Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

[Chrissi]

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

The opposite of Evolution is not intelligent design; the opposite of evolution is 'not evolution.' When someone argues against evolution, they are not automatically arguing for intelligent design.

What I'm asking is, what do you suggest as an alternative? What ARE they arguing for?

Is there any alternative?

Or are you just using hypothetical alternative, say, if somebody didn't know what actually happened but just doubted it was evolution?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Its the same thing as saying there has to be a certain number of civilizations in the Milkyway because the Drake equation says there should be. Who has verified that the drake equation actually works? Last time I checked all of the variables in it are also derived from assumptions. The exact same things apply to Yockeys calculations as well.

Um, all mathematics are based on axiomatic assumptions. It's true that with applied mathematics like in physics and chemistry we have a way of testing these assumptions against reality, but things like the drake equation are just formulas. You'll notice if you look at the drake equation it isn't quantified at all, it just states the relationship between a bunch of factors assumed neccessary for life, the prevelence of which is disagreed on constantly (as in every academic discipline. Disagreement is crucial to the advancement of knowledge).

Mathematics can be used to describe any system, regardless of whether it is true or false, from the ptolemaic system of the universe to the phlogiston theory of heat to the drake equation.

The Scientific method prefers empirical data for this reason, and so with the Drake equation, which cannot produce any such data readily, there is perhaps the issue of unfalsifiability. The math behind it is valid, however, and given the soundness of the assumptions we can assign some level of probability to the soundness of the equation as well.

It's really just an issue of proving to some level the validity of the underlying assumptions, which is possible, and proving the mathematical statement in question is well formed.



Which reminds me, I really should learn math one of these days.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

What I'm asking is, what do you suggest as an alternative? What ARE they arguing for?

Is there any alternative?

Or are you just using hypothetical alternative, say, if somebody didn't know what actually happened but just doubted it was evolution?

"We Don't know" is always a good answer.

[aperson]

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

What I'm asking is, what do you suggest as an alternative? What ARE they arguing for?

I don't need an alternative, I'm saying that attacking creationism does not bolster any argument for evolution because creationism is not the opposite of evolution.

[Tisthammerw]

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

This assumes a purely random environment, which just doesn't happen.

Selection occurs even in nonliving systems; only the most efficient gradient-reducer will survive, and it will synergize with other systems that will allow it to become more efficient. Creation of necessary-for-life amino acids and the such from these complex hypercycles is not a great stretch of the imagination.

Abiogenesis doesn't seem at all unlikely to me.

Here's the essential reason why abiogenesis, at first blush, seems unlikely to me. Even the simplest single-celled organism has a horrendous amount of organized complexity. The various interacting parts has the type of complexity reminiscent of a machine. It would be like asking me to believe undirected chemical reactions created an automobile.

I could still believe in abiogenesis--really I could--if there were evidence. If someone demonstrated how undirected natural processes could have formed a single-celled organism, and if it were demonstrated that the starting conditions existed on the primeval Earth, I could believe it. But we don't have that. We're not even close to having that.

Serious obstacles exist for abiogenesis, one of them is getting RNA or DNA via undirected chemical reactions. There is a known mechanism for an intelligent designer to get those molecules from scratch (scientists have done so)--whereas abiogenesis faces obstacles and there is no known mechanism for it to obtain those molecules. This doesn't prove abiogenesis wrong of course, but it makes me wonder why it should be accepted when there appears to be no reason to consider abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design (by intelligent design I mean the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create the type of life we see on Earth).

[MixMasterLar]

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

The math is just one of the many flaws of Evolution.

How does a simple cell become a complex cell in a world were things rot?

If I set a grape on a table will it become somthing better? more complex? or will it rot?

Sorry I dont know the fancy term for it, but you cant deny that the world follows "laws" and there's no way that something sitting around will just become more complex.

The idea that the earth heated and that did it is off, too. I'll set my grape in a oven and see what happens, oops, didnt make a new fruit.

The idea that we are apart of a bigger picture sounds better then Evolution.

[Kit-]

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

The math is just one of the many flaws of Evolution.

How does a simple cell become a complex cell in a world were things rot?

If I set a grape on a table will it become somthing better? more complex? or will it rot?

If you set a grape on a table and it can produce new offspring, each of which has a small chance of being slightly different in some way, and you have chardish on the table who sprays darker grapes with something which makes them reproduce twice as quickly, you're going to end up with darker grapes. Rotting is completely irrelevant because evolution acts on a population, not an organism.

Sorry I dont know the fancy term for it, but you cant deny that the world follows "laws" and there's no way that something sitting around will just become more complex.

Dem grapes is gettin' some, not sitting there. Also, baseless extrapolation of "laws" leads nowhere.

[MixMasterLar]

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Rotting is completely irrelevant because evolution acts on a population, not an organism.

eh I think evolution IS about organisms

I brought up the rotting bit to make you relized that things go to disorder and not inprovement. As far back as man can remember it's been that way. The idea that a "bang" made a cell that sat untill it got better does not go with the way things work in the world (disregarding the "bang" flaw in which a explosion happened for no reason whatsoever)

[Kit-]

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

eh I think evolution IS about organisms

It's you vs. the scientific community. En garde.

I brought up the rotting bit to make you relized that things go to disorder and not inprovement. As far back as man can remember it's been that way. The idea that a "bang" made a cell that sat untill it got better does not go with the way things work in the world (disregarding the "bang" flaw in which a explosion happened for no reason whatsoever)

Who on earth told you that things sit there and suddenly get better? They have to be reproducing. As for things going to disorder and not improvement, do you also disbelieve in Newton's first law? After all, if I roll a marble on a floor, does it not come to a stop? Why shouldn't everything obey this "law?" Extrapolation isn't always valid.

[aperson]

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

I brought up the rotting bit to make you relized that things go to disorder and not inprovement.

No, it doesn't. There is even abiotic ordering in nature. For example, planetary formations are simply a product of newtonian collision in frictionless space... It's perfectly natural that small particles collide and condense to form large spherical objects over time. Additionally, you need to do some serious reading into machine learning and statistical learning before you start throwing around lofty claims like that.

[Metheawsome]

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

"Who on earth told you that things sit there and suddenly get better? They have to be reproducing. As for things going to disorder and not improvement, do you also disbelieve in Newton's first law? After all, if I roll a marble on a floor, does it not come to a stop? Why shouldn't everything obey this "law?" Extrapolation isn't always valid."


Alright, the Marbles stops because of friction and gravity, and it only started because you pushed it. Those are all forces acting on the Marble. Now the Big Bang theory starts out with a single atom. What forces are acting on it? There's no other objects for gravity. There aren't any other atoms to ineract with. But it still explodes. Why? It wasn't reproducing, atoms don't just reproduce. So what caused the Big Bang? And I'm seriously looking for an answer because I just don't see any.

[Izzy-chandess]

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

What I see is that who-knows-what started the big bang. Like an electron hitting another electron, who knows??? I don't. It's still theory. Pure theory.

[Kit-]

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Alright, the Marbles stops because of friction and gravity, and it only started because you pushed it. Those are all forces acting on the Marble.

Cellular machinery makes mistakes, environmental factors can exacerbate these mistakes, and mistakes can sometimes lead to moar babies. Besides, the only point of the example was to show how stupid it is to say that there are "laws" of nature which everything follows judging from a few observations.

Now the Big Bang theory starts out with a single atom.

Where'd you get that idea?

[Reach]

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Now the Big Bang theory starts out with a single atom. What forces are acting on it? There's no other objects for gravity. There aren't any other atoms to ineract with. But it still explodes. Why? It wasn't reproducing, atoms don't just reproduce. So what caused the Big Bang? And I'm seriously looking for an answer because I just don't see any.

Now the big bang didn't start out with a single atom. Quantum forces were acting on the energy that was there. There was only quantum gravity I would say.

Why does it explode? There are several ways it could, though noone knows yet, mostly because we can only see back to the instant before the big bang.


If you want a possible answer, it would be possible a sufficiently large quantum fluctuation could cause the energy to expand. Energy on the quantum level is always going to have forces acting on it, and assuming enough time passes there is nothing to say a massive quantum flux couldn't happen.

The big bang wasn't a classic explosion, but was an inflation of energy...a very fast inflation at that. To put it into perspective, maybe imagine a grain of sand, and then imagine it within a trillionth of a second expanding to a distance far outside of our galaxy and galactic cluster.

[talisman]

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Mixmaster, reread the second law of thermodynamics to see why your argument makes no sense.