majority of mankind has always come to, including many of our greatest scientists- like Lemaitre, who's unparalleled discovery was not deemed academically popular enough to ever be awarded a Nobel prize, so apparently that trophy is a poor substitute for actual scientific progress.

Bad news. You will probably never win a Nobel prize for you physical acumen, after all.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nope. We do not know. We do not even kinda know. For that, we need confirmed theoretical support which is not existing at the moment.

But if you really insist, we could say that string theory is a good candidate. It is actually the only game in town at the moment. Alas, for you, it expects 10^500 possible universes, each one with very different properties, rendering the question of the fine tuning of this one for life as moot as the question why earth is so finely tuned for life, given that there are about 100 billions stars for each of the 100 billions galaxies in the observable universe. Actually, much more moot than that, given that 100 billions multiplied by 100 billions is in the order of 10^22, which 10^478 smaller than the amounts of universes which are possibly existing. That is, there are
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

more universes than stars in our universe.

So, if the only theoretical game in town is right, the existence of Universes with properties like this one is ridiculously likely.

Therefore, it is your call really. Either you accept that we do not know, or you accept string theory which renders your questions completely moot. Or do you have a better theory?



We are beneficiaries of creation? Each one of us will presumably live some decades before vanishing into the same place we come from, and the whole human race has less relevance for the whole Universe than bacteria on earth. That computes to zero, basically. You seem to suffer from an exaggerated form of anthropocentrism. It seems that theists, in general, suffer from this weird form of megalomania that assumes the Universe exists for them, lol.

And again, without a clear cut fundamental theory about the existence of Universes, your analogies with lotto can be dismissed out of hand.



Bad news. You will probably never win a Nobel prize for you physical acumen, after all.

Ciao

- viole

String theory is philosophical speculation at best, M theory, Multiverses, fluctuation in quantum voids and being sneezed out by a giant elephant are all in a close race along with anything else purely imaginary.

But where any multiverse theory shoots itself in the foot though.... other than being utterly unfalsifiable- is that any giant universe making machine prolific enough to create our universe accidentally, would have to also be equipped with an imaginary safety mechanism- utterly forbidding it from ever creating anything resembling God, i.e. an intelligent creator.. which would defeat the entire purpose of the theory.

Andre Linde, principle of current inflationary theory, and many others, consider it 'feasible' that we may one day be able to create our own universe, and that this could be where ours came from.....an experiment in an alien universe. and that's just one way ID could have come into play. But since any creative intelligence that ever developed the ability to design universes, would have a far greater success rate than the string lotto machine- it would be a strangely arrogant notion to insist that ours is the original 'immaculate virgin conception' universe, and not simply a designed one!


we are the only means we know of by which the universe is aware of it's own existence, able to contemplate itself, amongst millions of species which cannot. If acknowledging this as 'special' is arrogant, what is insisting we are not? an inferiority complex? Why not ignore the physiological labels and just follow where the evidence points?

 

[Parsimony]

We don't know that the laws of physics as they currently exist are the only set of laws that would allow for life. Other sets of the laws of physics could allow for forms of life that we are unfamiliar with. There might even be forms of life in this Universe that don't depend on chemical reactions or nucleosynthesis of heavy elements that could survive even if the laws were changed slightly. These factors would have to be taken into account when one proposes that we are in a fine-tuned universe. As far as we know, all possible laws of physics might allow for life of some kind.

 

[viole]

String theory is philosophical speculation at best, M theory, Multiverses, fluctuation in quantum voids and being sneezed out by a giant elephant are all in a close race along with anything else purely imaginary.

But where any multiverse theory shoots itself in the foot though.... other than being utterly unfalsifiable- is that any giant universe making machine prolific enough to create our universe accidentally, would have to also be equipped with an imaginary safety mechanism- utterly forbidding it from ever creating anything resembling God, i.e. an intelligent creator.. which would defeat the entire purpose of the theory.

Andre Linde, principle of current inflationary theory, and many others, consider it 'feasible' that we may one day be able to create our own universe, and that this could be where ours came from.....an experiment in an alien universe. and that's just one way ID could have come into play. But since any creative intelligence that ever developed the ability to design universes, would have a far greater success rate than the string lotto machine- it would be a strangely arrogant notion to insist that ours is the original 'immaculate virgin conception' universe, and not simply a designed one!

I think you are reading too much science fiction. Or other forms of less scientific fiction.

we are the only means we know of by which the universe is aware of it's own existence, able to contemplate itself, amongst millions of species which cannot. If acknowledging this as 'special' is arrogant, what is insisting we are not? an inferiority complex? Why not ignore the physiological labels and just follow where the evidence points?

Do you think the Universe is aware of its existence and contemplate itself? Do you think black holes or galaxies contemplate themselves because of us?
Is anything short of that an inferiority complex for a race of apes that evolved on an obscure planet in an insignificant region of this galaxy?

Where do you get these ideas from?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Yerda]

Creationism- theism in general predicted a beginning, a specific creation event for the universe
atheism predicted a static/eternal universe which would make a creator redundant-

Creationism merely assumes a beginning. Atheism assumes nothing. It certainly makes no empirical predictions. Please, drop the sophistry and engage in adult discussion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Creationism merely assumes a beginning. Atheism assumes nothing. It certainly makes no empirical predictions. Please, drop the sophistry and engage in adult discussion.

Lemaitre v Hoyle, it's a matter of historical record

sticks and stones..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think you are reading too much science fiction. Or other forms of less scientific fiction.




Do you think the Universe is aware of its existence and contemplate itself? Do you think black holes or galaxies contemplate themselves because of us?
Is anything short of that an inferiority complex for a race of apes that evolved on an obscure planet in an insignificant region of this galaxy?

Where do you get these ideas from?

Ciao

- viole

Hawking, Krauss, Linde, reading and thinking, where do you get yours?

or as Krauss puts it, 'if your theory involves an invisible infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'

Yes our galaxy literally contemplates itself, since we are very much part of that galaxy, made from the fusion reactions of it's stars. And so far apparently alone in that ability...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Lemaitre v Hoyle, it's a matter of historical record

We don't know that the laws of physics as they currently exist are the only set of laws that would allow for life. Other sets of the laws of physics could allow for forms of life that we are unfamiliar with. There might even be forms of life in this Universe that don't depend on chemical reactions or nucleosynthesis of heavy elements that could survive even if the laws were changed slightly. These factors would have to be taken into account when one proposes that we are in a fine-tuned universe. As far as we know, all possible laws of physics might allow for life of some kind.

'allowing' isn't enough, they have to create life- not the sort of thing that happens accidentally. The singularity depended on certain information, constants, algorithms from which our sentience ultimately developed. Alter any of that information by the most infinitesimal values, and you don't even get space/time for any event to happen in, far less life, far less sentient life

If creating intelligence were that easy, we could simply generate trillions of random algorithms in a computer, and wait for it to introduce itself by the same sort of fluke that created us.
whether the math is represented by what we call physics- the digital values/information carried in sub atomic physics, or in tiny electrical signals in a computer chip. It's the information which ultimately has to be able to develop, 'self extract' somehow into sentience. We can clearly demonstrate that there are an infinite variety of algorithms that will NOT develop their own consciousness, no matter how long you give them

Again this hardly a controversial observation, it's the genesis of multiverse theories, that a staggering number of random trials would be needed to fluke a universe that is self aware

 

[Parsimony]

'allowing' isn't enough, they have to create life- not the sort of thing that happens accidentally.

We don't know that.

The singularity depended on certain information, constants, algorithms from which our sentience ultimately developed. Alter any of that information by the most infinitesimal values, and you don't even get space/time for any event to happen in, far less life, far less sentient life

How can a point like the Big Bang singularity have any algorithms in it? It doesn't have different parts like a computer does. Can you give me a source which states that the existence of space and time depends on such extremely precise values?

If creating intelligence were that easy, we could simply generate trillions of random algorithms in a computer, and wait for it to introduce itself by the same sort of fluke that created us.

Human intelligence came into existence after billions of years of evolution, not a bunch of random algorithms.

whether the math is represented by what we call physics- the digital values/information carried in sub atomic physics, or in tiny electrical signals in a computer chip. It's the information which ultimately has to be able to develop, 'self extract' somehow into sentience. We can clearly demonstrate that there are an infinite variety of algorithms that will NOT develop their own consciousness, no matter how long you give them

There could also be an infinite number that do.

Again this hardly a controversial observation, it's the genesis of multiverse theories, that a staggering number of random trials would be needed to fluke a universe that is self aware

Not necessarily. We know that at least some of the laws of physics are not arbitrary but are based on fundamental logic and mathematics. Newton's laws of motion and the inverse square law are some examples. If it turns out that all of the laws of physics are based on such logic, then it would mean that the Universe could not have been different without violating the laws of math and logic. It would be the way it is because that's the only way it could be. That would mean that there is no "chance" involved. That is, however, my own speculation. Some of the laws might be arbitrary. Or they might not be. We don't have enough information yet to tell if our Universe was inevitable or not.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Theism- know
Agnosticism- don't know
Ignosticism- Ignorant of subject
Atheism- know

I understand they can be defined differently.

You really don't understand what the definition of atheist is. YOU sir, are an atheist, unless you belief in Odin and Zeus, Vishnu and Ra, and every single other deity known throughout human history. You are an atheist when it comes to every single deity, except for the Christian God you happen to believe in. For THAT god you are a believer, for ALL others, you are a non-believer, an atheist. There was a time when most people were NOT atheist, when people tended to believe in ALL gods and happened to just worship certain ones. In fact, Christians were some of the first atheists; some of the first to claim that I believe in MY god, but have no belief in any other gods. The only difference between your atheism and mine is that I have one more god on my list of those I don't believe in than you do.