Infinite monkey theorem vs first life

[Aussie Pete]

David Gelernter is a computer scientist, not a biologist, and judging by a youtube discussion I had the misfortune of watching, he should stick to computers.

If evolution is true, then your opinions are the result of random impulses without meaning. There is no right or wrong. Truth is whatever the individual deems it to be according to random mutations that have produced his or her brain and how it processes information. If evolution is true, all analysis is valid, all conclusions equally true or equally false. There are no absolutes. The murderer is no worse than the doctor and the doctor no better. Just a different set of gene patterns. The individual who hacks your bank and steals everything you have is just smarter than most. He gets rich with little risk of being caught. That's not evil, it is evolution at its finest. Funny how few people are evolutionists when it comes to living in the real world.

 

[Shemjaza]

If evolution is true, then your opinions are the result of random impulses without meaning. There is no right or wrong. Truth is whatever the individual deems it to be according to random mutations that have produced his or her brain and how it processes information. If evolution is true, all analysis is valid, all conclusions equally true or equally false. There are no absolutes. The murderer is no worse than the doctor and the doctor no better. Just a different set of gene patterns. The individual who hacks your bank and steals everything you have is just smarter than most. He gets rich with little risk of being caught. That's not evil, it is evolution at its finest. Funny how few people are evolutionists when it comes to living in the real world.

Maybe because we don't use scientific theories about the development of life as a basis for moral choices?

It's a non-sequitur of an argument. If you want to actually argue against evolution, present some evidence, not conspiracies, false analogies and silly arguments from consequence.

 

[Jimmy D]

If evolution is true, then your opinions are the result of random impulses without meaning. There is no right or wrong. Truth is whatever the individual deems it to be according to random mutations that have produced his or her brain and how it processes information. If evolution is true, all analysis is valid, all conclusions equally true or equally false. There are no absolutes. The murderer is no worse than the doctor and the doctor no better. Just a different set of gene patterns. The individual who hacks your bank and steals everything you have is just smarter than most. He gets rich with little risk of being caught. That's not evil, it is evolution at its finest. Funny how few people are evolutionists when it comes to living in the real world.

The Theory of Evolution is a successful scientific theory which explains the diversity of life on Earth.

Your post hints at a strong emotional motivation for rejecting solid scientific evidence.

But then again, what other reason could there be?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Truth is whatever the individual deems it to be according to random mutations that have produced his or her brain and how it processes information.

Well, to be fair this seems to be how people pick up their version of what they believe to be "true" theologically and what absolutes they adhere to.

Thousands of religions, thousands of "absolute truths" funny how everyone is so convinced they are the ones who got it right.

 

[Speedwell]

If evolution is true, then your opinions are the result of random impulses without meaning. There is no right or wrong. Truth is whatever the individual deems it to be according to random mutations that have produced his or her brain and how it processes information. If evolution is true, all analysis is valid, all conclusions equally true or equally false. There are no absolutes. The murderer is no worse than the doctor and the doctor no better. Just a different set of gene patterns. The individual who hacks your bank and steals everything you have is just smarter than most. He gets rich with little risk of being caught. That's not evil, it is evolution at its finest. Funny how few people are evolutionists when it comes to living in the real world.

Have you taken a look at the "If evolution is true" thread in this forum? Your post is a classic example,

 

[Aussie Pete]

Maybe because we don't use scientific theories about the development of life as a basis for moral choices?

It's a non-sequitur of an argument. If you want to actually argue against evolution, present some evidence, not conspiracies, false analogies and silly arguments from consequence.

Evolutionists will not accept evidence, so there are few alternatives. You can no more "prove" that evolution is true than I can "prove" that it is wrong. I can give many examples where evolutionary theory hits a roadblock, but you and your like minded evolutionists reject those examples.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I can give many examples where evolutionary theory hits a roadblock, but you and your like minded evolutionists reject those examples.

If evolution is true, all analysis is valid, all conclusions equally true or equally false.

That is not a roadblock it is gibberish.

 

[Speedwell]

Evolutionists will not accept evidence, so there are few alternatives. You can no more "prove" that evolution is true than I can "prove" that it is wrong. I can give many examples where evolutionary theory hits a roadblock, but you and your like minded evolutionists reject those examples.

What you have done is taken the moral argument against atheism (which in itself is a logically fallacious argumentum ad consequentiam) and twisted it to apply to evolution. But evolution is not atheism nor does it require atheism, so your argument is a lie, not a roadblock.

 

[Shemjaza]

Evolutionists will not accept evidence, so there are few alternatives. You can no more "prove" that evolution is true than I can "prove" that it is wrong. I can give many examples where evolutionary theory hits a roadblock, but you and your like minded evolutionists reject those examples.

You don't have evidence. You have catch phrases and marketing campaigns.

Science doesn't deal in absolute proof, it deals in evidence. Evidence like the pattern of genetic similarities; like transitional fossils; like genetic atavism; like small scale real time evolutionary adaptations; like practical application of the theory in other fields of research.

You don't appear to know or care about the reality of biological research, but it's your continued assertions about having evidence... but never presenting it specifically that really demonstrates how false "Evolutionists will not accept evidence" is.

 

[durangodawood]

The evolution of life on earth, by all the natural mechanisms we know of, is the most amazing glorious act of creation I could imagine!

I dont know why so many Christians prefer the "He just did it" model. Its so.... blah, by comparison.

 

[NBB]

Even if natural selection isn't random, the building material comes from the random mutations, which means the possibilty than random mutation will build anything meanful should be very tiny.
What good does it that you can select what is good, if the material is all trash.
I wonder what is the possibility, that changes to empty eye socket area would build an eye, i think is insanely tiny. because remember even if natural selection selects it has to work with what random mutation provides.

 

[Speedwell]

Even if natural selection isn't random, the building material comes from the random mutations, which means the possibilty than random mutation will build anything meanful should be very tiny.
What good does it that you can select what is good, if the material is all trash.
I wonder what is the possibility, that changes to empty eye socket area would build an eye, i think is insanely tiny. because remember even if natural selection selects it has to work with what random mutation provides.

No, natural selection works with random variation. Each new generation presents a range of variants to the environment for selection, a "bell curve" or random distribution of types (which is why it's called "random variation"). Randomly occurring mutation is one of the inputs to the process of creating random variation but it is not the only one. The notion that everything stays the same until a mutation happens to come along is erroneous.

 

[NBB]

No, natural selection works with random variation. Each new generation presents a range of variants to the environment for selection, a "bell curve" or random distribution of types (which is why it's called "random variation"). Randomly occurring mutation is one of the inputs to the process of creating random variation but it is not the only one. The notion that everything stays the same until a mutation happens to come along is erroneous.

But for the example it should be the same?..

 

[Speedwell]

But for the example it should be the same?..

Of the eye socket/ The socket and the eye vary and evolve together. Remember that the "environment" which does the selection includes other evolving parts of the creature, not just the environment external to the creature.

 

[sesquiterpene]

Even if natural selection isn't random, the building material comes from the random mutations, which means the possibilty than random mutation will build anything meanful should be very tiny.
What good does it that you can select what is good, if the material is all trash.
I wonder what is the possibility, that changes to empty eye socket area would build an eye, i think is insanely tiny. because remember even if natural selection selects it has to work with what random mutation provides.

There are numerous types of mutations, and some have a much better chance of creating something useful than others. Gene duplications, for example, occur more often than single point substitutions. Since they are duplicating a functional gene, the chance of producing something meaningful can be close to 100%. And a mutation in an already functional gene has a much better chance of producing something meaningful.

Some new genes are produced by effectively creating random sequences of amino acids. Such de novo genes are very rare, as you suggest. Some recent research has suggested that they occur 12 times per million years in mouse lineages, and only 2 times per million years in primate lineages.

So the chances of something meaningful being produced by random mutations depends on the type of mutation, and ranges from very tiny to very large.

 

[Aussie Pete]

What you have done is taken the moral argument against atheism (which in itself is a logically fallacious argumentum ad consequentiam) and twisted it to apply to evolution. But evolution is not atheism nor does it require atheism, so your argument is a lie, not a roadblock.

Where did you get that idea? I don't recall mentioning atheism. The roadblocks are

The evolution of life on earth, by all the natural mechanisms we know of, is the most amazing glorious act of creation I could imagine!

I dont know why so many Christians prefer the "He just did it" model. Its so.... blah, by comparison.

Quite simple. It's the truth. Evolution is not.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Quite simple. It's the truth. Evolution is not.

Post the factual evidence to support your claim.

 

[Speedwell]

Where did you get that idea? I don't recall mentioning atheism. The roadblocks are

Quite simple. It's the truth. Evolution is not.

OK. But there is a tendency common to creationists to want to turn a defense of a particular interpretation of Genesis into a cosmic struggle between theism and atheism. Using a form of moral argument frequently employed against atheism made it seem like you might be doing that, because as an argument against evolution it would only be effective if evolutionists were necessarily atheists.

 

[durangodawood]

...Quite simple. It's the truth. Evolution is not.

The only reason I can see for believing that is that youve made a personal theological commitment to your particular way of reading of Genesis.

 

[pitabread]

Quite simple. It's the truth. Evolution is not.

Or, you're just in denial.