Enough Time for Evolution?

[Agnostic75]

I'm not talking about Theistic Evolution. It would be a 100% in that case regardless how long he chooses to do it. We're talking about evolution due to totally naturalistic processes.

What about the possibility that aliens brought life to earth?

Even if a God exists, that does not necessarily mean that he is the God of the Bible. If one day, most scientists claimed that naturalism is false, I would still be a skeptic, and none of the billions of non-Christian theists would become Christians as a result.

If, for the safe of argument, the odds against naturalism being true are 100 trillion to 1, and the odds against Christianity being true are only 10 to 1, accepting Christianity would still not be a good bet. I used that as an example to show you that is does not matter nearly as much what the odds "against" naturalism being true are as it matters what the odds "for" Christianity being true are. If you can reasonably prove that the Bible is true, you would defeat naturalism by default. So, you have the cart before the horse. Most of the world's most successful Christian evangelists achieved their success by promoting the Bible, not by attacking naturalism. The Bible says that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." That does not imply that faith cometh by attacking naturalism.

Humans are much too primitive, and the universe is much too large, for humans to adequately quantity odds about the possibility of life on other planets. In addition, there is the possibility of other universes, which many physicists believe is plausible.

 

[Revoltingest]

By the way, the professor in that Video is Stewart Newman, PHD, professor of Cell Biology at New York Medical College.
New York Medical College

I won't hold his lack of an advanced engineering degree against him.

 

[Shermana]

Let me put it this way. If I have a million sided dice and I roll it what are the chances I get 7? 1 in a million. Its an astronomical odds. What if I only get to roll it once ever? Even worse. But what if there are 10 million people rolling that same dice? Its bound to happen on average about 7 times with those odds.

Your argument seems to be based on the fact that it is almost impossible to get 7 on the million sided dice. And yes any single individual roll is remarkably unlikely. However with the vast majority of people rolling this dice it is only logical that some will make the roll.

We're talking rolling a 7 on a Million^Million sided die, and from what I understand, theoretical probability does not necessarily equate to empirical. Your odds may be even lower than what standard odds would indicate.

 

[Shermana]

I won't hold his lack of an advanced engineering degree against him.

I don't see why anyone would, but we're talking about the one on incremental changes.

 

[Shermana]

What about the possibility that aliens brought life to earth?

Even if a God exists, that does not necessarily mean that he is the God of the Bible. If one day, most scientists claimed that naturalism is false, I would still be a skeptic, and none of the billions of non-Christian theists would become Christians as a result.

If, for the safe of argument, the odds against naturalism being true are 100 trillion to 1, and the odds against Christianity being true are only 10 to 1, accepting Christianity would still not be a good bet. I used that as an example to show you that is does not matter nearly as much what the odds "against" naturalism being true are as it matters what the odds "for" Christianity being true are. If you can reasonably prove that the Bible is true, you would defeat naturalism by default. So, you have the cart before the horse. Most of the world's most successful Christian evangelists achieved their success by promoting the Bible, not by attacking naturalism. The Bible says that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." That does not imply that faith cometh by attacking naturalism.

Humans are much too primitive, and the universe is much too large, for humans to adequately quantity odds about the possibility of life on other planets. In addition, there is the possibility of other universes, which many physicists believe is plausible.

"Aliens" is another way of saying what I believe is the case.

 

[McBell]

"Aliens" is another way of saying what I believe is the case.

Really?
Kinda sounds like you do not really care as long as evolution is wrong.
One wonders if this impression you give is accurate?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see why anyone would, but we're talking about the one on incremental changes.

I addressed the shortcomings of the faux probabilistic argument in the 1st link you presented to me. Do the others address the issues I broached?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I've had success at a 99/100 ratio with making rice, and the only failure is when I didn't add enough water or when I got too engrossed on the computer while it was boiling.

Not quite what I meant. :0)

Im referring to the exact position and quantity of each grain of rice in the pan where probability factors in only for a duplicate throw like the first one. Infinitesimal throws are made each and every time in light of the calculations required for an exact duplication. Yet i can do what is infintestiominal every initial time.

Odds are factored in for duplication. Not by the initial event, which is why using such arguments concerning improbability commonly fail in attempting to establish the probability odds of an initial occurrence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

We're talking rolling a 7 on a Million^Million sided die, and from what I understand, theoretical probability does not necessarily equate to empirical. Your odds may be even lower than what standard odds would indicate.

It still doesn't matter. With the vastness of our universe the probability of things lining up just right isn't a deal breaker or even an arguing point. We still don't know how common life is in the universe. If we knew that then we could have a better understanding of what the true odds were. But the general analogy remains unchanged.

 

[Agnostic75]

"Aliens" is another way of saying what I believe is the case.

Of course, but how would that help you promote the Bible, especially to the billions of non-Christian theists?

How would an aliens theory help get intelligent design into public schools since even if aliens brought life to earth, that would not reasonably prove that the flagellum is an example of intelligent design, as Ken Miller and many other experts have shown?

I said:

"If, for the safe of argument, the odds against naturalism being true are 100 trillion to 1, and the odds against Christianity being true are only 10 to 1, accepting Christianity would still not be a good bet. I used that as an example to show you that is does not matter nearly as much what the odds "against" naturalism being true are as it matters what the odds "for" Christianity being true are. If you can reasonably prove that the Bible is true, you would defeat naturalism by default. So, you have the cart before the horse. Most of the world's most successful Christian evangelists achieved their success by promoting the Bible, not by attacking naturalism. The Bible says that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." That does not imply that faith cometh by attacking naturalism."

What is your opinion of that?

 

[McBell]

We're talking rolling a 7 on a Million^Million sided die, and from what I understand, theoretical probability does not necessarily equate to empirical. Your odds may be even lower than what standard odds would indicate.

interesting.
Based on your logic, Gloria C. Mackenzie could not have possibly won the lottery because the odds of an 84 year old winning $590 million dollars is far to great.

Except that she did...<--Link

Calculating the odds of something happening after it happened merely makes you look desperate.

 

[LuisDantas]

We're talking rolling a 7 on a Million^Million sided die,

How did you conclude that such a metaphor is a better illustration than MoR's original one of a million tosses of different dice?

It is not like the organic soup had a queue for molecules to wait their turn to try and combine.

and from what I understand, theoretical probability does not necessarily equate to empirical.

That depends mostly on how accurate the premises are, and on how well chosen the models used are.

Your odds may be even lower than what standard odds would indicate.

Just about anything might happen or fail to happen. If we want to talk about probabilities, it is a given that we are aiming higher than that.

 

[Shermana]

interesting.
Based on your logic, Gloria C. Mackenzie could not have possibly won the lottery because the odds of an 84 year old winning $590 million dollars is far to great.

Except that she did...<--Link

Calculating the odds of something happening after it happened merely makes you look desperate.

That's some cute presumptive circular desparation you got there, but what's even cuter is acting as if a mostly guaranteed result for SOMEONE is somehow comparable. Keep trying however, you may not embarass yourself next time.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's some cute presumptive circular desparation you got there, but what's even cuter is acting as if a mostly guaranteed result for SOMEONE is somehow comparable. Keep trying however, you may not embarass yourself next time.

Believe it or not but I actually agree with you on this specific point. The major difference between my dice analogy and the lotto analogy is that someone HAS to win the lotto. You can technically roll a dice an infinite number of tmies and never land on any particular number. Its just highly improbable.

However unfortunatly for you my analogy still stands reguardless if lotto one fails.

 

[Shermana]

Of course, but how would that help you promote the Bible, especially to the billions of non-Christian theists?

Well, it would require a lot of explanation of the relationship to what we call "Aliens" and "Angels"/"Divine Beings". Explaining the idea of Intelligent Design through intelligent life forms thousands of years ahead of us who have the ability to manipulate matter and have an understanding of science and technology beyond our wildest dreams is something I'd have to think about how to present cohesively.

How would an aliens theory help get intelligent design into public schools since even if aliens brought life to earth, that would not reasonably prove that the flagellum is an example of intelligent design, as Ken Miller and many other experts have shown?

Well, I've personally seen a fleet of aerodynamically-amazing UFOs in perfect formation with my own eyes, but convincing others that they exist is another story. As for the Flagellum issue, all I have to say is that the article you quoted in another thread is accurate in that Judge Jones, for whatever reason, completely ignored Minnich's research regarding the Flaggelum. I cannot really get into it there. If we are incorporating Alien Theory, we'd have to incorporate various things that have been handwaved and brushed off and at least allow a fair critique of those views to see if they deconstruct theories like Miller's attempt to show the T3SS leap to Flagellum stands as what he says.

"If, for the safe of argument, the odds against naturalism being true are 100 trillion to 1, and the odds against Christianity being true are only 10 to 1, accepting Christianity would still not be a good bet. I used that as an example to show you that is does not matter nearly as much what the odds "against" naturalism being true are as it matters what the odds "for" Christianity being true are. If you can reasonably prove that the Bible is true, you would defeat naturalism by default. So, you have the cart before the horse. Most of the world's most successful Christian evangelists achieved their success by promoting the Bible, not by attacking naturalism. The Bible says that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." That does not imply that faith cometh by attacking naturalism."

This is an entirely different concept, I don't think that just by attacking naturalism will the Biblical version of Design be necessarily proven, that's an entirely different story which is beyond the scope of this thread but is nonetheless an interest topic of discussion.

 

[Shermana]

It still doesn't matter. With the vastness of our universe the probability of things lining up just right isn't a deal breaker or even an arguing point. We still don't know how common life is in the universe. If we knew that then we could have a better understanding of what the true odds were. But the general analogy remains unchanged.

I don't necessarily think it's that improbable when you're dealing with such a huge luck shot. It may be highly unlikely never rolling a 12 with two dice, but when you're looking at numbers that get into the astronomically high digits, even when rolling the dice an astronomically high number of times, it's not quite the same as a smaller number. I don't think the comparison is very linear.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't necessarily think it's that improbable when you're dealing with such a huge luck shot. It may be highly unlikely never rolling a 12 with two dice, but when you're looking at numbers that get into the astronomically high digits, even when rolling the dice an astronomically high number of times, it's not quite the same as a smaller number. I don't think the comparison is very linear.

It doesn't have to be. She sheer multitude of different enviroments in this universe that is so vast that our human mind cannot comprehend it does indeed negate this high improbability of us being in a situation that nurtures life. Bottom line. I used an analogy to explain my point but it wasn't required.

 

[secret2]

We should really stop using the dice rolling analogy. When rolling dice,the rolls are independent events. In evolution, successful replicator would reinforce itself. The positive feedback means that each mutation and selection is not independent.

 

[Shermana]

We should really stop using the dice rolling analogy. When rolling dice,the rolls are independent events. In evolution, successful replicator would reinforce itself. The positive feedback means that each mutation and selection is not independent.

The thing is though, we're looking at just how likely it would be that these changes would allow successful adaptation in a way which is caused by a series of "coincidental" events that involve a successive series of changes in the code, and how long it would be expected for such a thing to happen, especially when we know how exceedingly rare Beneficial mutations are.

 

[secret2]

The thing is though, we're looking at just how likely it would be that these changes would allow successful adaptation in a way which is caused by a series of "coincidental" events that involve a successive series of changes in the code, and how long it would be expected for such a thing to happen, especially when we know how exceedingly rare Beneficial mutations are.

That's exactly my point. Each 'change' is not independent of the history of previous changes, and any computation that assumes they are independent (I suspect all) would fail. Specifically they would overestimate the required time and underestimate the success probability by ignoring the feedback effect.

BTW, just in case you don't realize, most mutations are neutral. Not all 'non-beneficial' mutations would kill the host.