randomness

[Freodin]

Originally posted by auswiq
A big ask.... righto - I'll be a little less demanding.... another scenario.. this time, and this to be WITHOUT any human intervention whatsoever, ok? That includes NO mucking around with genetic engineering; DNA insertion or any such caper, or else be lined up against the wall and ______ .

Ok, now I would really love to witness the sprouting of wings on the backs of - mmm - what..ok, - pigs, say. Now as to the form and configuration of said wings; feathers; bat-like membrane; I couldnt give a continental, sufficient that they enable said pigs to - wow - fly! Well, dinos evolve into birds - yes? - Ok, why not pigs? After all, evolution is free to do whatever it jolly well likes, seeing randomness; non-design et al provides such wondrous freedom to go anywhere but loose. My, wouldnt it be something and knowing it's no hallucination - an actual winged pig - right there - can smell its breath; it's poop <ugh le peeww> so its there alright and - hoho there it goes! up n' away; just barely clipping the top o' that tree as it squeals and flaps in to the distance. - again, I'd be convinced - won over. Until then, whether we love or lump it - God is on the Throne!! before Whom every cotton-pickin one of us - yes, me included, WILL be one day, summonsed to appear.

You really like building strawmen, don´t you?
No form of evolution theory proposes what you just described.

But, strangely, there is a form of "flying squirrels" - genuine mammals that are able to glide short distances. Who knows what will become of them in a few hundert million years? Just ask me again at that time.

uh huh, well - my current knowledge is that ' something that was there' is made up of well, you know, quarks, gluons et al. Ok, now, I'm curious to know if these said constituents of the 'something that was there' possesses the essence called 'Life'. After all, as you said, life according to evolution is not from nothing....

"Essence called Life" - what is that? Life is a process, an attribute, not a physical object.
Or can you grind down a picture and show me the essence of "beauty"?

 

[sulphur]

auswig tell me all about quarks

 

[auswiq]

Originally posted by sulphur
auswig tell me all about quarks

They are considered to be the internal constituents of the class of 'particles' called hadrons, i.e subject to the internuclear 'strong force'. These quarks( six kinds) are proposed by current quantum theory, to be arranged in groups of three inside each hadron such as neutron and proton.  Each quark possesses 1/3 of unit electric charge, so that in the case of a proton, the quark composition is uud (2/3+2/3-1/3) giving it unit positive charge. In the neutron it is udd(2/3-1/3-1/3) i.e, neutral. Electrons are of the lepton class, i.e, not subject to strong force and are not constructed from quarks.

 

 

[auswiq]

..and as for 'gluons' they are construed to be the bearers of the 'strong force' - far as I currently know, are in form of photons that are exchanged between the hadrons, enabling the nucleus by such exchanges, to hold together when, according to 'like charges repel' principle, it should fly apart. Possibly, the quarks themselves have a part in this intranuclear photon exchange.

 

[sulphur]

Quarks were first thought about in the study of electrons about 30 years ago
The opposite of an algorithmic solution is an heuristic one

 

[Micaiah]

Auswiq,
I'll accept the flying pigs as conclusive evidence for evolution. But why stop there. If this can happen, it would be easy to accomodate the extra requirement of flying backward.

 

[sulphur]

laughter all round. well done

 

[Micaiah]

This is an extract from the AIG link and helps to explain what we know intuitively – if someone deals you with a straight run of 13 cards the pack has been rigged, and a living cell will not form spontaneously.

You probably realize there is something illogical about this line of argument. But what is it?
In all the analogies cited above, there has to be an outcome. Someone has to win the lottery. There will be an arrangement of cards. There will be a pile of sand. There will be people walking across the busy street. By contrast, in the processes by which life is supposed to have formed, there need not necessarily be an outcome. Indeed the probabilities argue against any outcome. That is the whole point of the argument. But then the evolutionist may counter that it did happen because we are here! This is circular reasoning at its worst.

 

[Micaiah]

Here is a link to the AIG site

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by auswiq
A big ask.... righto - I'll be a little less demanding.... another scenario.. this time, and this to be WITHOUT  any human intervention whatsoever, ok? That includes NO mucking around with genetic engineering; DNA insertion or any such caper, or else be lined up against the wall and ______ .

Ok, now I would really love to witness the sprouting of wings on the backs of - mmm - what..ok, - pigs, say. Now as to the form and configuration of said wings; feathers; bat-like membrane; I couldnt give a continental, sufficient that they enable said pigs to - wow - fly! Well, dinos evolve into birds - yes? - Ok, why not pigs? After all, evolution is free to do whatever it jolly well likes, seeing randomness; non-design et al provides such wondrous freedom to go anywhere but loose. My, wouldnt it be something and knowing it's no hallucination - an actual winged pig - right there - can smell its breath; it's poop <ugh le peeww> so its there alright and - hoho there it goes! up n' away; just barely clipping the top o' that tree as it squeals and flaps in to the distance.  - again, I'd be convinced - won over. Until then, whether we love or lump it - God is on the Throne!! before Whom every cotton-pickin one of us - yes, me included, WILL be one day, summonsed to appear.

 

]

Okay....

But I find it a little odd that you will only accept evolution if something happens that utterly would falsify it...

You see if a pig were to suddenly sprout wings and start to fly science would have to chuck evolution right out the window...

Yet then and only then you would come to believe it...

Is it just me or does this line of thinking seem just a little bit odd?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Micaiah
This is an extract from the AIG link and helps to explain what we know intuitively – if someone deals you with a straight run of 13 cards the pack has been rigged, and a living cell will not form spontaneously.

No one in the scientific community claims that living cells formed spontaneously. That's why there is a whole program of research devoted to abiogenesis -- to discover how living cells might have developed gradually.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Micaiah
This is an extract from the AIG link and helps to explain what we know intuitively – if someone deals you with a straight run of 13 cards the pack has been rigged, and a living cell will not form spontaneously.

edit: see LiveFreeOrDie's response

That said, one thing I find interesting about these so-called "probability" calculations, is that always rest on the end product turning out in an exact, specific manner. I just wonder how many possible alternatives there could be. If life didn't form in the current manner, who knows what the biological diversity of this planet might look like?

 

[Micaiah]

Funny how my last post, which you guys have copied, has disappeared. Why is that? It usually comes back on line the next day.

LFOD, gradually maybe, but still spontaneously. There was nothing guiding the combination of the chemicals involved to achieve a given outcome.

I hear what you say Pete, but for me the notion that even one could result from chance is out of the question.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Funny how my last post, which you guys have copied, has disappeared. Why is that?

I still see it.

LFOD, gradually maybe, but still spontaneously.

That makes no sense. "Gradually" and "spontaneously" are opposites. It's as if you said "the kettle is black maybe, but still white."

There was nothing guiding the combination of the chemicals involved to achieve a given outcome.

What exactly do you mean by "a given outcome"? Is cell-based life with DNA as the master molecule the only possible outcome upon which life could be built? How many other possible outcomes are there that would lead to complex living things? What is the probability that at least one of those outcomes would occur on this planet?

If you can't answer those questions, then IMO you have no business making assertions about how improbable complex life is.

 

[Micaiah]

That makes no sense. "Gradually" and "spontaneously" are opposites. It's as if you said "the kettle is black maybe, but still white."

Oxford dictionary - acting, done, occuring, without external cause, vountarily, without external excitement.

What exactly do you mean by "a given outcome"? Is cell-based life with DNA as the master molecule the only possible outcome upon which life could be built? How many other possible outcomes are there that would lead to complex living things? What is the probability that at least one of those outcomes would occur on this planet?

If you can't answer those questions, then IMO you have no business making assertions about how improbable complex life is.

Take it away doc. Tell me your plan for an alternative universe. I'll organise the crew to construct it for you.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Oxford dictionary - acting, done, occuring, without external cause, vountarily, without external excitement.

Given my failure to adequately define "gradually", the confusion is understandable. You may assume that where I used the word "gradually" I meant "gradually through the influence of external causes".

Take it away doc. Tell me your plan for an alternative universe. I'll organise the crew to construct it for you.

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Micaiah
The point I make is that if the probability of an event is low enough, then intuitively we say it is impossible. If you played a game of cards and your opponent was dealt a run of 13 clubs from the ace to the king you would conclude someone had sabotaged the pack. We know it is practically impossible for this to happen, though theoretically it is possible.

If 100 people tossed 100 coins at a rate of five tosses per minute, then they would do a total of 262 980 000 000 ie. 262.9 billion tosses in 1000 years. That is a long way of the number needed.

First, Darwinian selection cuts down odds.  It converts the improbable to virtual certainty. As I said, you are guaranteed of finding someone who can call 100 coin tosses in a row.

Second, I wouldn't conclude that someone had sabotaged the deal just because a run of all clubs was dealt.  Conclusion of sabotage would depend on other factors -- such as money bet on the hand.  After all, any hand of 13 cards is just as improbable as any other hand.  The only reason the 13 club hand is exceptional is because it can be a pat winning hand in bridge.  Therefore it belongs to a small set of winning hands in that particular game.  Even there it is  no good if your opponents bid 7 diamonds.  However, each equally improbable 13 card hand can be used to play a game of bridge.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Micaiah
I'm not sure how to answer your objections. But I think creation is amazing.

I heard how a baby undergoes a sudden transformation at the time of birth as it prepares to breath. The lungs and heart undergo major changes as the child prepares to take its first breath instead of getting oxygen from the mother's blood supply. That is a fantastic miracle.

Creation may be amazing, but it is fatal for Christianity to believe in special creation.  The numerous poor and sadistic designs in nature do in the Christian god of love if God made each and every species separately.

The first breath may be a "miracle", but it is not a miracle in the sense of God interferring against the laws and material processes in nature.  The biochemical and physiological processes involved are studied and understood.  There is no breaking of the chain of cause and effect and no intervention contrary to the laws of nature.  IOW, God doesn't have to zap in a completely different set of lungs or a new heart at the moment of birth to replace the ones that were there during fetal development.  Or do you think this happens?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Are you suggesting this is how evolution works?

Yes.  Natural selection is a giant competition algorithm, analogous to but more complicated than the single elimination tournament.

Each individual has genes that represent a possible design solution to a design problem posed by the environment. Since more individuals are born than the environment can support, there is competition (unconscious) among the individuals for the scarce resources in the environment. Those individuals with the best designs win the competition; the rest are eliminated.  The victors then pass on their designs to their offspring. Thus the designs stay in the game.

This is just like I outlined.  Let's try a simpler problem.  Your odds of calling 10 coin tosses in a row is 1 in 1024.  How many series of 10 do you think it would take for you to do this?  More than 1024.  But I can absolutely, positively guarantee that I can find a person who can call 10 coin tosses in a row and do it very quickly.  Simply get 1024 people and pair them up.  Toss a coin.  The winners advances to the next round. Now I have 512 people who have called 1 toss correctly.  Pair them up again and toss a coin. Winners advance.  Now I have 256 people who called 2 coin tosses correctly. Repeat 7 more times.  Now I have 2 people, each of whom has called 9 tosses in a row correctly.  The winner of that toss has called 10 coin tosses correctly.  I have beaten the odds.  By natural selection.

You are the product of an unbroken succession of winners going back 3.8 billion years.  If any of your ancestors had lost the survival game, you wouldn't be here.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by auswiq Wonderful, even though Dr Joyce started with something already there to experiment with, now didnt he.

Yes. So does evolution.  All theories have boundaries.  Gravity doesn't explain cell membranes.  Mendelian genetics doesn't explain why an airplane flies.  Gravity assumes the existence of spacetime. Mendelian genetics assumes the existence of genes.

So, what we are talking about is whether Darwinian selection will give design.  You seem to acknowledge that, yes, it does.  And it gives a design -- DNA enzyme -- that God didn't make.

Now that would be - ah look, believe me; that would be the day I would at long last, be thoroughly won over and then - well- it would be ' Guess its cheerio God; nice knowing You" -" Hey, Huxley; Lamark; Darwin - put 'er there!! ( hearty handshake) and a ringing -EVOLUTION IS IT!!!  - Well -  I'm waiting....in anticipation.

You really don't want to do that.  Because you are making the same statement of faith the atheists are: natural = without God.  You are working on a god-of-the-gaps theology, and that is fatal to Christianity.  You are saying that God can exist only in the gaps in our knowledge of material processes.  Darwin didn't make that mistake, why are you?

Got a suggestion for a man of his obvious expertise.  I for one, would like him now, to do another wonderful experiment. I would suggest he start with Nothing - yes, nothing; no air; no gas; no dirt; no plasma; no - thats right, literally Nothing, and to take this Nothing (bit of an oxymoron, I know, but never mind for now) and to bring into being some fundamental particles; the nature of which I am happy to entrust to his discretional expertise, and to construct some matter; so far so good, and then to formulate Life - uh uh - No! not to be taken from anything already living - instead, to generate life from this original nothing and then to insert this Life essence into this so far, inert matter he has so far brought into being there in the lab; yes, genes and all, the configuration of which I again entrust to his expertise and to cream the cake so to speak, this lifeform to finally be endowed with at least, the capability to sustain and maintain its own existence. ... 

Let's go into some of the material processes that you doubt exist.  The BB gives you the fundamental particles and, when the universe cools, you get hydrogen, helium, and lithium. Gravity forms the matter into stars and nucleosynthesis in stars gives you carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc.  Novae and supernovae scatter those elements into the interstellar dust, and then gravity again makes new stars and planets with those elements. Chemistry forms methane, ammonia, cyanide, and other simple chemicals.  Other chemical reactions turn these into amino acids, sugars, and nucleotides in water solution.  Dry heating these chemicals (say in a tidal pool in the hot sun or in a frying pan on your stove) or heating at underwater thermal vents causes the amino acids to polymerize into proteins and the proteins to form living protocells.  The proteins in the protocells catalyze the formation of RNA/DNA from the sugars and nucleotides.  The genetic code evolves from specific chemical interactions of proteins with specific RNA/DNA.

I can document all this with references to data.

Now, did all this happen on its own as atheists believe or is this how God created as Christians believe?  Science can't answer that.  You appear to be an atheist in believing that if these material processes operate, then God is absent.  So be it.