PROBABILITY OR POSSIBILITY OR JUST IMPOSSSIBLE

[George-ananda]

And yet you cannot even think about what the probability of Brahman being uncreated is?

It's not a mathematical probability question. It's the teaching of those that I believe understand reality best.

What does this Brahman think of dishonesty?

That it is part of the behavior of those still under illusion (Maya in Hinduism).

 

[McBell]

It's not a mathematical probability question. It's the teaching of those that I believe understand reality best.

So you are merely preaching off topic in this thread?

 

[George-ananda]

Can Brahman help us do science?

The question doesn't really make sense. We are Brahman in finite form learning towards Realization.

Or is the script withheld until the play is over?

Progressively we will see the Truth.

 

[George-ananda]

So you are merely preaching off topic in this thread?

Just answering Mestemia's question.

 

[McBell]

Just answering Mestemia's question.

You are in a thread about mathematical probability talking about Brahman.
Yet you claim you're not talking mathematics.
So why are you preaching about Brahman in a mathematical thread?

Again, what does Brahman think about dishonesty?

 

[Yerda]

The question doesn't really make sense. We are Brahman in finite form learning towards Realization.

Progressively we will see the Truth.

Ok. Do you think the hypothesis that evolution has been guided is in any way useful in biology (or any other field)?

As far as I can tell it would alter some underlying assumptions but not really change any of the facts. The evidennce still suggests evolution has happened, is happening, will happen.

 

[George-ananda]

Ok. Do you think the hypothesis that evolution has been guided is in any way useful in biology (or any other field)? As far as I can tell it would alter some underlying assumptions but not really change any of the facts. The evidennce still suggests evolution has happened, is happening, will happen.

Biology at this time is restricted to describing things and processes (evolution) on the physical plane. Anything beyond that is outside of its current realm. Hence the guidance of evolution is currently beyond the field of biology.

 

[Yerda]

Biology at this time is restricted to describing things and processes (evolution) on the physical plane. Anything beyond that is outside of its current realm. Hence the guidance of evolution is currently beyond the field of biology.

Is there any physical evidence that it is guided?

 

[George-ananda]

Is there any physical evidence that it is guided?

No, what physical evidence could we expect to see. The source of the intelligence is above the physical. All we can see is the physical.

 

[Yerda]

No, what physical evidence could we expect to see. The source of the intelligence is above the physical. All we can see is the physical.

Is it fair to say that the belief that evolution is guided is an assumption?

 

[George-ananda]

Is it fair to say that the belief that evolution is guided is an assumption?

I wouldn't say assumption. More, the most reasonable conclusion given the evidence from the physical and from those who perceive beyond the physical.

 

[Yerda]

I wouldn't say assumption. More, the most reasonable conclusion given the evidence from the physical and from those who perceive beyond the physical.

What is the evidence from the physical?

 

[George-ananda]

What is the evidence from the physical?

The likelihood that a system with complex DNA, etc., etc., occurred thru only the processes understood by science . This argument is not definitive. But combined with the knowledge of those that I believe know beyond the physical I hold this to be the most reasonable belief.

 

[Yerda]

The likelihood that a system with complex DNA, etc., etc., occurred thru only the processes understood by science . This argument is not definitive. But combined with the knowledge of those that I believe know beyond the physical I hold this to be the most reasonable belief.

Well, science doesn't really understand how life formed. It's still a bit of a mystery. Given how remarkable humans are I think the most reasonable belief is that we are getting closer and will probably be able to explain it one day through processes understood by science, but it's fine to disagree here.

 

[McBell]

I wouldn't say assumption. More, the most reasonable conclusion given the evidence from the physical and from those who perceive beyond the physical.

How is it the "most reasonable" when you cannot even evidence at all the non-physical part of your claim?

 

[McBell]

The likelihood that a system with complex DNA, etc., etc., occurred thru only the processes understood by science . This argument is not definitive. But combined with the knowledge of those that I believe know beyond the physical I hold this to be the most reasonable belief.

How is not simply a god of the gaps claim?

 

[Bunyip]

The likelihood that a system with complex DNA, etc., etc., occurred thru only the processes understood by science . This argument is not definitive. But combined with the knowledge of those that I believe know beyond the physical I hold this to be the most reasonable belief.

I don't see how inserting the supernatural into that gap is at all reasonable.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

.wHAT IS A MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF EVOLUTION.
The sole mechanism of evolution is random changes of mutation, along with natural selection. Natural selection acts as a sieve, which gets rid of those mutations that it does not like. The problem with natural selection is that when nature run the changes through it, see the good mutations are not always kept or reused. Since changes in an ordered system will always change or decrease the amount of current order, then this continually shows that mutations are harmful to the organism. Since most are discarded.
For a good mutation to progress from a parent to an offspring and then to the next generation is statistically impossible. That is just say that a good mutation or a bad mutation has a 50-50 chance of passing on to the next generation say for 200 times So mathematically we can look at this as a 50-50 chance.
So mathematically that would be (1/2) 200th, or one chance out of 10 to the 60th power.
So for those who was have the numbers written out, that would be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion,; Or to make it more simple 1 , followed by 60 zeros. Quite a number to have good mutations to continue out.
So there had to be an intelligent creator to make everything work fully as it is designed to do. Which came first on the woodpecker. The claws to hold it on the tree,It would've starved because it can penetrate the wood, Or the neck muscles and the bill to penetrate the tree without the claws, It would've fell off and got eaten by something. Everything has to be there for it to survive cannot be a good mutation or bad mutations, but must be fully formed. The CREATOR is great

But regardless that the creator made creation fully formed, if evolution theory was true in nature now, then still organisms would have become disorganized through random mutation. Or so to say, the mutations that are happening now, by and large, there is intelligent design behind it. There is not just original creation, but also current intelligent design in nature.

 

[Bunyip]

But regardless that the creator made creation fully formed, if evolution theory was true in nature now, then still organisms would have become disorganized through random mutation. Or so to say, the mutations that are happening now, by and large, there is intelligent design behind it. There is not just original creation, but also current intelligent design in nature.

No, a designer would be redundant. Evolution does not need one.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Your Argument is totally specious.

A vast majority of evolutionary changes lead absolutely nowhere. They are happening all the time and most are dead ends.
Sometimes such a change is very beneficial and is therefore is likely to increase the chances of survival of both the change and the species.

The mathematics of the change between two stages of evolution is always 100% because it "Happened"
The chances of it happening again, are as you say perhaps astronomical, but irelavent.

All we ever see is a completed chain of events.
Failures do not survive.
Genetic variation can mean they remain much as they are, take a genetic fork or lead to dead ends.

This is the process we see in practice. namely numerous family branches that we call species, with a similar number of extinctions.