Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[metis]

An Okapi-

The direct ancestor of a Giraffe has never been found,

Of course species share similar designs, just as we can find a Toyota and a Chevy that share many traits, it doesn't mean that one 'begat' the other, far less through spontaneous accident!

Check on my link at post #228. In case GT doesn't respond (he might have me on "ignore"), could somebody else post the link?

 

[NoorNoor]

The reason for that is because nitrogen is a diatomic molecule with a strong intramolecular bonding force. This makes it unlikely to react with other chemicals unless large input energies are present. Consequently, reactions involving gaseous nitrogen often consume energy instead of releasing it. Oxygen gas, on the other hand, is a strong oxidizing agent which readily reacts with a wide variety of chemicals to release energy. Life never had a choice in the matter: nitrogen was never an option as an energy source

Silicon is more common but it is also (1) far harder to extract from the environment because it's tied up in rocks which aren't exactly reactive, and (2) carbon is far more flexible in its chemistry.

Exactly, so the claim that live may evolve/exist in totally different or any other environment is not accurate. it's not about whatever is available in an environment but about what is specifically required for a specific life model. In another words, if neither oxygen nor carbon existed in our environment, would there be a chance for live to evolve in a completely different model? I would say no, and otherwise claim wouldn't be considered scientific.

 

[Parsimony]

Exactly, so the claim that live may evolve/exist in totally different or any other environment is not accurate. it's not about whatever is available in an environment but about what is specifically required for a specific life model. In another words, if neither oxygen nor carbon existed in our environment, would there be a chance for live to evolve in a completely different model? I would say no, and otherwise claim wouldn't be considered scientific.

There are plenty of organisms (mostly microbes) that don't need oxygen gas to survive, but I get what you're saying. If we were to consider life based on silicon, it would probably have to exist in an environment very different from that of Earth. It is quite possible that the life we see on Earth (carbon-based, water-loving) is the only kind that can exist. I suspect that life capable of breathing hydrogen is possible, since hydrogenation of carbohydrates is exothermic, but that's just speculation on my part.

 

[viole]

But if it's just an average, and it's ultimately, probabilistic in the end, then the black object occasionally and momentarily becoming red, isn't any true violation. At best you can call it a statistical impossibility, which is not at true impossibility. It may only be impossible in the same sense that throwing dice and landing snake eyes a googolplex times in a row is impossible. In all practicality, it's a statistical impossibility, which really means it's only highly improbable. The only true impossibilities are the physically impossible, logically impossible, and mathematically impossible. But this is only mathematically improbable, which isn't a physical impossibility.

Also with the case of of your hypothetical mass with the red and black particles, maybe the perpetual pitch-blackness only seems that way to the naked eye. But let's say it's being observed with highly precised instruments that chart it's redness and blackness on a line graph. It may chart the most minute spikes in the red spectrum that we couldn't possibly see with the naked eye, but the fact that there's spikes at all on the chart would suggest that things aren't completely determinate. And of course, it would show spikes on the graph in the black "spectrum" (I know there's no black spectrum, but you get what I mean lol) that shows it dipping below its average blackness.

If the machine is precise enough, then there's no way the ratio is completely uniform throughout time. Because that would suggest that the amount of particles being red and black at any given time, is always that exact value all the time. e.g. there's always exactly 33,728,388,026 red particles out of a total of 100 trillion particles. There's never 33,728,388,027 or 33,728,388,025. I think what you're saying though is that you're fine with those minute fluctuations, but that a mass going from having roughly 33 billion red particles to suddenly having nearly 100 trillion particles is far too unlikely to ever happen. But maybe that doesn't have to happen. The universe is known to have chaotic systems. Meaning they are systems that are sensitive to minute changes, such that when the changes happen, the system will have a dramatic behavior.

In other words, maybe a single particle turning red inside of a person is enough of a fluctuation for the person to decide take on a path of professional race car driving instead of a life of a chief. Okay maybe it's not that chaotic. Maybe it's enough for the person to decide to race cars instead of motorcycles, and maybe it's a thousand red particles instead of one.

For what concerns free will, I am not sure whether we are going to be more free if our ultimate decisions are taken by a random process in the brain. That would be the equivalent of excerting will by throwing a coin.

That reminds me of Asimov short novel "The machine that won the war". Also recommended to all managers confronted with difficult decisions in the audience. That machine is able to outperform you, anytime. Lol.

Joking aside. I am not a strong supporter of the wave collapse interpretation of QM. I think it makes no sense. I prefer to see a quantum entanglement between what we observe and the system under observation. Exactly like the entanglement between the spins of two electrons. That would make us quantistic entities, too. Not very good for our ego, but nevertheless...

So, when I observe that famous Austrian cat, the system me + cat splits into two quantistic states.

1) cat dead, I observe it dead
2) cat alive, I observe it alive

Both existing in a superposition. So, no collapse of the wave. No probabilities. No mysterious influence of observers on objective reality. Just coherent and coexisting states in a superposition.

Ciao

- viole

 

[NoorNoor]

Sounds like you're confusing evolution for Lamarkism.

No, I am not and you didn't answer my question. How the entire collected body of work in biology support your claim that live can exist in a completely different environment?

Lets ignore the example of a completely different environment. Imagine our own specific environment in absence of just one single element "carbon" which makes up for less than 1% of earth's mass. Would life have a chance? What is your evidence? would the collected body of work in biology support this claim?

Think about it, an element that exists in such a small amount in our environment, yet all sorts of life that we know depends on it. Why? Would that mean that life depends of specific criteria to exist?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

For what concerns free will, I am not sure whether we are going to be more free if our ultimate decisions are taken by a random process in the brain. That would be the equivalent of excerting will by throwing a coin.

That reminds me of Asimov short novel "The machine that won the war". Also recommended to all managers confronted with difficult decisions in the audience. That machine is able to outperform you, anytime. Lol.

Joking aside. I am not a strong supporter of the wave collapse interpretation of QM. I think it makes no sense. I prefer to see a quantum entanglement between what we observe and the system under observation. Exactly like the entanglement between the spins of two electrons. That would make us quantistic entities, too. Not very good for our ego, but nevertheless...

So, when I observe that famous Austrian cat, the system me + cat splits into two quantistic states.

1) cat dead, I observe it dead
2) cat alive, I observe it alive

Both existing in a superposition. So, no collapse of the wave. No probabilities. No mysterious influence of observers on objective reality. Just coherent and coexisting states in a superposition.

Ciao

- viole

That makes sense. Good points

 

[NoorNoor]

There are plenty of organisms (mostly microbes) that don't need oxygen gas to survive, but I get what you're saying. If we were to consider life based on silicon, it would probably have to exist in an environment very different from that of Earth. It is quite possible that the life we see on Earth (carbon-based, water-loving) is the only kind that can exist. I suspect that life capable of breathing hydrogen is possible, since hydrogenation of carbohydrates is exothermic, but that's just speculation on my part.

If we accept (consistent with scientific evidence) that life can't just evolve in any environment but depends on very specific criteria. If we already confirmed that the entire universe as we know it, is remarkably fine tuned to allow for our life model to exist. Then, can we consider our live model/our entire universe "a design"? Yes or no? Why?

what would be more likely accepted as a scientific probability in light of these observations? To consider ""a very specific live model supported by an entire fine tuned universe "" a design, or a coincidence?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

If we already confirmed that the entire universe as we know it, is remarkably fine tuned to allow for our life model to exist.

Entire universe? Entire as in this comparatively small blue watery sphere surrounded by an immense inhospitable vacuum? That entire universe?

 

[McBell]

If we accept (consistent with scientific evidence) that life can't just evolve in any environment but depends on very specific criteria.

Why would you make this assumption?

If we already confirmed that the entire universe as we know it, is remarkably fine tuned to allow for our life model to exist.

That has NOT been confirmed.
It has only been boldly claimed.

Then, can we consider our live model/our entire universe "a design"? Yes or no? Why?

If my aunt had balls, would that make her my uncle?

There is no empirical objective evidence to suggest a designer outside the wishful thinking of those wanting/needing a designer.

Don't get me wrong, this lack of evidence does not prove there is no designer, just that a designer may well not be required outside the wishful thinking of those wanting/needing a designer.

what would be more likely accepted as a scientific probability in light of these observations? To consider ""a very specific live model supported by an entire fine tuned universe "" a design, or a coincidence?

what "observations"?
Do you mean your bold empty claims of fine tuning?

 

[metis]

If we accept (consistent with scientific evidence) that life can't just evolve in any environment but depends on very specific criteria. If we already confirmed that the entire universe as we know it, is remarkably fine tuned to allow for our life model to exist. Then, can we consider our live model/our entire universe "a design"? Yes or no? Why?

what would be more likely accepted as a scientific probability in light of these observations? To consider ""a very specific live model supported by an entire fine tuned universe "" a design, or a coincidence?

Actually this is not what a great many of the biologists believe. Our life forms are carbon-based, but that doesn't necessarily mean that any life form in any part of the universe must also be carbon-based. Our life-forms mostly depend on an O2 and CO2 exchange, but that doesn't mean that any life form found anywhere has to rely on those two molecules.

One lesson that quantum mechanics is teaching us to is expect the unexpected, and this may be applicable in many scientific fields.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No, I am not and you didn't answer my question. How the entire collected body of work in biology support your claim that live can exist in a completely different environment?

Lets ignore the example of a completely different environment. Imagine our own specific environment in absence of just one single element "carbon" which makes up for less than 1% of earth's mass. Would life have a chance? What is your evidence? would the collected body of work in biology support this claim?

Think about it, an element that exists in such a small amount in our environment, yet all sorts of life that we know depends on it. Why? Would that mean that life depends of specific criteria to exist?

Once again, I was talking about how life evolved in a particular way because of the environment it evolved in, as evidenced by organic chemistry. Not some red herring about non-carbon based life and the illogical insistence that if there's no other types of life than life as is must have been designed. There is absolutely nothing scientific about such a notion.

 

[NoorNoor]

Why would you make this assumption?

Why would you call it an assumption? Do you know that the carbon based live model is the only model known to exist? Do you know that life on earth is the only known life in the universe? So far, Scientist where not able to find evidence for any live form on any other planet. Unless you have some different info unknown to mainstream scientists, then this is not an assumption. This is a fact, at least till now.

That has NOT been confirmed.It has only been boldly claimed.

What do you mean boldly claimed? There is a broad """agreement""" among physicist and cosmologists that the universe in several respects is 'fine tuned' for life. Stephen Hawking stated that the laws of science contains fundamental numbers and the remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.

Don't get me wrong, this lack of evidence does not prove there is no designer, just that a designer may well not be required outside the wishful thinking

Its not wishful thinking. We have been discussing the following points. Many scientists acknowledged that these specific points do imply a creator.
- a creation point at the big bang
- very particular life model/fine tuned universe.

Read about the fine tuned universe. the wishful thinking is the thinking of those who ignore all examples of intelligent design in our universe.

Do you mean your bold empty claims of fine tuning?

Read a little about the fine tuned universe. After you read, you will see for yourself whether it's an empty claim.

 

[NoorNoor]

Entire universe? Entire as in this comparatively small blue watery sphere surrounded by an immense inhospitable vacuum? That entire universe?

Fine tuned universe is not about the earth's environment but about the fine tuning of the laws of science itself that controls the entire universe.

Scientists understand that this fine tuned universe imply a creator. Naturalists explanation was through the Multiverse theory that invokes unlimited number of unseen universe and simply claiming that in this case our fine tuned universe is a coincidence. This theory is only a hypothesis that can't be verified. Concerns have been raised that the exemption of multiverse from experimental verification could impact confidence in science and damage the study of physics. Multiverse is a hypothesis that can be only accepted based on mere faith to the contrary to the fine tuned universe established facts

 

[Valjean]

We're tuned for this universe, not vice versa.

 

[NoorNoor]

Actually this is not what a great many of the biologists believe. Our life forms are carbon-based, but that doesn't necessarily mean that any life form in any part of the universe must also be carbon-based. Our life-forms mostly depend on an O2 and CO2 exchange, but that doesn't mean that any life form found anywhere has to rely on those two molecules.

What I am saying is regardless of the possibilities, the only fact so far, is the carbon based live model. No evidence was found for other live forms on any planet. I am not trying to discuss whether the possibilities or hypothesis are right or wrong. I am only stating some known facts. Not sure why that is difficult to accept.

One lesson that quantum mechanics is teaching us to is expect the unexpected, and this may be applicable in many scientific fields.

Correct. Is the creator unexpected? Can you expect it? For some reason, when to comes to the creator, we tend to deny our own observations and our own logic.

 

[NoorNoor]

We're tuned for this universe, not vice versa.

If live is tuned to the universe, wouldn't you expect different sorts of live to exist in different environments and simply tune to these environments? So far, no evidence to support this hypothesis. Even on earth, why only the carbon based live? Why no other types evolved? Wouldn't that imply that required criteria for life to exist are very particular. Live can't just simply exist in any environment. At least till now, no thing to proof otherwise.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

If live is tuned to the universe, wouldn't you expect different sorts of live to exist in different environments and simply tune to these environments?

Yes.

So far, no evidence to support this hypothesis.

Are you kidding me? Good grief, it's like watching a person surf and say there's no evidence of the ocean. The many oceans, deserts and forests aren't different environments to you?

We have life adapted to live in saltwater. Life adapted to live on land. Life adapted to live in freshwater. Life adapted to live with little water. Life adapted to live in extremely cold environments. Life adapted to live in extremely hot environments. Life adapted to live in near-pitch darkness. Life adapted to live in dry climates. Life adapted to live in toxic environments. Life adapted to solely live inside of other organisms.

That last one should give some interesting perspective. If you, NoorNoor, were a symbiotic bacteria living inside a human stomach, you might argue that the human body is so fine tuned to support the life of your kind. Hell, you might still argue that if you were pathogenic rather than symbiotic. What, you think God designed the Sahara thinking "hmmm.... yeah, this is a good environment for those camels. They got those hump things, so better design their environment with little water. That way I can use the extra water for the dolphins and penguins who are tetrapods entering the environment of fish."

You think you can live the life of a camel? You think you can live inside of another organism, NoorNoor? Could you live underwater? What if the water is over 120 degrees Celsius?

Jeez, it's the same bs with you guys. You don't think. You don't want to think. You ignore what's right in front of your face, and I'm sure you're gonna reply with some convoluted explanation that somehow these are all the same environments and they're all perfectly tuned for each and all life, and that this all somehow meshes with your worldview, and blah blah blah... yada yada yada God is great and what-not.

 

[Valjean]

Different environments do generate different sorts. Anaerobic species still exist, and there are all sorts of extremophiles adapted to environmental extremes.
Only carbon based species exist because carbon is so versatile. The original life forms adopted this strategy and any other -- if there were any others -- just couldn't catch up.

Wankel engines are, theoretically, simpler and more efficient than piston engines, but because piston engines had already been developed and refined before car manufacturers tried introducing Wankels, the design just fizzled out. It couldn't catch up.

 

[NoorNoor]

Once again, I was talking about how life evolved in a particular way because of the environment it evolved in, as evidenced by organic chemistry. Not some red herring about non-carbon based life and the illogical insistence that if there's no other types of life than life as is must have been designed. There is absolutely nothing scientific about such a notion.

What you said was clear but you insist on changing the subject and not to answer my question. Would life on earth have a chance without carbon? I expect you to know the answer. Possibilities of different life types in different environments were never proven till now.

Yes, I am making a notion that the requirements for life to exist are very """particular""". Can you deny it? This is very scientific and a proven fact. If you claim otherwise, you are the one who needs to prove it. If you can't, and I know you can't, then just admit that your claim is a hypothesis, at least till some evidence are found. If it will ever be found.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Wankel engines are, theoretically, simpler and more efficient than piston engines, but because piston engines had already been developed and refined before car manufacturers tried introducing Wankels, the design just fizzled out. It couldn't catch up.

Supposedly, Wankel engines require way too much motor oil. But yeah, I'm sure the technology could have been perfected more had the auto industry invested in it more.