Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Evolution: Mathematically improbably? (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=61380)

bbyt 02-25-2007 11:37 PM

Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
Edit: Yeah, sorry for misspelling the title :S
I hesitate to post this for several reasons, one being that a topic on evolution was recently posted. However, I decided to anyway. This is stolen from another forum which I believe has since been deleted. I apologize in advance if this is a repost or if I have broken any forum rules; I hardly ever visit the forums, but I would really like to know what yall think. Quote:


Evolutionists claim that all life—including humans, animals and plant life all evolved from much simpler life forms that can be traced back to what is known as the “primordial soup theory.” The primordial soup theory is that life evolved from an interaction of heat upon the necessary elements to sustain life that were present in the oceans of the world after the earth had cooled. It is then the theory’s contention that this interaction spawned the simplest forms of life that in turn, evolved into more complex life forms that thus eventually resulted into the extremely complex living organisms of today. Evolutionists are surprisingly quiet, however, on the calculations that have been proposed when examining the probabilities that even the simplest life forms evolved from the proper set of elements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are few basic elements of scientific notation that one must understand when understanding probability calculations. For example, if I was to say that you have one chance in 100 of making an improbable shot in golf, the notation of this would be written in scientific notation as 10^-2. Just as 100 is 10^2 power, its inverse (or 1 in 100) is 10^-2—one could also physically write out such a calculation in decimal notation as .01.

According to Borel’s Law anything with a chance smaller than 10^-50 (this number in decimal would look like .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 1) is deemed to be impossible regardless of the amount of chances or time one could assume. Noted Evolutionist Richard Dawkins proposed a loose standard of 10^-20 and stated that anything smaller is biologically impossible (Dawkins 1996). More recently the mathematician William Dembski, placed a much more stringent set of requirements of improbability and asserted that anything over 10^-150 should be deemed as absolutely impossible (Mastropaolo 1999).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Physicist and Mathematician, Hubert Yockey, published a piece that performed the mathematics necessary to assess the probability of producing one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein (a very simple protein) common in plants and animals, and found that the probability of of such a protein is 10^-75 (Mastrapaolo 1999). Kinesiologist Dr. Mastrapaolo puts Yockey’s calculation another way, “Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion ” (Mastrapaolo 1999).

Just the calculation of this simple protein is impossible by Borel’s law and Dawkin’s standards. Yet the evolutionist often resorts to name calling or asserting more fanciful conclusions when dealing with such probability calculations. One evolutionist recently produced a calculation that ½ billion planets like earth could produce an odds of nearly 1 to 1, but performed such calculation without addressing the odds of producing just one other planet that’s as unique as earth—thinking in terms of earth’s distance from the sun, magnetic field necessary to sustain life, and all the elements necessary and their delicate balance to produce life.

At this point, we’ve only introduced the odds of producing a simple protein and not the complex cell that contains a minimum of 60,000 proteins. Such calculations to determine the probability of this cell easily exceed all standards for impossibility, including Dembski’s 10^-150. Using Yockey’s probability of a protein as 10^-75 and assuming a total of 60,000 unique proteins are necessary to produce a complex human cell (a very generous calculation), Mastropaolo reaches a probability that a human cell spontaneously evolved at 10^-4,478,296 (Mastropaolo 1999)---this number in decimal would look like (.00000000000000000000000000000 (Imagine another 4,478,262 zeros between these braces)….000001).

Conclusion

When considering the odds and probability of evolution, it becomes even easier to assert that the evolutionist may have equal (or perhaps even more) faith in the theories surrounding evolutionary theory, than one does to believe in a Creator.

GuidoHunter 02-25-2007 11:44 PM

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.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Chrissi 02-26-2007 12:05 AM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
Maybe this is stupid, and I barely read the post (tl;dr), but I feel I need to point out that if evolution is improbable, intelligent design must be impossible, because I can't see any way that a God who spontaneously existed for all eternity could be more probable than a systematic evolving of the current state of existence.

arelik 02-26-2007 09:18 AM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
I could be wrong but, I believe that complex human cells were not the first things that appeared that could be considered as 'signs of life'. What appeared first was something very simple, which later served as a basis to make the more complex cells. These complex cells did not appear out of nowhere, but thats what those 'scientists' seem to be thinking. Correct me if Im wrong...

MeaCulpa 02-26-2007 09:35 AM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
True. Unicellular organisms and prokaryotes existed before the "complex" (eukaryotic) human cells.

DarkManticoreX2 02-26-2007 09:45 AM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrissi (Post 1262703)
I feel I need to point out that if evolution is improbable, intelligent design must be impossible, because I can't see any way that a God who spontaneously existed for all eternity could be more probable than a systematic evolving of the current state of existence.

Why does every thread about evolution turn into an intelligent design vs evolution debate, Chrissi, you know that by simply posting that you have turned this into just another evolution vs creation thread.

It's blatently obvious you believe in evolution, at least post some reasoning for that instead of going "lolol religion is for gulliable suckers".

GuidoHunter 02-26-2007 12:20 PM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by arelik (Post 1263746)
I could be wrong but, I believe that complex human cells were not the first things that appeared that could be considered as 'signs of life'. What appeared first was something very simple, which later served as a basis to make the more complex cells. These complex cells did not appear out of nowhere, but thats what those 'scientists' seem to be thinking. Correct me if Im wrong...

Of course not. First were simple prokaryotic cells, and before that even were collections of systems.

--Guido

Squeek 02-26-2007 12:42 PM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkManticoreX2 (Post 1263829)
Why does every thread about evolution turn into an intelligent design vs evolution debate, Chrissi, you know that by simply posting that you have turned this into just another evolution vs creation thread.

It's blatently obvious you believe in evolution, at least post some reasoning for that instead of going "lolol religion is for gulliable suckers".

She's merely pointing out that accepting these mathematical inferences as truth would debunk both theories of the way Evolution took place.

PS - I say this in every Evolution thread. Evolution is a fact. The debate is how it took place. Evolution = change over time. You can't tell me we have trilobites and such running around today, and you can't deny that they used to exist.

Whether an "intelligent designer" foresaw their extinction or it was the result of a more dominant species taking over in the Natural Selection process is up to you to decide.

aperson 02-26-2007 02:15 PM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeek (Post 1264630)
She's merely pointing out that accepting these mathematical inferences as truth would debunk both theories of the way Evolution took place.

No she's implying that the negation of evolution is intelligent design, which is a false dichotomy, because she's a dumb twit.

Quote:

Whether an "intelligent designer" foresaw their extinction or it was the result of a more dominant species taking over in the Natural Selection process is up to you to decide.
And now you've fallen in to the same trap as Chrissi, good job.

Reach 02-26-2007 02:37 PM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
All of this research is bogus. I've read several articles of people claiming to have calculated the probability of some event pertaining to things beginning on Earth.

However, their calculations are littered with assumptions. They really have no idea what they're talking about. 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.

Chrissi 02-26-2007 06:31 PM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by aperson (Post 1265247)
No she's implying that the negation of evolution is intelligent design, which is a false dichotomy, because she's a dumb twit.



And now you've fallen in to the same trap as Chrissi, good job.

What would you suggest as something that combines evolution and intelligent design, or is neither?

Reach 02-26-2007 07:56 PM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrissi (Post 1266817)
What would you suggest as something that combines evolution and intelligent design, or is neither?



I would agree that intelligent design is less probable. However, I like dealing with something I can study and understand in a natural manner. Ideologies that revolve around the supernatural, like intelligent design, to me are shots in the dark. It can't be studied or falsified, and since we can't even begin to understand the workings of something supernatural, it seems rather vain to suggest that your intelligent design ideas are even remotely close to being right.

I also still stand by the fact you can't justify any of those probabilities.

aperson 02-26-2007 08:03 PM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrissi (Post 1266817)
or is neither?

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.

zhul4nder 02-27-2007 12:03 AM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
string theory maybe?
i don't know much on the subject but...i think it's like our universe is part of another atom in another dimension. we might be just one spec on that atom with only "God" knows how many other specs on that atom in another dimension.

if you put that into perspective 10^-150 seems to be actually a fairly large number compared to 1/infinity, one being the chance of life ever happening

Izzy-chandess 02-27-2007 01:01 AM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
Well, in my opinion, it could be both at once. Since I am a neutral party, not any particular religion or a science geek, I like to look into the facts of things and the slim possibilities. In theory, if you want "creationism" and "evolution" to combine as one, you could view it as God guiding evolution so that everything becomes as one. If you haven't read the first part of the Bible, that's okay, it's pretty much stating what happened first. What if this "God" person created the "Big Bang"? What if he started the entire Universe?

Also, since this "God" being lives forever, what use would time be to him? Time, believe it or not, is a human invention. It used to be that people went to bed when the sun set, etc., but can you imagine having infinite time on your hands? You didn't have 60, 70 years to live? What use would time be? Therefore, I believe that time is irrelevant to this "God" being.

I guess it all depends on your personal beliefs.

As for the facts of evolution, people are still unsure about these facts. In all technicality, it's still a theory, which means that is not proven to be true all of the way. No one knows for sure that we evolved from a tiny little critter with no brain in bubbling, boiling mud. All of this is still being debated, so kindly, don't say that it's definite. It's not proven yet.

Chrissi 02-27-2007 12:03 PM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by aperson (Post 1267424)
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 02-27-2007 02:50 PM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reach (Post 1265344)
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 02-27-2007 02:53 PM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrissi (Post 1269882)
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 02-27-2007 08:32 PM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrissi (Post 1269882)
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 03-1-2007 05:37 PM

Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 1262641)
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).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution