Why evolution did not comes like this ?

[leibowde84]

Forgive my pedantic nature.. but the maths is very wrong: if you're looking at 20 different triplets randomly filling 10 codon spaces, then the permutations you're looking at are 20^10 (if my calculations are correct, that's 1.024 *10"13), or a probability of roughly one in 10,240,000,000,000 to get an identical set of codons at random for ten locations only.

The number of permutations down 3 billion base pairs would be rather large (20^a billion)

..not that it makes a huge amount of difference as he doesn't appear to know what probabilities he's actually after, what they (or anything else) mean

Thank you for that correction. I knew my math was off. It's been a long time since I even looked at equations like this. But, you are right. He was looking for a mutation rate, not a probability.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

at probabilities he's actually after, what they (or anything else) mean

All meaningless appeals to authority. You appeal to ignorance that evolution cannot be calculated. That there is no mathematical basis to evolution theory, because the chance of beneficial mutations cannot be calculated.

 

[leibowde84]

All meaningless appeals to authority. You appeal to ignorance that evolution cannot be calculated. That there is no mathematical basis to evolution theory, because the chance of beneficial mutations cannot be calculated.

Beneficial mutations depend, almost entirely, on environment. They also occur at random. Natural Selection is what causes these mutations to be beneficial, in the way that you describe. Some help, some don't. While we might one day have enough raw data of mutations throughout the past 3.5 billion years to come up with a probability, it would most certainly change with changing global environments. So, it is completely unreasonable to ask for the "chance of beneficial mutations." It shows an ignorance of what the theory of evolution claims. One who understands the theory would not expect this kind of probability to be possible or accurate.

But, I'm curious. Why led you to the mistaken belief that lacking this probability currently somehow disproves evolution? Can you get specific as to why you put importance on this? You are asking to create a probability of something that happens randomly over billions of years. So, it doesn't seem rational to believe that lacking this would cast any doubt on the theory itself.

 

[Etritonakin]

That should not be acceptable to anybody believing in God. If one believes in God, then one must view the origins of things in terms of the decisions by which they came to be. Then one may make opinion if the spirit in which the decisions are made are divine or other. There is practically no spirituality left when freedom is ignored, there is actually no room left for any subjectivity whatsoever when freedom is ignored. Any idea which stands in the way of basic acceptance of subjectivity is justifiably obliterated.

One can make evolution theory consistent with accepting freedom is real, however it does mean to say that creationism is closer to the facts of origins than evolution theory. Conceptually in evolution theory the origins is in the asserted randomness of the mutation. Also the randomness of neutral selection, or the randomness of a change in the environment. Simply anywhere in the theory where randomness is asserted, then one can reinterpret this as saying that things may turn out one way or another, that the result is not predetermined, so there one can enter freedom as part of the process.

I do believe in God, and do view the origin of things in terms of the decisions by which they came to be -but "science" is not a person, and has no belief system except what becomes known as readily-provable fact.
Science is admittedly ignorant of many things, or scientists would not seek to discover new things -and science, in itself, is not a sufficient tool for understanding spiritual concepts or proving whether or not God exists.
It is, however -when used correctly -an excellent tool for discovering facts about the environment -or creation, if you will.

Everything is subject to God (subjectivity), for example, because of his position, but mankind, simply because we are new, is subject to ignorance and lack of experience -so we must necessarily be temporarily objective in learning in order for things to become increasingly subject to us. God has subjected mankind to ignorance of many things for a purpose -which is to bring their focus to the most important spiritual matters -but he also sometimes reveals things to us without effort on our part (though we are able to reject such).

Or -from another point of view -if God chooses to hide himself from scientists, they have no hope of discovering him by scientific method. More would be involved than science could possibly know. However, science is an excellent tool for discovering what can be otherwise known.

"Science" is not concerned with spiritual concepts -though individual scientists may be. The same would be true for mathematics, for example. A mathematician may believe in God, but that does not affect how he should do math.
An individual scientist might possibly apply the belief that God exists by performing experiments to prove it scientifically -but "science", by definition, cannot accept that God exists without proof -even though an individual scientist can.

If God showed himself somehow, then a mathematician might use math to determine certain characteristics, but, otherwise, math is just math.
That is not to say that math is not a language which describes some aspects of the nature of what God created, but math itself is not aware of God -though mathematicians may be.

If God showed himself somehow to all scientists, only then could they prove scientifically that God exists -though it can be known to individuals that God exists even if "science" cannot accept it.

If God showed himself to only one scientist, that one scientist could prove God exists scientifically -but if God did not reveal himself to others -and the one scientist was not allowed to take anything from the experience to show others, they would have no scientific reason to accept what he said was true.

I believe that proof of God -the creator -is evident in the creation -that it is absolutely true and perfectly logical overall, but not everyone sees it that way -nor could I convince everyone even if I were absolutely correct and able to state my case clearly (as understanding can surpass vocabulary).

So -science and math can know and discover things which are useful to the spiritual mind -but they are not, in themselves, spiritually minded.
They may be used by those with imagination to create something which has never existed, but they have no imagination of themselves.

It is not that "science" is incorrect or evil -but that it is ignorant of many things -and cannot always be applied if the opportunity does not present itself.

People, however, can do evil or make mistakes due to (among other things) ignorance or incorrect/insufficient knowledge.

"Science" goes slowly from ignorance to understanding one step at a time -sometimes making leaps -but only as it has opportunity.

Having access to the knowledge of God directly -an aspect of the tree of life, if you will -would shine a light in the darkness of what science does not and cannot yet know.

It is good to believe that God exists -but it is not wrong to understand that one does not know everything about God or his ways, or even to study what is around us by scientific method.

God has certainly not yet shared all of his knowledge with man -and for good reason. He teaches us to think, discover, imagine and create by causing us to seek out knowledge, but he has also limited our ability to do evil while we learn to treat each other and the shared environment with respect.

(Just a thought.... but when they say "evolution" can do something, they are not necessarily saying that God did not do it. For example, if I create a program that does something -or a machine that reacts to things in a certain way with no more required effort from myself, I have done it -even though, technically, the program or machine has done it -and keeps doing it when I go about other business. They are simply saying that what they call "evolution" can be seen to do certain things -though they cannot claim to know its true origin without all evidence -or that "evolution" has continued without any continued or periodic creative influence. Some individuals do claim such things as fact -but they are not scientifically correct in doing so.
God is able to set things in motion which do not require constant, continued attention -even changes in life forms -but we cannot say specifically what God did at any given time -and "science" cannot assume God's role as fact because "science" has not seen God.)

 

[philbo]

All meaningless appeals to authority. You appeal to ignorance that evolution cannot be calculated. That there is no mathematical basis to evolution theory, because the chance of beneficial mutations cannot be calculated.

Using maths is not an appeal to authority, meaningless or otherwise. Picking a fallacy and random and claiming it's being used doesn't help.

Not being able to calculate precise probabilities for events does not mean they cannot happen.

Please, PLEASE do some reading and try to understand the subject you're blathering about - if I were to go over to one of the religious forums and say "Islam cannot be true because fish never fly when they're pink and smelling of cucumbers", you'd probably have the same sort of "what on earth is he talking about" feeling as anybody with a smattering of a scientific education gets if they try and read your posts.

 

[David M]

It does make a calculation on the probability of a mutation, it calculates the probability someone else might obtain the exact same DNA through mutations. That is how the 1 in 10^9 number is obtained, or at least in part. I imagine they adjust the figure with raw data from databases of actual measurements of DNA.

That is not the calculation that you were told was not possible. That is a calculation based on data from existing humans and the existing genetic differences between us. The calculation you were told is impossible is on that predicts what specific mutations will take place in the future.

For instance we know that every human has about 50 novel mutations that are inherited from their parents sperm and ova. What we can't predict is what those mutations will be in a specific individual.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I do believe in God, and do view the origin of things in terms of the decisions by which they came to be -but "science" is not a person, and has no belief system except what becomes known as readily-provable fact.
Science is admittedly ignorant of many things, or scientists would not seek to discover new things -and science, in itself, is not a sufficient tool for understanding spiritual concepts or proving whether or not God exists.
It is, however -when used correctly -an excellent tool for discovering facts about the environment -or creation, if you will.

Everything is subject to God (subjectivity), for example, because of his position, but mankind, simply because we are new, is subject to ignorance and lack of experience -so we must necessarily be temporarily objective in learning in order for things to become increasingly subject to us. God has subjected mankind to ignorance of many things for a purpose -which is to bring their focus to the most important spiritual matters -but he also sometimes reveals things to us without effort on our part (though we are able to reject such).

Or -from another point of view -if God chooses to hide himself from scientists, they have no hope of discovering him by scientific method. More would be involved than science could possibly know. However, science is an excellent tool for discovering what can be otherwise known.

"Science" is not concerned with spiritual concepts -though individual scientists may be. The same would be true for mathematics, for example. A mathematician may believe in God, but that does not affect how he should do math.
An individual scientist might possibly apply the belief that God exists by performing experiments to prove it scientifically -but "science", by definition, cannot accept that God exists without proof -even though an individual scientist can.

If God showed himself somehow, then a mathematician might use math to determine certain characteristics, but, otherwise, math is just math.
That is not to say that math is not a language which describes some aspects of the nature of what God created, but math itself is not aware of God -though mathematicians may be.

If God showed himself somehow to all scientists, only then could they prove scientifically that God exists -though it can be known to individuals that God exists even if "science" cannot accept it.

If God showed himself to only one scientist, that one scientist could prove God exists scientifically -but if God did not reveal himself to others -and the one scientist was not allowed to take anything from the experience to show others, they would have no scientific reason to accept what he said was true.

I believe that proof of God -the creator -is evident in the creation -that it is absolutely true and perfectly logical overall, but not everyone sees it that way -nor could I convince everyone even if I were absolutely correct and able to state my case clearly (as understanding can surpass vocabulary).

So -science and math can know and discover things which are useful to the spiritual mind -but they are not, in themselves, spiritually minded.
They may be used by those with imagination to create something which has never existed, but they have no imagination of themselves.

It is not that "science" is incorrect or evil -but that it is ignorant of many things -and cannot always be applied if the opportunity does not present itself.

People, however, can do evil or make mistakes due to (among other things) ignorance or incorrect/insufficient knowledge.

"Science" goes slowly from ignorance to understanding one step at a time -sometimes making leaps -but only as it has opportunity.

Having access to the knowledge of God directly -an aspect of the tree of life, if you will -would shine a light in the darkness of what science does not and cannot yet know.

It is good to believe that God exists -but it is not wrong to understand that one does not know everything about God or his ways, or even to study what is around us by scientific method.

God has certainly not yet shared all of his knowledge with man -and for good reason. He teaches us to think, discover, imagine and create by causing us to seek out knowledge, but he has also limited our ability to do evil while we learn to treat each other and the shared environment with respect.

(Just a thought.... but when they say "evolution" can do something, they are not necessarily saying that God did not do it. For example, if I create a program that does something -or a machine that reacts to things in a certain way with no more required effort from myself, I have done it -even though, technically, the program or machine has done it -and keeps doing it when I go about other business. They are simply saying that what they call "evolution" can be seen to do certain things -though they cannot claim to know its true origin without all evidence -or that "evolution" has continued without any continued or periodic creative influence. Some individuals do claim such things as fact -but they are not scientifically correct in doing so.
God is able to set things in motion which do not require constant, continued attention -even changes in life forms -but we cannot say specifically what God did at any given time -and "science" cannot assume God's role as fact because "science" has not seen God.)

But you simply can do science about how things are chosen. Only agency of a decision is a matter of opinion.

Why don't you support science abour how things are chosen in the universe?

 

[leibowde84]

But you simply can do science about how things are chosen. Only agency of a decision is a matter of opinion.

Why don't you support science abour how things are chosen in the universe?

Because things are not "chosen" in the universe, scientifically speaking. There are no decisions being made. It is a product of chaos and chance. Evolution doesn't guide anything, it merely explains how things change over long periods of time.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Using maths is not an appeal to authority, meaningless or otherwise. Picking a fallacy and random and claiming it's being used doesn't help.

Not being able to calculate precise probabilities for events does not mean they cannot happen.

Please, PLEASE do some reading and try to understand the subject you're blathering about - if I were to go over to one of the religious forums and say "Islam cannot be true because fish never fly when they're pink and smelling of cucumbers", you'd probably have the same sort of "what on earth is he talking about" feeling as anybody with a smattering of a scientific education gets if they try and read your posts.

You are not using maths, you are saying maths can't be used for beneficial mutations.

 

[leibowde84]

But you simply can do science about how things are chosen. Only agency of a decision is a matter of opinion.

Why don't you support science abour how things are chosen in the universe?

You are assuming your claim in your question. There is no choice. Beneficial mutations are classified as such when they help an animal. This can easily be seen by noting that the same mutation can be both beneficial and detrimental, depending on the environment. Why does any kind of decision taking place even make sense?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Because things are not "chosen" in the universe, scientifically speaking. There are no decisions being made. It is a product of chaos and chance. Evolution doesn't guide anything, it merely explains how things change over long periods of time.

That is just atheisticly speaking. Freedom is real and relevant in the universe, that is a scientific fact.

 

[leibowde84]

You are not using maths, you are saying maths can't be used for beneficial mutations.

You just don't understand how the term "beneficial" is being used. It's not an objective classification, it is defined by the environment surrounding the organism with the mutation. A mutation could be "beneficial" in one environment, while the same exact mutation in another environment would certainly be considered "detrimental." Look at Polar Bears. A bear being white is not beneficial unless that bear is living in a white environment.

 

[leibowde84]

That is just atheisticly speaking. Freedom is real and relevant in the universe, that is a scientific fact.

What do you mean "freedom?" I agree that freedom exists in the world. I am just saying that, in regards to evolution/natural selection in particular, there is no one to make a choice or be "free." A mutation's value is determined by how it can be used or how it hurts the organism. There are no absolutes in this respect.

 

[leibowde84]

That is just atheisticly speaking. Freedom is real and relevant in the universe, that is a scientific fact.

Also, what do you mean by "atheistically speaking?" It seems that you are making the assumption that I do not believe in God.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Freedom is real and relevant in the universe, that is a scientific fact.

If you're going to go on and on, requiring people to provide you with mathematical equations for things that they never said could be calculated, then you'd better be prepared to substantiate the claim that you just made about "freedom" being real and relevant in the universe. Certainly you have an equation to support such a claim, since all things can be proven mathematically, right?

 

[leibowde84]

If you're going to go on and on, requiring people to provide you with mathematical equations for things that they never said could be calculated, then you'd better be prepared to substantiate the claim that you just made about "freedom" being real and relevant in the universe. Certainly you have an equation to support such a claim, since all things can be proven mathematically, right?

Watch out. The last person who asked him this caused him to refer to them as "ridiculously evil."

 

[jonathan180iq]

Watch out. The last person who asked him this caused him to refer to them as "ridiculously evil."

Oh, I saw that.
I've refrained from actually becoming part of this thread, but you can't make demands of people and then not hold yourself to the same standard.... That's just...EVIL!

 

[Etritonakin]

But you simply can do science about how things are chosen. Only agency of a decision is a matter of opinion.

Why don't you support science abour how things are chosen in the universe?

I support the subject of decision leading to our present state logically -by stating the case as well as I am able, but I cannot set up a situation which will prove to others that God exists scientifically -such as bringing them before God to show them God face to face.

I do not see a point in trying to explain things to people who are not willing to listen -or are not yet of a mind to accept certain things. God will reveal himself to all in time -logically, and in person. That is not my responsibility. My responsibility is to obey God and speak the truth when it is wise to speak it -and even remain silent when it is not. Not every mind is willing or yet able to accept perfectly true logic (and my own is only somewhat capable -hopefully increasingly so) -and some will not believe in God until they see his face. I cannot change that.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I support the subject of decision leading to our present state logically -by stating the case as well as I am able, but I cannot set up a situation which will prove to others that God exists scientifically -such as bringing them before God to show them God face to face.

I do not see a point in trying to explain things to people who are not willing to listen -or are not yet of a mind to accept certain things. God will reveal himself to all in time -logically, and in person. That is not my responsibility. My responsibility is to obey God and speak the truth when it is wise to speak it -and even remain silent when it is not. Not every mind is willing or yet able to accept perfectly true logic (and my own is only somewhat capable -hopefully increasingly so) -and some will not believe in God until they see his face. I cannot change that.

You don't listen, and you don't understand. In common discourse you would say it is a fact that a decision is made, but it is opinion what emotions are in somebody's heart that makes the decision turn out the way it does.

At no point have I said science could prove God exists. Science can prove how things are chosen. What the agency of any decision is, be it God or the devil, it is categorically a matter of opinion.Having a category for matters opinion, validates subjectivity.

Again, why don't you support science about how things are chosen?

If you accept as fact that freedom is real, then...why don't just do normal science about it?

 

[leibowde84]

You don't listen, and you don't understand. In common discourse you would say it is a fact that a decision is made, but it is opinion what emotions are in somebody's heart that makes the decision turn out the way it does.

At no point have I said science could prove God exists. Science can prove how things are chosen. What the agency of any decision is, be it God or the devil, it is categorically a matter of opinion.Having a category for matters opinion, validates subjectivity.

Again, why don't you support science about how things are chosen?

If you accept as fact that freedom is real, then...why don't just do normal science about it?

What is chosen? Science doesn't choose anything, as it is not an entity. Science is a means of collecting information and justifying inferences. Science cannot "do" anything, just as nature cannot "do" anything, and evolution cannot "do" anything. They are merely methods.