Old 02-25-2007, 11:37 PM   #1
bbyt
FFR Player
 
bbyt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The South
Age: 33
Posts: 7
Send a message via AIM to bbyt
Default 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.
__________________

Every man dies; not every man really lives.

Last edited by bbyt; 02-25-2007 at 11:40 PM.. Reason: misspelled the dang title =(
bbyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2007, 11:44 PM   #2
GuidoHunter
is against custom titles
FFR Veteran
 
GuidoHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas
Age: 36
Posts: 7,379
Send a message via AIM to GuidoHunter Send a message via Skype™ to GuidoHunter
Default 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
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
Sentences I thought I never would have to type.
GuidoHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 12:05 AM   #3
Chrissi
FFR Player
 
Chrissi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Game
Age: 34
Posts: 3,019
Send a message via MSN to Chrissi
Default 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.
__________________
C is for Charisma, it's why people think I'm great! I make my friends all laugh and smile and never want to hate!
Chrissi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 09:18 AM   #4
arelik
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
arelik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 184
Default 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...
arelik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 09:35 AM   #5
MeaCulpa
FFR Simfile Author
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
MeaCulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: T-Dot
Age: 32
Posts: 841
Send a message via AIM to MeaCulpa
Default Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

True. Unicellular organisms and prokaryotes existed before the "complex" (eukaryotic) human cells.
MeaCulpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 09:45 AM   #6
DarkManticoreX2
TWG Overlord
Sectional ModeratorFFR Veteran
 
DarkManticoreX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Home of the Cheesesteak
Age: 34
Posts: 7,419
Send a message via AIM to DarkManticoreX2
Default Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrissi View Post
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".
__________________
AAA's = 800

Quote:
Originally Posted by V
Manti, I apologize for insulting you. Let the record show that I am a prickass douche, and not only that, but that I am a terrible player.
DarkManticoreX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 12:20 PM   #7
GuidoHunter
is against custom titles
FFR Veteran
 
GuidoHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas
Age: 36
Posts: 7,379
Send a message via AIM to GuidoHunter Send a message via Skype™ to GuidoHunter
Default Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Quote:
Originally Posted by arelik View Post
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
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
Sentences I thought I never would have to type.
GuidoHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 12:42 PM   #8
Squeek
let it snow~
FFR Veteran
 
Squeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 34
Posts: 14,457
Send a message via AIM to Squeek
Default Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkManticoreX2 View Post
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.
Squeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 02:15 PM   #9
aperson
FFR Hall of Fame
Retired StaffFFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
aperson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,298
Send a message via AIM to aperson
Default Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeek View Post
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.
__________________
aperson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 02:37 PM   #10
Reach
FFR Simfile Author
Sectional ModeratorFFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
Reach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Canada
Age: 33
Posts: 7,462
Send a message via AIM to Reach Send a message via MSN to Reach
Default 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.
__________________
Reach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 06:31 PM   #11
Chrissi
FFR Player
 
Chrissi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Game
Age: 34
Posts: 3,019
Send a message via MSN to Chrissi
Default Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aperson View Post
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?
__________________
C is for Charisma, it's why people think I'm great! I make my friends all laugh and smile and never want to hate!
Chrissi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 07:56 PM   #12
Reach
FFR Simfile Author
Sectional ModeratorFFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
Reach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Canada
Age: 33
Posts: 7,462
Send a message via AIM to Reach Send a message via MSN to Reach
Default Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrissi View Post
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.
__________________
Reach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 08:03 PM   #13
aperson
FFR Hall of Fame
Retired StaffFFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
aperson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,298
Send a message via AIM to aperson
Default Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrissi View Post
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.
__________________
aperson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2007, 12:03 AM   #14
zhul4nder
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 231
Default 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
__________________

[url=http://www.narutoflow.com/character-quiz/]Take the Naruto Character

for brawlers: 2836-1905-4019
I don't know how well it'll work, but give me a add , or pm me so i can add you.

Last edited by zhul4nder; 02-27-2007 at 02:49 AM..
zhul4nder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2007, 01:01 AM   #15
Izzy-chandess
FFR Player
 
Izzy-chandess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: A secluded valley in Utah.
Age: 33
Posts: 136
Default 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.
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

The world has gone crazy and so have I.
Izzy-chandess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2007, 12:03 PM   #16
Chrissi
FFR Player
 
Chrissi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Game
Age: 34
Posts: 3,019
Send a message via MSN to Chrissi
Default Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aperson View Post
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?
__________________
C is for Charisma, it's why people think I'm great! I make my friends all laugh and smile and never want to hate!
Chrissi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2007, 02:50 PM   #17
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reach View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2007, 02:53 PM   #18
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrissi View Post
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.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2007, 08:32 PM   #19
aperson
FFR Hall of Fame
Retired StaffFFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
aperson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,298
Send a message via AIM to aperson
Default Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrissi View Post
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.
__________________
aperson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-1-2007, 05:37 PM   #20
Tisthammerw
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 60
Default Re: Evolution: Mathematically improbably?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoHunter View Post
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).
Tisthammerw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



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