Probability and evolution from natural causes

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I love the probability argument. You can use it to prove no one has ever won a lottery.

Also, more seriously, fails to address that modern cells with their complex proteins are not what the first life was like, nor that natural selection was at work for a long time in the pre-biotic envirinment. A simple self replicating molecule is all you need, and we've found some very simple ones, much simpler than complex cellular proteins.

Only a lottery is about 1 in 175000000 with 200 to 300,000,000 tickets purchased so no comparison there (not even remotely improbable)

AND we have not found ONE self replicating organic molecule in nature outside a living system (not even simple ones)...not one, except the few in labs but these depended on intelligent design. Unless you have the scientific world knoes nothing about which I would love to hear about if you are willingto share...
 
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,889
6,561
71
✟321,445.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Only a lottery is about 1 in 175000000 with 200 to 300,000,000 tickets purchased so no comparison there (not even remotely improbable)

AND we have not found ONE self replicating organic molecule in nature outside a living system (not even simple ones)...not one, except the few in labs but these depended on intelligent design. Unless you have the scientific world knoes nothing about which I would love to hear about if you are willingto share...

For all practical purposes a self replicating molecule is a living thing. Of course we do not find life outside of life.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You have two problems here.

First, you clearly aren't grasping the actual length of geological time and how much opportunity for change and speciation that presents to an evolutionary process.
Second, you operate under the assumption of completely "undirected" and "random" process. This is incorrect. They are not completely undirected, nore random.

They are undirected only in the sense of there not being some specific "end goal form" or something. Humans, or any other species, weren't meant or planned to exist.
But it is certainly NOT undirected in the sense that "anything can happen". Evolution is directed simply put, by the environment of the niche a population occupies in the eco-system.

Natural selection is not completely "undirected" nor is it "random".
It is directed towards becoming better at surviving and reproducing. It's like an arms race.

The point is invalid.

If you are talking about evolution, then the odds of speciation happening are 1 in 1 unless complete and total extinction happens.

If you are talking about the origins of life - it is unknown at this point and you can't calculate the probability of an unknown.

It doesn't matter who made the point. The point is invalid because of what it is, regardless of who made it

"First, you clearly aren't grasping the actual length of geological time and how much opportunity for change and speciation that presents to an evolutionary process."

No I am pretty sure it is no more than the age of the earth...which is far less than 13.5 billion years (I was being liberal).

"Second, you operate under the assumption of completely "undirected" and "random" process. This is incorrect."

That's odd, I swear I mentioned that they follow physical and chemical laws???

"Evolution is directed simply put, by the environment of the niche a population occupies in the eco-system."

Yes of course in the sense of how variety is formed from allele reinforcement, mutation, and so on...still not enough time and no transmutation.

The odds of speciation is another matter...speciation is real but only produces variety not anything new (like fish becoming amphibians or amphibians becoming reptiles or any other such undemonstrated nonsense but go with the sci fi if you want (the problem being not one example of speciation produced anything else but varied forms of the same organism - just like with Darwin's finches...or consider the Horseshoe crab if we need 455,000,000 years as proof)
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's just a bunch of logical fallacies and misleading assertions strung together to impress the ignorant.

Let's start with meaningless, unexplained big numbers as an initial scare tactic. This leads (unsurprisingly) to an attack on abiogenesis. Throw in an out of context sound bite about information theory, and we can conclude (da dah) that evolution is impossible.

Information science and information theory are two different things...
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And it seems they don't even know just how large their meaningless number really is. Look up teh Eddington number. Then realize that it is of the same order of magnitude as the total number of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons in the Universe!

I'm familiar with that number because it was used to show just how unlikely the observed result of the Geiger-Marsden experiment. Real physics or chemistry is tested not pulled out of the air.

Geiger–Marsden experiment - Wikipedia

Unquestionably but ever notice none of these controversies happen in their forums? And ever notice that as a rule physicists and chemists do not deny possibility? Have you seen where quantum physics is going with the question of consciousness?
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
For all practical purposes a self replicating molecule is a living thing. Of course we do not find life outside of life.

No it is not "life" but in spite of that debate there are no such thing as you rightly pointed out, outside of life, except when subject to intelligent design in a lab.

Be aware that just because in recent times Evolutionary Biologists are trying to change the well known meaning of "Life" into something that can fit the theory (oopps! Hypothesis) does not make their redefinition correct, just accepted by other like minded types interpreting data through presupposed conclusion.

It is apparent they have poured new unknown meaning into many common terms to make the hypothesis seem to fit but the reality exists no matter how many terms they alter (doing this is a standard propaganda technique usually used by Wall Street ad men and politicians with an agenda)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
For all practical purposes a self replicating molecule is a living thing. Of course we do not find life outside of life.
Assuming conditions now are anythiing like what they were when life first arose (an egregious assumption in itself) there is one key difference--the existence of the biosphere.
Anything the least bit lifelike which emerges will almost instantly become food. That argument proves nothing. If abiogenesis is ever demonstrated it will likely be only in a lab.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Information science and information theory are two different things...
You are correct. Either way, Johnson's sound bite is a meaningless assertion.

Note also the deception:

Claim: Scientists believe that information can be generated by physical processes
Assertion: Functional information cannot be generated from purely physical properties
Title on screen: Functional information has never been observed to arise purely by physical interactions

There is no definition of what "functional information" is. Nor is there an explanation of how this is what scientists are referring to. Also note that "processes" becomes "properties" and then "interactions".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,195
9,201
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,158,856.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
First off, thank you so much for an intelligent and civil response, It was well thought out. And I agree with yout first paragraph and understand the problem with not really knowing all the conditions and elements involved are a plague for strict evolutionists as well.

But paragraph 2 is another matter. You said

It is *not* at all a simple case of whether the right atoms can collide just right(!) -- that is not how the chemistry works in the real world. Reactions are catalyzed, facilitated by surrounding surfaces or conditions, etc. The surrounding conditions radically affect all the free atoms and molecules and what they do.”

But the presenter makes the case of applied laws of physics and chemistry. Organic molecules of course develop naturally, for in nature, covalent and hydrogen bonding are natural processes governed by natural law and can happen pretty much anywhere conditions are right, but that is where the ball drops.

The odds still being high, short chain RNA molecules should form in nature (and we have found a few) but these do not re-combine to form functional proteins and these do NOT self-replicate (we see this and can demonstrate this to be true). Bit that is what we are told we are to believe happened (thus a hypothesis driven historical NARRATIVE has been imposed to support an empty “belief”).

In a lab when an outside intelligence designs an experiment with variables that they manipulate until they get a desired result, that’s just the wonder of intelligence using chemistry, but this does not happen in nature outside the context of an already extant living system (we have zero cases and it cannot be observed to be true).

“So the calculation used in the 7 minute video isn't meaningful to begin with, it's just unconnected to actual situations which involve definite conditions, such as for instance, hot mud, or other definite conditions (of which a great many possible scenarios (even near infinite) are possible, and we only have an idea of a very few.”

And the truth is you yourself have NO IDEA about these alleged conditions, but the math is the key to the video not the proposed scenarios).

Dobzhansky in, The Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices (Ed. S. W. Fox, New York, Academic Press, 1965) said "Natural selection is differential reproduction, organism perpetuation. In order to have natural selection, you have to have self-reproduction or self-replication and at least two self-replicating units of entities ...”

We KNOW this is true and this is why he starts out with the two component scenario admitting that IF the conditions are right then yes sure...and the odds are well within the range of probability. But when he goes on he is not saying anything different that other Evolutionists as far as what is involved. So please read the next post and feel free to comment.
Ah friend, please see the Nova video starting at minute 24.

Did God additionally need to intervene, or was His physics He made already sufficient? Great question, but either is His work. I'm more taken actually myself by the perfect asteroid strike 66 million years ago, to change climate and make dinos into compost, and open the way for our ancestors to rise. To me, this is a more clear direct evidence of intervention, because of the just-right size of that rock.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,340
7,679
51
✟314,979.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Right. If God created all that is, then evolution could not be 'random' in an ultimate sense, but would logically be His intended natural process (one of many).
Or, it's not random sans God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
"First, you clearly aren't grasping the actual length of geological time and how much opportunity for change and speciation that presents to an evolutionary process."

No I am pretty sure it is no more than the age of the earth...which is far less than 13.5 billion years (I was being liberal).

Life has been on this planet for at least 3.8 billion years.
Assuming an average generation length of 15 years (which is far too much for an average of all living things that ever existed on this planet, by the way), then we are talking about some 250 million generations. But as that average of 15 years is far too much, the real number of generations would MUCH higher.

"Second, you operate under the assumption of completely "undirected" and "random" process. This is incorrect."

That's odd, I swear I mentioned that they follow physical and chemical laws???

That's not the only thing that directs it.
As explained, the part you seem to be missing, or simply misunderstanding, is the role of natural selection in this process.

Physical and chemical laws are only really limiting things in a physical way - not directing them.

In the sense that, for example, whatever mutations take place, they will be mutations within the scope of what is physically possible.

But evolution isn't "just" a bunch of random mutations mixed together like a dice roll.
The changes are filtered (directed) through natural selection.

"Evolution is directed simply put, by the environment of the niche a population occupies in the eco-system."

Yes of course in the sense of how variety is formed from allele reinforcement, mutation, and so on...still not enough time and no transmutation.

No. Natural selection.
A few thousand generations is already more then enough to cause speciation events. Geological time gives us millions upon millions upon millions of generations and geographic distribution of species gives us milliosn upon millions of "genetically isolated populations" which causes each of these populations to be on their own evolutionary path - which in turn results in enormous diversity between these populations.

Your high school math simply doesn't add up.

The odds of speciation is another matter...speciation is real but only produces variety not anything new (like fish becoming amphibians or amphibians becoming reptiles or any other such undemonstrated nonsense but go with the sci fi if you want (the problem being not one example of speciation produced anything else but varied forms of the same organism - just like with Darwin's finches...or consider the Horseshoe crab if we need 455,000,000 years as proof)
Obviously, we can't observe processes that take millions of years to unfold.
Why you would even point that out is rather strange.

Nonetheless, the genetic record literally holds the genetic history of any particular bloodline. We can use this record to determine common ancestry between species.

Common ancestry is a genetic fact.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
No it is not "life" but in spite of that debate there are no such thing as you rightly pointed out, outside of life, except when subject to intelligent design in a lab.

Be aware that just because in recent times Evolutionary Biologists are trying to change the well known meaning of "Life" into something that can fit the theory (oopps! Hypothesis) does not make their redefinition correct, just accepted by other like minded types interpreting data through presupposed conclusion.

It is apparent they have poured new unknown meaning into many common terms to make the hypothesis seem to fit but the reality exists no matter how many terms they alter (doing this is a standard propaganda technique usually used by Wall Street ad men and politicians with an agenda)

Redefining of things is what happens as we learn more stuff.
New information and evidence constantly causes us to pause and question the things we thought we knew.

It's called learning.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You are correct. Either way, Johnson's sound bite is a meaningless assertion.

Note also the deception:

Claim: Scientists believe that information can be generated by physical processes
Assertion: Functional information cannot be generated from purely physical properties
Title on screen: Functional information has never been observed to arise purely by physical interactions

There is no definition of what "functional information" is. Nor is there an explanation of how this is what scientists are referring to. Also note that "processes" becomes "properties" and then "interactions".[/QUOTE

Okay! I see what you were saying...
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Life has been on this planet for at least 3.8 billion years.
Assuming an average generation length of 15 years (which is far too much for an average of all living things that ever existed on this planet, by the way), then we are talking about some 250 million generations. But as that average of 15 years is far too much, the real number of generations would MUCH higher.

That's not the only thing that directs it.
As explained, the part you seem to be missing, or simply misunderstanding, is the role of natural selection in this process.

Physical and chemical laws are only really limiting things in a physical way - not directing them.

In the sense that, for example, whatever mutations take place, they will be mutations within the scope of what is physically possible.

But evolution isn't "just" a bunch of random mutations mixed together like a dice roll.
The changes are filtered (directed) through natural selection.



No. Natural selection.
A few thousand generations is already more then enough to cause speciation events. Geological time gives us millions upon millions upon millions of generations and geographic distribution of species gives us milliosn upon millions of "genetically isolated populations" which causes each of these populations to be on their own evolutionary path - which in turn results in enormous diversity between these populations.

Your high school math simply doesn't add up.


Obviously, we can't observe processes that take millions of years to unfold.
Why you would even point that out is rather strange.

Nonetheless, the genetic record literally holds the genetic history of any particular bloodline. We can use this record to determine common ancestry between species.

Common ancestry is a genetic fact.

Natural selection is also non-directive in the sense you defined non-directive (or instructive)...it is a real and known factor but not directive in that sense.

If a food source is high up obviously creatures or varieties of creature with short necks or that are non-aboreal will die out or move and the other will thrive.

The forces of natural selection play a key role and I do not doubt this...

"Your high school math simply doesn't add up"

Sorry many Ph.Ds have done the math. It is intentionally ignored.


And yes you can use this interpretation of what we see in the genes as support for the pre-supposed conclusion that was accepted and taught as truth since Darwin. That does not mean the conclusion has been successfully demonstrated...it means it is already believed before one interprets (expectancy and confirmation bias take place...which are subconscious not intentional)
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Assuming conditions now are anythiing like what they were when life first arose (an egregious assumption in itself) there is one key difference--the existence of the biosphere.
Anything the least bit lifelike which emerges will almost instantly become food. That argument proves nothing. If abiogenesis is ever demonstrated it will likely be only in a lab.

Yes an egregious assumption. This why there are so many problems with accurate dating as well. We simply should NOT assume conditions were the same only odds and probabilities are not skewed by conditions ( though I would be the first to agree that statistics CAN BE misleading...sometimes intentionally)

But your second premise does not apply because it presumes already extant life forms (that eat)...

See how we have to make up a story to make it fit the hypothesis? Like "well we know it happened way back then even if it does not or has not happened in observable time"

If you separate such stories from what we actually can know there is not basis for it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,195
9,201
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,158,856.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Or, it's not random sans God.

Did you ever notice how each side uses a presumption of either God, or not-God, more generally, all the time, so that it's very easy for them to make a logic loop such as this one:

"If there is a God, then why do innocent little children die of cancer?"

Presumption: Death is final.
i.e. -- there is no afterlife; they don't get a new life to simply live on.

But that presumption is simply the presumption that God does not exist.

So, it's a logic loop. Presuming no God leads to logic proving there is no God, but that's actually just a logic loop (aka circular reasoning). Both sides can very easily make logic loops like that.

So why do *I* believe?

Because I took the internal risk, inside, of really trying to find God, a little leap -- "God....make a way for me to find you". I decided I could take the risk, because if I did, what is the loss? No possible loss. It's either win big, or get a zero, and neither is a loss.

What happened after that prayer, within a few days even I think, was something pretty dramatic and clear. But see, in that leap of faith I did, I really was "seeking" God with "all of my heart". It's like....like running a 5K -- takes some actual effort, but is not overwhelming.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Yes an egregious assumption. This why there are so many problems with accurate dating as well. We simply should NOT assume conditions were the same only odds and probabilities are not skewed by conditions ( though I would be the first to agree that statistics CAN BE misleading...sometimes intentionally)
Except that in chemistry, odds and probabilities are "skewed" by conditions. That's a fact. I'm not saying that the odds against abiogenesis aren't extremely high, only that the probabilty space is not flat as assumed in the calculation presented by the video. That's the flaw in the video.

But your second premise does not apply because it presumes already extant life forms (that eat)...
But life forms do exist at the present time--that was the point. If proto-life was still emerging it would be immediately eaten and we might not detect it. Notice I did not say it was still emerging. I didn't even say your position was wrong, only that your argument was no good, but like most creationists you don't seemto be able to tell the difference.

See how we have to make up a story to make it fit the hypothesis? Like "well we know it happened way back then even if it does not or has not happened in observable time"
A blatant misrepresentation. We don't "know" anything of the kind. Abiogenesis remains an hypothesis.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But your second premise does not apply because it presumes already extant life forms (that eat)...

But life forms do exist at the present time--that was the point. If proto-life was still emerging it would be immediately eaten and we might not detect it. Notice I did not say it was still emerging. I didn't even say your position was wrong, only that your argument was no good, but like most creationists you don't seem to be able to tell the difference.

Oh so you were speaking of NOW. In that case yes I can see that might happen (though I see no examples). I was speaking of self-replicating organic molecules (even now) and do not see this happening (though I admit it is possible). So what organisms would eat the never seen self-replicating molecules even though to eat them would require they already exist as self-replicating molecules?

And I think the problem here is that I can tell the difference...a wise atheist on another forum once said "...even a child can tell the difference between a guess and an observed fact", but IMHO sadly many adults cannot (or their "belief" commitment makes them deny it and that goes for some in all camps in all areas of study).

See how we have to make up a story to make it fit the hypothesis? Like "well we know it happened way back then even if it does not or has not happened in observable time"
A blatant misrepresentation. We don't "know" anything of the kind. Abiogenesis remains an hypothesis.

Yes definitely only that. I agree.

So why do you suppose that many (most) believed so dogmatically in a common ancestor BEFORE genetics really became available? IYO what other line of evidence did they depend on to claim it as a fact?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums