Infinite monkey theorem vs first life

[Speedwell]

I reject evolution because it is not true, no other reason.

Why do you care? It's not as if the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution had much direct influence on our daily lives.

Oh, and Professor Tour invites anyone to refute his OOL claims. No one has because no one can.

This discussion is not about the origin of life. You could start a new thread if you wanted.

 

[Speedwell]

When scientists conflate adaptation and evolution, that is dishonest.

Why? What is the difference between adaptation and evolution in your view?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When scientists conflate adaptation and evolution, that is dishonest.

Not if they're using the ecological or evolutionary definition:

"In ecology, the term adaptation pertains to the adjustment or changes in behavior, physiology, and structure of an organism to become more suited or fit to an environment. According to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, the organisms adapt to their environment to become better fitted to survive and passing their genes on to the next generation."
Biology Dictionary Online​

"Adaptation, in biology, has several meanings. It can mean the adjustment of living matter to environmental conditions and to other living things either in an organism's lifetime (physiological adaptation) or in a population over many many generations (evolutionary adaptation). The word can also refer to a trait that is considered an adaptation. The ability to adapt is a fundamental property of life and constitutes a basic difference between living and nonliving matter."
The Free Dictionary​

Anyone with a passing familiarity with science in general should be aware that words used may have different meanings to the colloquial usages. Specialised usage in restricted domains is known as 'jargon'.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Uh-huh. Here's why none of that is true.

Modern biological evolution (including common ancestry) has real-world application especially with the advent of genomics over the last few decades. This includes areas like pharmaceuticals/drug discovery pipelines, medical research, agriculture, conservation biology, etc. Companies have even gone so far as to patent methodologies directly based on the theory of evolution.

If evolution were as false as creationist claimed it was, the first place you'd hear about it would be industry. Those in industry have a vested interest in the best understanding of biology possible; they have no reason to prop up an imaginary conspiracy just for the sake of it. In effect, modern bio-industry is the canary in the gold mine for anything in biology. Yet, when I look to industry I don't see anything creationists claim to be true about evolution being false or there being a conspiracy to hide the truth.

This is what James McCarter, founder and CEO of Divergence Inc. (a former biotech firm that was acquired by Monsanto, one of the world's leading biotechnology firms). Is he part of your conspiracy too?

Evolution, in addition to being solid science, provides us with a practical and powerful tool-kit. Applied techniques based on evolution play central roles in the biotechnology industry, and in recent advances in genomics and drug discovery. Bioinformatics, the application of computers to biology and one of the hottest career opportunities in science, is full of evolution-based computer code. Tens of thousands of researchers in the multibillion-dollar field of biomedical research and development use evolution-based discoveries and concepts as a routine part of their important work.​

...​

What does evolution have to do with biotechnology? As the president of a biotech firm in St Louis, I can tell you that evolutionary biology is an integral part of what we and other companies do. I hire scientists who are well-trained in molecular evolutionary biology; who know how to recognize the business end of enzymes simply by looking at DNA sequences; who know which changes in a protein are important; who can design research tools based on the way a species manipulates the genetic code. Today, these skills are as important to discoveries in the laboratory as knowing how to use a microscope, and it takes an understanding of evolution to master them.

Evolution is a Winner -- for Breakthroughs and Prizes | National Center for Science Education
​

Industry is another more practical level of peer review that gets ignored. If something is solid science and it works, industry will find a way to use it to make money. If it doesn't work it doesn't get used. This is why oil companies don't use divination, spellcraft or creationist flood geology to search for oil. It's also why Google, Microsoft, Amazon and all the other huge corporations don't have psychic arts departments where teams of practitioners use their power to gain the upper hand on their competitors. If any of that stuff worked companies would be using it.

 

[SLP]

How is it that die hard evolutionists fail to appreciate the mathematics of probability?

Your genome is one in ~6 billion genomes on this planet. It consists of a unique sequence of ~3 billion base pairs.
It was produced via the union of a unique copy of half your mother's genome - who also possessed a 1 in 6 billion genome of 3 billion base pairs; and a unique copy of half your father's genome - who also possessed a 1 in 6 billion genome of 3 billion base pairs.
The ovum that was fertilized to produce you was one of ~400 that your mother produced; the sperm that fertilized it was one of billions of sperm cells that your father produced.

And so on. And so on.

And you want to pretend that you actually exist, given the tremendously unfavorable odds that your genome was produced at all??

How is it that die hard creationists fail to recognize their absurd reliance on post-hoc fallacies and nonsense to prop up their failing beliefs?

 

[SLP]

If you eliminate all other possibilities, you are left with a Creator. It is conceivable that life arose spontaneously. The chances of this happening are so remote as to classify it "impossible".

Chances? Impossible?

Please provide your mathematical equation, justifying each of your variables, justifying the values you used for each variable, etc.

 

[SLP]

While they say that evolution is random, they avoid admitting that even the evolution process is brilliantly designed

A strawman followed by the fallacy of begging the question/false dichotomy.

No need to read further. You're sunk

 

[SLP]

A scientist with a PhD? That's a doctorate in philosophy.

My gosh you folks can be clueless...

 

[SLP]

I don't think it's against forum rules,
but please do report me because you think so.
If I am gone for 30 to 60 days, then you will be justified.
If not...then........

Addition to the Statement of Purpose

 

[Kenny'sID]

I go there first. If I feel that definition is clear enough about my precise meaning, I'll use it. But in some cases it may be inadequate.

This one is just so elementary, the very reason I don't answer. I see it as some just wanting to waste my time with nonsense.

Maybe I should ask how some would expect me to define something so obvious?

 

[SLP]

If evidence was water you'd be drowning in it. Not only is there zero evidence for evolution, it can be scientifically proven impossible.

Tell that to Christian Todd Wood, PhD creationist...

Even atheists admit the improbability factor:

Nobel prize winner and evolutionist Dr Francis Crick:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle" and, "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts."

Dr Crick was almost right. The origin of life is a miracle. There is no other plausible explanation.

So we have another uninformed zealot that does not understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

 

[SLP]

In spite of the education system being forced to sprout evolution, about 44% of Americans disbelieve it.

40% of Americans still think Trump is a Christian God-like superstar. A lot of Americans are dumb as rocks. Your point?

 

[SLP]

Time will prove just how wrong evolution is. Many scientists are deserting evolution, and not just Christians.

Do tell!

Let's see your facts and evidence.

 

[durangodawood]

This one is just so elementary, the very reason I don't answer. I see it as some just wanting to waste my time with nonsense.

Maybe I should ask how some would expect me to define something so obvious?

A little thought reveals its not so obvious.

For example: do ideas "exist"?

Well, not according to the dictionary def. But its pretty hard to deny the reality of ideas.

 

[SLP]

I am not saying that it is imminent. I am saying that the flaws in evolutionary theory are increasingly being exposed.

Like what?

Part of a genuine conversation with a molecular biologist, as recorded by George V. Caylor:

Who was this molecular biologist? How do we know that it is not a total scam, like some Project Veritas video?

G: “Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?”

S: “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong
believing the moon is made of green cheese. He’s been there!”

Wow, that is so totally BELIEVABLE! Almost like it was, gosh, totally not at all made up....


This one time, while travelling, I happened to have a conversation with some random dude. Turns out that he was a... um... an... wait.. errrr.... a creationist... no - a creation scientist! Yeah that was it - his name was Jeff. Jeffrey. Yeah Jeff. We talked about the weather and and such, and then he said that he had something to confess - his creation science was a sham! He just makes stuff up for a paycheck, and his religious overlords take it all at face value.
Totally true - and never mind that I am a non-creationist pushing an anti-creationism viewpoint, nope - this totally happened!

 

[SLP]

I reject evolution because it is not true, no other reason.

No reason at all, it seems.

Oh, and Professor Tour invites anyone to refute his OOL claims. No one has because no one can.

Nick Matzke offered to meet with him and explain things to him, but only if he could record the meeting (in case Tour lied about it later).
Tour declined. No propaganda value in being told what you've claimed nobody knows anything about.

 

[SLP]

I can tell you that evolution is a crock.

You can say that all you want, and you will just continue to come across like a whiny child.

You don't believe it because of your indoctrination, and your creationist sources lie to you and you lack the requisite knowledge to realize they've lied.

 

[Kenny'sID]

A little thought reveals its not so obvious.

For example: do ideas "exist"?

Well, not according to the dictionary def. But its pretty hard to deny the reality of ideas.

Ideas exist.

The term is defined just how we commonly use it...anything real exists, and my use of it was perfect.


SINCE 1828

• 
  
  real

adjective
re·al | \ ˈrē(-ə)l

\
Definition of real
(Entry 1 of 5)

1a : having objective independent existence unable to believe that what he saw was real
b : not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : genuine real gold also : being precisely what the name implies a real professional
c(1) : occurring or existing in actuality saw a real live celebrity a story of real life
*****************

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTahHjBc_3NrGYL3RnjV1w_cB93jQ:1572278007465&source=hp&ei=9w63XZDrGdD0tAXz7buYAg&q=real&oq=real&gs_l=psy-ab.12..0l6j0i131j0l3.3767.4649..10260...0.0..0.116.424.1j3....3..0....1..gws-wiz.......35i39.X3E1M5A5raM&ved=0ahUKEwjQwvuAqL_lAhVQOq0KHfP2DiMQ4dUDCAc

re·al1
/ˈrē(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: real; comparative adjective: realer; superlative adjective: realest
1.
actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
"Julius Caesar was a real person"

***********************


SYNONYMS

• SEE DEFINITION OF real
  • absolute
  • actual
  • authentic
  • certain
  • evident
  • honest
  • legitimate
  • original
  • palpable
  • physical
  • positive
  • sincere
  • solid
  • substantial
  • substantive
  • true
  • undeniable
  • concrete
  • corporal
  • essential
  • existent
  • firm
  • material
  • present
  • right
  • sound
  • stable
  • bodily
  • bona fide
  • corporeal
  • de facto
  • embodied
  • existing
  • factual
  • heartfelt
  • in the flesh
  • incarnate
  • indubitable
  • intrinsic
  • irrefutable
  • live
  • perceptible
  • rightful
  • sensible
  • tangible
  • unaffected
  • undoubted
  • unfeigned
  • valid
  • veritable

 

[durangodawood]

Ideas exist.

Hmm. How do ideas have "objective independent existence" (per the definition of "real" you quoted)?

You cant show me one. Or can you?

 

[loveofourlord]

How is it that die hard evolutionists fail to appreciate the mathematics of probability? This article Infinite Monkey Theorem - Rational Disciple, which is predicated on the realizations of Stephen Meyer, Doug axe and Bill Dembski,
is just another example of the glaring obviosity that chance is a weak inference.
Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer, realized this long ago and is famous for the quote:”The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.”

For anyone who understands the difference between philosophy and the scientific method, is there a better inference to the best explanation for the origin of life? Especially given the multiplicative nature of probabilities re the fine tuning, the Goldilocks zone of the earth, origin of first life, origin of human life and finally the order we see in the universe that is vast and not merely a small patch of order the size of our solar system? I get the probabilistic resource multiplication, but that’s speculative and want to remain scientific.
Thank you for your feedback.

because it has a few fatal flaws within it. Biggest of which is chemistry.

On the anthropic principle, we have 3-4 places in our own solar system that potentially have life, were just one solar system out of thousands to millions in our galaxy with millions of galaxies out there, low probability things happen all the time when you have large numbers.

Here is the failure of the tornado in a junk yard analogy, here is how the reality of it is.

We know that tornado's ocasionally put together some pieces of mechanical parts together.

We know that under the right conditions sheets of metal will form together into a rudimentry cylindrical shape.

We know that some times those shapes will form around mechanical parts, and when they do they have a small chance of being beneficial to the cylinder giving it the benefits of not breaking apart over time.

We know that eventually these cylinders will when complex enough, split to create new ones over time.

we know that they get more complicated over time creating new shapes and becoming more then just small parts.

And now today we see many kinds of planes flying around and replicating.

Plus in the wide universe, we know there are billions of junkyards that potentially could cause this effect, and every day the creation of the new cylinders would be happening a million times a second, potentially ending up with the 747.