Yes, but how did it all get started in the first place?

[Atruthseeker]

How, why, basically the mechanisms and so.

I see. Is that why they can't explain who or what put the information in DNA?

 

[Kerr]

I see. Is that why they can't explain who or what put the information in DNA?

Ever going to learn what science is about?

 

[Atruthseeker]

Bacterias gets immune to medication, in what was is this not a form of evolution?

Taking this as an example then, you should be able to argue that the HIV virus is a good example of evolution. Now, as millions of people have it ought it not by now undergone some evolutionary change? You'd have thought something fundamental would have changed over the last few decades, based on the number of people who have it. True it has built resistance to certain drugs, but it hasn't changed much. The same goes for E.coli, malaria and the like. And again, this is micro evolution if anything. Nothing largescale is happening.

 

[Runewolf1973]

A lot of people say 'Hey, I know that evolution happens, cos look at fruit flies or viruses etc...'or 'look at the fossil record.' Never mind all that. How did it all get going in the first place? It is mathematically impossible. As that's the case, the case for evolution is pretty much closed isn't it?

Well that's simple. Change. That's it. Things change.

 

[Storm]

Anything to give them some hope that they are right....

That's how science works.

 

[Baydwin]

Taking this as an example then, you should be able to argue that the HIV virus is a good example of evolution. Now, as millions of people have it ought it not by now undergone some evolutionary change? You'd have thought something fundamental would have changed over the last few decades, based on the number of people who have it. True it has built resistance to certain drugs, but it hasn't changed much. The same goes for E.coli, malaria and the like. And again, this is micro evolution if anything. Nothing largescale is happening.

The HIV virus has such a high degree of recombination that within a single individual there are thousands of different strains. It's one of the reasons it's so difficult to treat and make a vaccine for.

Seriously, learn up or shut up.

 

[Atruthseeker]

The HIV virus has such a high degree of recombination that within a single individual there are thousands of different strains. It's one of the reasons it's so difficult to treat and make a vaccine for.

Seriously, learn up or shut up.

Still doesn't prove anything.

 

[Kerr]

Still doesn't prove anything.

Do you understand the principles behind evolution?

 

[MSizer]

Do you understand the principles behind evolution?

Oh, oh, pick me, pick me, I know the answer......

:no:

 

[Baydwin]

Still doesn't prove anything.

Righty ho, I'll just do this somewhere else then :banghead3

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is mathematically impossible. As that's the case, the case for evolution is pretty much closed isn't it?

And

Very eloquent, 'tiss must be said. My argument is that it is mathematically impossible for life to have arisen unaided and by itself. Therefore what other option is there? -TS- Post #12

Since you seem to have that particular mathematical formula as your solid "proof". Display it or stay quiet about it. I'm willing to bet you have nothing but a vague claim, and I'm calling you out on this.

BTW I'm guessing its most likely that well worn (and well disputed) debate regarding Sir Fred Hoyle's odds and probability **** again. Isn't it?

 

[challupa]

What is it with this place and Saturdays? Is it people working on their sermons or what?

LOL, I can't frubal you yet, but frubals anyway!

 

[Atruthseeker]

Since you have that particular mathematical formula as solid "proof". Display it or stay quiet about it. I'm willing to bet you have nothing but a vague claim, and I'm calling you out on this.

BTW I'm guessing its most likely that well worn (and well disputed) debate regarding Sir Fred Hoyle's odds and probability **** again. Isn't it?

It's the on that William Dembski calculated. He calculated the point at which an improbable event (ie, life coming about unaided) becomes impossible. The odds of such a lucky event was 1\in 10 followed by 150 zeros. The French mathematician Emile Borel proposed a universal probability bound of 1 in 10 followed by 50 zeros.

To qoute the book Understanding Intelligent Design: 'The problem for Darwinism is that the probability of the proteins emergin by Darwinian (chance based) processes is well beyond this limit. Yet these improbable proteins are exactly what we see emerging during the Cambrian explosion. Thus, we can confidently conclude that Darwin's mechanism fails to explain the Cambrian explosion and the emergence of organisms as recorded in the fossil record.'

 

[Riverwolf]

A lot of people say 'Hey, I know that evolution happens, cos look at fruit flies or viruses etc...'or 'look at the fossil record.' Never mind all that. How did it all get going in the first place? It is mathematically impossible. As that's the case, the case for evolution is pretty much closed isn't it?

No, it isn't.

Evolution isn't supposed to answer how it all got started, if indeed there was a starting point. The answer to the question of how it all got started is: WE DON'T KNOW. And there's no shame in not knowing.

And if you're going to claim that something is mathematically impossible, it becomes your responsibility to show the math.

 

[Kerr]

It's the on that William Dembski calculated. He calculated the point at which an improbable event (ie, life coming about unaided) becomes impossible. The odds of such a lucky event was 1\in 10 followed by 150 zeros. The French mathematician Emile Borel proposed a universal probability bound of 1 in 10 followed by 50 zeros.

Show how he did this calculation, what factors was in it and how it looks. And besides, this is abiogenesis, not evolution.

To qoute the book Understanding Intelligent Design: 'The problem for Darwinism is that the probability of the proteins emergin by Darwinian (chance based) processes is well beyond this limit. Yet these improbable proteins are exactly what we see emerging during the Cambrian explosion. Thus, we can confidently conclude that Darwin's mechanism fails to explain the Cambrian explosion and the emergence of organisms as recorded in the fossil record.'

It appears that biologists disagree.

 

[Atruthseeker]

Show how he did this calculation, what factors was in it and how it looks. And besides, this is abiogenesis, not evolution.

I'll give him a ring shall I? You may want to look in the work of Seth Lloyd with regards to odd of chance producing information. Seth Lloyd | Programming the Universe
Also, I'd like to refer you to my first post. I.e how it all got started. That was my question

It appears that biologists disagree.

This is the point the book is making. There is no agreed consensus. Why is that?

 

[Riverwolf]

It's the on that William Dembski calculated. He calculated the point at which an improbable event (ie, life coming about unaided) becomes impossible. The odds of such a lucky event was 1\in 10 followed by 150 zeros. The French mathematician Emile Borel proposed a universal probability bound of 1 in 10 followed by 50 zeros.

To qoute the book Understanding Intelligent Design: 'The problem for Darwinism is that the probability of the proteins emergin by Darwinian (chance based) processes is well beyond this limit. Yet these improbable proteins are exactly what we see emerging during the Cambrian explosion. Thus, we can confidently conclude that Darwin's mechanism fails to explain the Cambrian explosion and the emergence of organisms as recorded in the fossil record.'

Hardly good enough.

After all, we weren't there when it all started. According to scientific data, the earth has been in existence for 4.6 billion years. The fossil record only goes back about 1 billion years, leaving over 3 billion years of nothing.

We don't know what happened during those years. It could very well be that the origins of life came about then.

Besides, living organisms DIDN'T come about unaided. It's just a question of whether or not the aid was intelligent or not. I don't know if there's any data which can lean the probability scale one way or the other, but I suspect it says that it's far more likely that there was no intelligent aid in the formation of life.

 

[Kerr]

I'll give him a ring shall I? You may want to look in the work of Seth Lloyd with regards to odd of chance producing information. Seth Lloyd | Programming the Universe
Also, I'd like to refer you to my first post. I.e how it all got started. That was my question

Then make up your mind... what is your question about, evolution or abiogenesis? When you say that it sounds like you are not talking about evolution but abiogenesis, however in the OP you talk about evolution, it is confusing!

Will maybe look that link up later, thanks.

This is the point the book is making. There is no agreed consensus. Why is that?

Because it is science. But seriously, what I meant is that biologists seem to support the notion of evolution, so they disagree with you.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's the on that William Dembski calculated. He calculated the point at which an improbable event (ie, life coming about unaided) becomes impossible. The odds of such a lucky event was 1\in 10 followed by 150 zeros. The French mathematician Emile Borel proposed a universal probability bound of 1 in 10 followed by 50 zeros.

To qoute the book Understanding Intelligent Design: 'The problem for Darwinism is that the probability of the proteins emergin by Darwinian (chance based) processes is well beyond this limit. Yet these improbable proteins are exactly what we see emerging during the Cambrian explosion. Thus, we can confidently conclude that Darwin's mechanism fails to explain the Cambrian explosion and the emergence of organisms as recorded in the fossil record.'

I suspected this has something to do with odds and propabilities here. O.K. in that case, lets use a model.

Suppose I had a large 50 or even a 100 pound bag of rice and threw it's contents into a large tray. Now after throwing said bag of rice, one should calculate the odds of such an occurrence repeating itself whereas every single rice grain falls in the exact same position and configuration under those same exact conditions.

Now expand the model after you calculate it, and apply it to the propabilities found for evolution (or the universe for that matter) and watch how exponentially the odds increase perchance a repeat occurrence happens.

Probability and odds actually make a very poor arguing platform to use because it just cannot negate any original occurrence solely based on it's repeatability. Effectively, every single time I throw rice on a tray I also throw incredibly insane odds each and every time. I only wish I could do this with the lottery. See it's "flaw" here?

Just because somethings already here via a particular configuration and process doesn't indicate any ultimate origin (or single point) solely based on it's odds of repeatability.

 

[Atruthseeker]

.... what I meant is that biologists seem to support the notion of evolution, so they disagree with you.

Not all of them.