PDA

View Full Version : The Theory of Evolution - Part 1



bob b
March 12th, 2006, 08:36 PM
The Theory of Evolution - Part 1. Life Happens

According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (Presumably, a lightning bolt and a deformed assistant were involved.)

The February 1988 issue of EARTH magazine is a special issue on Origins. The cover promises an article that will tell us "How Life Really Began". The article itself, however, says that scientists just don't know. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, states in that article that the origin of life is still unknown.

There are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life.

1. Pinocchio
2. Frosty the Snowman

Most scientists consider these two reports to be false.

The notion that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

(Ref: Science Is Against Evolution)

Shalom
March 12th, 2006, 08:55 PM
There are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life.

1. Pinocchio
2. Frosty the Snowman

Most scientists consider these two reports to be false.




bob b you are awesome!!! :chuckle:


:cheers:

hatsoff
March 12th, 2006, 09:03 PM
The Theory of Evolution - Part 1. Life Happens

According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe

The first of several errors. The theory of evolution does not say much about the universe, and certainly not that there was "no life" at any point in time, much less the distant past.

Perhaps Bob B should refer us to his definition of the "theory of evolution."


-- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (Presumably, a lightning bolt and a deformed assistant were involved.)

This is possibly a weak attempt at lighthearted humor, but more likely a nasty manifestation of his contempt for some of evolution's concepts.


The February 1988 issue of EARTH magazine is a special issue on Origins. The cover promises an article that will tell us "How Life Really Began".

And in 1993 Newsweek's boldface cover read "Gay Gene?" Yes, we all know most magazines are notoriously unreliable.


The article itself, however, says that scientists just don't know. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, states in that article that the origin of life is still unknown.

But you dispute this. You seem to know exactly where life came from. The problem is, of course, that you're mistaken. What you think you know is actually false.


There are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life.

1. Pinocchio
2. Frosty the Snowman

Most scientists consider these two reports to be false.

Most scientists also consider creationalism to be false. The ratios are similar, in all three cases.


The notion that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

Not direct scientific observation, no. But observation is not limited to the direct.


(Ref: Science Is Against Evolution)

No, it is not.

avatar382
March 12th, 2006, 09:27 PM
The Theory of Evolution - Part 1. Life Happens

According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (Presumably, a lightning bolt and a deformed assistant were involved.)

The February 1988 issue of EARTH magazine is a special issue on Origins. The cover promises an article that will tell us "How Life Really Began". The article itself, however, says that scientists just don't know. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, states in that article that the origin of life is still unknown.

There are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life.

1. Pinocchio
2. Frosty the Snowman

Most scientists consider these two reports to be false.

The notion that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

(Ref: Science Is Against Evolution)

Bob, abiogensis is beyond the scope of the theory of evolution. You are right, science does not know how life arised from non-life. Maybe science will never know.

But, this has precisely zilch to do with the theory of evolution. Simple as that.

Johnny
March 13th, 2006, 12:17 AM
According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds.And you're starting to look more and more like pinocchio as the lies continue. You know the statement I quoted is downright dishonest and incorrect, why did you post it?

Lord Vader
March 13th, 2006, 03:06 AM
I think the biggest problem I see are people believing what they hear because they want to and not because they have good reasons (like having a mastery of the subject). What I would teach my children is, know the difference between what you really know and what you really do not know. So it's a mistake to believe a creationist just because you've got some beef with scientists or athiests or democrats or whatever and it's a mistake to believe a biologist, when you don't understand what the biologist has just said, just because you think creationists are flat earth nutters.

Letsargue
March 13th, 2006, 04:19 AM
I think the biggest problem I see are people believing what they hear because they want to and not because they have good reasons (like having a mastery of the subject). What I would teach my children is, know the difference between what you really know and what you really do not know. So it's a mistake to believe a creationist just because you've got some beef with scientists or athiests or democrats or whatever and it's a mistake to believe a biologist, when you don't understand what the biologist has just said, just because you think creationists are flat earth nutters.

---WOOW, -- THAT WAS SMART, What wisdom?? --- ""What you really know, and what you really don't know""????. HOW DO ((( YOU ))) KNOW, THAT YOU KNOW ANYTHING, without guessing. -- guess you have no idea, but you'll run your mouth anyhow like the rest of the fools do.
*
------------------Paul---
*

bob b
March 13th, 2006, 07:19 AM
The Theory of Evolution - Part 2 Creative Mutations

Creative Mutations
Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. One does not expect a lizard to hatch from a chicken egg. Chickens have baby chickens. It is established scientific fact that like begets like.

On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Only a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are arguably beneficial. It is well known that mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.

It is claimed that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals

a) scales had to have mutated into hair
b) breasts had to have evolved from nothing
c) hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb
etc.

None of these transformations have ever been observed in a laboratory.


The notion that random genetic changes can produce creative mutations is not consistent with scientific observation. (Not to mention "The Protein Folding Problem", RBB).

(Thanks again to the Science Against Evolution website)

hatsoff
March 13th, 2006, 07:30 AM
So Bob B has been reduced to the likes of Chandru, Letsargue and James Hartline. Announce, but do not discuss--in other words, spam.


The Theory of Evolution - Part 2 Creative Mutations

Creative Mutations
Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. One does not expect a lizard to hatch from a chicken egg. Chickens have baby chickens. It is established scientific fact that like begets like.

On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Only a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are arguably beneficial. It is well known that mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.

Again, this is simply wrong. Here the author is arguing that there "must be" one thing or another, but in truth all that "must be" is the outcome--that is, the evolution of species. The process by which that outcome has been achieved is largely unknown, although much speculated.


It is claimed that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented.

It is? Where?


But for reptiles to evolve into mammals

a) scales had to have mutated into hair
b) breasts had to have evolved from nothing
c) hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb
etc.

This all assumes mammilian lineage derives from reptilian. While a seemingly natural assumption, I've never seen it proven.


None of these transformations have ever been observed in a laboratory.

And very likely none ever will.


The notion that random genetic changes can produce creative mutations is not consistent with scientific observation. (Not to mention "The Protein Folding Problem", RBB).

Again, we have the proof: Species existed, they changed, and new species sprang up. This has been observed, through studying history and the fossil record. That the mechanisms behind the changes have not been explained does not mean that they never happened, or are unexplainable. We simply need to keep at it.


(Thanks again to the Science Against Evolution website)

Cutting and pasting, are we? That would explain a good deal.

Johnny
March 13th, 2006, 11:00 AM
"According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe"

That's a lie. The theory of evolution claims no such thing. Bob b, do you agree with this statement?


bob b you are awesome!!!Sad. You just praised a poster who shamelessly posted a blatant lie.

bob b
March 13th, 2006, 04:35 PM
"According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe"

That's a lie. The theory of evolution claims no such thing. Bob b, do you agree with this statement?

Sad. You just praised a poster who shamelessly posted a blatant lie.

Evolutionists like to extrapolate backwards all the way to some hypothetical primitive creature.

But then they stop. Why is that? Certainly not for lack of boldness, otherwise why would they have extrapolated so far back?

At least Darwin was honest enough to take a shot at it. Today's evolutionists try to escape the inevitable by claiming they don't have to explain the inevitable consequence of their "half a loaf".

They are in the same position as the cosmologists who extrapolate an expanding universe all the way back to zero time, and then wonder why nobody believes them. :doh:

SUTG
March 13th, 2006, 04:38 PM
bob b,

I'm wondering if anyone can try harder to intentionally misunderstand the Theory of Evolution than you have. You've started numerous threads on the ToE that have exhibited gross misunderstandings of basic principles that would be covered in a first semester Biology class. What are you trying to accomplish? Do you think that if you misrepresent the theory enough, no-one will bother to learn the real theory? Are you really that in the dark about what the theory says? There are plenty of resouces available if you want to understand it.

bob b
March 13th, 2006, 05:02 PM
bob b,

I'm wondering if anyone can try harder to intentionally misunderstand the Theory of Evolution than you have. You've started numerous threads on the ToE that have exhibited gross misunderstandings of basic principles that would be covered in a first semester Biology class. What are you trying to accomplish? Do you think that if you misrepresent the theory enough, no-one will bother to learn the real theory? Are you really that in the dark about what the theory says? There are plenty of resouces available if you want to understand it.

The reason that nobody can understand what the theory says is apparently because it says everything and nothing in equal measure. Therefore if anybody disagrees with it they can always be accused of being stupid or ignorant or both. (or wicked?) :wave:

bob b
March 13th, 2006, 05:09 PM
Everybody hold their nose now, here comes part 3
Theory of Evolution Part 3Lots of Time
Sadly, it is well known that living things can die. This has often been observed. It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, something dead will come to life by some method or another.

It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some critters will eventually evolve into other critters.

Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

If we observe present processes, and make the assumption that they have have been going on at the same rate since they started, we generally come to the conclusion that the Earth could not be billions of years old. Some of the processes that have been studied that give young ages for the Earth are:

Continental erosion
Sea floor sediments
Salinity of the oceans
Helium in the atmosphere
Carbon 14 in the atmosphere
Decay of the Earth's magnetic field

The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which are dated by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced many feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours. Radioactive measurements of these rocks show them to be millions of years old, too. But we know they were formed in 1980 because scientists saw them formed.

The notion that the Earth is billions of years old is not consistent with a considerable amount of scientific observation.

Conclusion
The theory of evolution is not believed because of scientific evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence. Science is against the theory of evolution.

Shalom
March 13th, 2006, 05:24 PM
The reason that nobody can understand what the theory says is apparently because it says everything and nothing in equal measure. Therefore if anybody disagrees with it they can always be accused of being stupid or ignorant or both. (or wicked?) :wave:


ahh jeeeez bob b you just too darn good!!! :thumb:

SUTG
March 13th, 2006, 05:39 PM
The reason that nobody can understand what the theory says is apparently because it says everything and nothing in equal measure.

Lots of other people seem to understand it just fine. You're the one that doesn't get it. Why don't you take Jukia's advice and enroll in an elementary biology class? There are plenty of posters here that could help you study for exams. (Johnny, aharvey, Jukia, etc..) I might even contribute a bit - it is well known you could stand to brush up on probabilities a bit.

bowhunter
March 13th, 2006, 06:47 PM
"But you dispute this. You seem to know exactly where life came from. The problem is, of course, that you're mistaken. What you think you know is actually false."

Ok, the guy says, that what Bob THINKS he knows is actually false. The same guy states that they do not know how it all started. HMMMM. He doesn't know, yet he knows that only ONE of them is false. Interesting, very interesting.

bowhunter
March 13th, 2006, 06:48 PM
Bob,

Correct me if I'm wrong, in order for some program to work, it must first exist. Is that correct?

Also, are you saying the toe is complex like the tax code?

bob b
March 13th, 2006, 06:58 PM
Bob,

Correct me if I'm wrong, in order for some program to work, it must first exist. Is that correct?

You can't use logic on an evolutionist.


Also, are you saying the toe is complex like the tax code?

And just as illogical.

bowhunter
March 13th, 2006, 07:13 PM
"You can't use logic on an evolutionist."

Oh yeah, I forgot. BTW, they don't even realize what you are doing to them here.

bob b
March 13th, 2006, 08:38 PM
"You can't use logic on an evolutionist."

Oh yeah, I forgot. BTW, they don't even realize what you are doing to them here.

The objective of course is not to try to convince a dogmatic evolutionist that their pet theory is in shambles, but instead to demonstrate to any fencesitters listening, who may in the past have been overly impressed by arguments from authority, that there are legitimate reasons to doubt the evolutionary propaganda.

For example, I hope that some of the fencesitters would do a GOOGLE on Protein Folding Problem and research on their own a key area where progress in biology is inexorably leading to the eventual falsification of macroevolution.

Like in the USSR example, many people listen to the media too much and hence are totally surprised when the "ten foot tall" ogre suddenly collapses.

ItIsWritten
March 13th, 2006, 10:12 PM
The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced many feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours. Radioactive measurements of these rocks show them to be millions of years old, too.Opps...



The theory of evolution is not believed because of scientific evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence. :up:

Johnny
March 13th, 2006, 11:19 PM
Bob, does the theory of evolution state, "at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe"? Yes or no.

Perhaps the fencesitters are watching. Pay close attention to Bob's reply. He can't say no, because that would demonstrate quite clearly that he is not concerned with the truthfulness or accuracy of his material. So he must say yes. However, his "yes" reply will undoubtedly avoid at all costs supporting the notion that the theory actually says this. Instead, he will say something to the effect of "well it should say this evolutionists are just trying to escape the inevitable." What a great tactic: arguing that a theory should say something and using what you think it should say to refute it.

Why is this so important? Because dishonest (usually just ignorant, but I've promoted bob) creationists shamelessly post alleged arguments against abiogenesis and pass them off as arguments against evolution. Even if abiogenesis is completely 100% impossible, that means absolutely nothing for the theory of evolution. For a good example of this deceitful tactic, see the first post.

Behold, TOL, your knight in shining armor.

Lord Vader
March 14th, 2006, 01:39 AM
Everybody hold their nose now, here comes part 3
Theory of Evolution Part 3Lots of Time
Sadly, it is well known that living things can die. This has often been observed. It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, something dead will come to life by some method or another.

No.


It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some critters will eventually evolve into other critters.

No.


Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

No.


If we observe present processes, and make the assumption that they have have been going on at the same rate since they started, we generally come to the conclusion that the Earth could not be billions of years old. Some of the processes that have been studied that give young ages for the Earth are:

Continental erosion
Sea floor sediments
Salinity of the oceans
Helium in the atmosphere
Carbon 14 in the atmosphere
Decay of the Earth's magnetic field

No.


The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which are dated by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.

No.


The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced many feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours. Radioactive measurements of these rocks show them to be millions of years old, too. But we know they were formed in 1980 because scientists saw them formed.

No.


The notion that the Earth is billions of years old is not consistent with a considerable amount of scientific observation.

No.


Conclusion
The theory of evolution is not believed because of scientific evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence. Science is against the theory of evolution.

And no.

Jukia
March 14th, 2006, 07:32 AM
see Lord Vader's responses.

SUTG
March 14th, 2006, 10:22 AM
see Jukia's response.

bob b
March 14th, 2006, 10:41 AM
Bob, does the theory of evolution state, "at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe"? Yes or no.

Perhaps the fencesitters are watching. Pay close attention to Bob's reply. He can't say no, because that would demonstrate quite clearly that he is not concerned with the truthfulness or accuracy of his material. So he must say yes. However, his "yes" reply will undoubtedly avoid at all costs supporting the notion that the theory actually says this. Instead, he will say something to the effect of "well it should say this evolutionists are just trying to escape the inevitable." What a great tactic: arguing that a theory should say something and using what you think it should say to refute it.

Why is this so important? Because dishonest (usually just ignorant, but I've promoted bob) creationists shamelessly post alleged arguments against abiogenesis and pass them off as arguments against evolution. Even if abiogenesis is completely 100% impossible, that means absolutely nothing for the theory of evolution. For a good example of this deceitful tactic, see the first post.

Behold, TOL, your knight in shining armor.

It is not clear what the theory of evolution actually states because there doesn't seem to be any single, compact, universally accepted statement of the theory to be found. In fact Ernst Mayr, one of the architects of NeoDarwinism, and an evolutionist of such distinction that Gould called him "The Darwin of the 20th Century", stated in his book, What Evolution Is that there are actually 7 theories of evolution!

Jukia
March 14th, 2006, 11:19 AM
It is not clear what the theory of evolution actually states because there doesn't seem to be any single, compact, universally accepted statement of the theory to be found. In fact Ernst Mayr, one of the architects of NeoDarwinism, and an evolutionist of such distinction that Gould called him "The Darwin of the 20th Century", stated in his book, What Evolution Is that there are actually 7 theories of evolution!
And how many different versions/interpretations of the Bible are there? Surely many more than 7.

hatsoff
March 14th, 2006, 11:25 AM
"But you dispute this. You seem to know exactly where life came from. The problem is, of course, that you're mistaken. What you think you know is actually false."

Ok, the guy says, that what Bob THINKS he knows is actually false. The same guy states that they do not know how it all started. HMMMM. He doesn't know, yet he knows that only ONE of them is false. Interesting, very interesting.

It's actually very natural. As we go along, we can eliminate certain possibilities without arriving at the exact truth. It's a tough concept for you, I know, but I'm sure you'll get it, in time.

avatar382
March 14th, 2006, 11:36 AM
It is not clear what the theory of evolution actually states because there doesn't seem to be any single, compact, universally accepted statement of the theory to be found. In fact Ernst Mayr, one of the architects of NeoDarwinism, and an evolutionist of such distinction that Gould called him "The Darwin of the 20th Century", stated in his book, What Evolution Is that there are actually 7 theories of evolution!

Here is your "single, compact, universally accepted statement" --

Definition of evolution: Alleles (genes) change in frequency over time in a population.

The gist of it: Any two distinct forms of life share a common ancestor.

avatar382
March 14th, 2006, 11:45 AM
Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

A word about coin flips:

Say you wanted to flip a coin and get 6 heads in a row. You have a one in 64 chance of getting it on the first try, so you can expect to need 64 trials.

However, if you had 64 people doing simultaneous trials, you can expect your 6 heads in a row immediately.

Consequently, if there is an event x that has a one in one billion chance of happening, and you recruit the entire population of China to conduct simultaneous trials, you can expect X to occur quickly. If you need proof of this, consider lotteries where the chances are one in several million, but there is a lottery winner every week.

Now, if the chances of a protien molecule or whatever being formed on primitive earth are 1 x 10^100, stating that this can never happen in the history of the universe ignores the fact that trillions of liters of water on earth with countless molecules in each liter amounts to a great many simultaneous trials!

bob b
March 14th, 2006, 12:18 PM
You might profit from reading Bill Dembski's article, The Chance of the Gaps (The name is a "takeoff" on the oft used God of the Gaps). Here is an interesting portion.

------------------
2. Universal Probability Bounds
In the observable universe, probabilistic resources come in very limited supplies. Within the known physical universe there are estimated around 10^80 elementary particles. Moreover, the properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 10^45 times per second. This frequency corresponds to the Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time.7 Finally, the universe itself is about a billion times younger than 10^25 seconds (assuming the universe is between ten and twenty billion years old). If we now assume that any specification of an event within the known physical universe requires at least one elementary particle to specify it and cannot be generated any faster than the Planck time, then these cosmological constraints imply that the total number of specified events throughout cosmic history cannot exceed
10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150.
It follows that any specified event of probability less than 1 in 10^150 will remain improbable even after all conceivable probabilistic resources from the observable universe have been factored in. A probability of 1 in 10^150 is therefore a universal probability bound.8 A universal probability bound is impervious to all available probabilistic resources that may be brought against it. Indeed, all the probabilistic resources in the known physical world cannot conspire to render remotely probable an event whose probability is less than this universal probability bound.
The universal probability bound of 1 in 10^150 is the most conservative in the literature. The French mathematician Emile Borel proposed 1 in 10^50 as a universal probability bound below which chance could definitively be precluded (i.e., any specified event as improbable as this could never be attributed to chance).9 Cryptographers assess the security of cryptosystems against a brute force attack that employs as many probabilistic resources as are available in the universe to break a cryptosystem by chance. In its report on the role of cryptography in securing the information society, the National Research Council set 1 in 10^94 as its universal probability bound for ensuring the security of cryptosystems against chance-based attacks.10 Such levels of improbability are easily attained by real physical systems. It follows that if such systems are also specified and if specified complexity is a reliable empirical marker of intelligence, then these systems are designed.
Implicit in a universal probability bound such as 10^-150 is that the universe is too small a place to generate specified complexity by sheer exhaustion of possibilities. Stuart Kauffman develops this theme at length in his book Investigations.11 In one of his examples (and there are many like it throughout the book), he considers the number of possible proteins of length 200 (i.e., 20^200 or approximately 10^260) and the maximum number of pairwise collisions of particles throughout the history of the universe (he estimates 10^193 total collisions supposing the reaction rate for collisions can be measured in femtoseconds). Kauffman concludes: “The known universe has not had time since the big bang to create all possible proteins of length 200 [even] once.”12 To emphasize this point, he notes: “It would take at least 10 to the 67th times the current lifetime of the universe for the universe to manage to make all possible proteins of length 200 at least once.”13
Kauffman even has a name for numbers that are so big that they are beyond the reach of operations performable by and within the universe—he refers to them as transfinite. For instance, in discussing a small discrete dynamical system whose dynamics are nonetheless so complicated that they cannot be computed, he writes: “There is a sense in which the computations are transfinite—not infinite, but so vastly large that they cannot be carried out by any computational system in the universe.”14 Kauffman justifies such proscriptive claims in exactly the same terms that I justified the universal probability bound a moment ago. Thus as justification he looks to the Planck time, the Planck length, the radius of the universe, the number of particles in the universe, and the rate at which particles can change states.15 Kauffman’s idea of transfinite numbers is insightful, but the actual term is infelicitous because it already has currency within mathematics, where transfinite numbers are by definition infinite (in fact, the transfinite numbers of transfinite arithmetic can assume any infinite cardinality whatsoever).16 I therefore propose to call such numbers hyperfinite numbers.17
Kauffman often writes about the universe being unable to exhaust some set of possibilities. Yet at other times he puts an adjective in front of the word universe, claiming it is the known universe that is unable to exhaust some set of possibilities.18 Is there a difference between the universe (no adjective in front) and the known or observable universe (adjective in front)? To be sure, there is no empirical difference. Our best scientific observations tell us that the world surrounding us appears quite limited. Indeed, the size, duration, and composition of the known universe are such that 10150 is a hyperfinite number. For instance, if the universe were a giant computer, it could perform no more than this number of operations (quantum computation, by exploiting superposition of quantum states, enriches the operations performable by an ordinary computer but cannot change their number); if the universe were devoted entirely to generating specifications, this number would set an upper bound; if cryptographers
6
confine themselves to brute-force methods on ordinary computers to test cryptographic keys, the number of keys they can test will always be less than this number.
But what if the universe is in fact much bigger than the known universe? What if the known universe is but an infinitesimal speck within the actual universe? Alternatively, what if the known universe is but one of many possible universes, each of which is as real as the known universe but causally inaccessible to it? If so, are not the probabilistic resources needed to eliminate chance vastly increased and is not the validity of 10^–150 as a universal probability bound thrown into question? This line of reasoning has gained widespread currency among scientists and philosophers in recent years. In this paper I will to argue that this line of reasoning is fatally flawed. Indeed, I will argue that it is illegitimate to rescue chance by invoking probabilistic resources from outside the known universe. To do so artificially inflates one’s probabilistic resources.
3. The Inflationary Fallacy
Only probabilistic resources from the known universe may legitimately be employed in testing chance hypotheses. In particular, probabilistic resources imported from outside the known universe are incapable of overturning the universal probability bound of 10^–150. My basic argument to support this claim is quite simple, though I need to tailor it to some of the specific proposals now current for inflating probabilistic resources. The basic argument is this: It is never enough to postulate probabilistic resources merely to prop an otherwise failing chance hypothesis. Rather, one needs independent evidence whether there really are enough probabilistic resources to render chance plausible.
Consider, for instance, a state lottery. Suppose we know nothing about the number of lottery tickets sold and are informed simply that the lottery had a winner. Suppose further that the probability of any lottery ticket producing a winner is extremely low.

What can we conclude? Does it follow that many lottery tickets were sold? Hardly.

avatar382
March 14th, 2006, 02:03 PM
That was an interesting article - it does seem reasonable that there is a probablity so small that it is "transfinite", as the article said.

Still, the question of what the probabilty of a protien being formed, etc - and a whole slew of other related questions related to the origin of life - are all far beyond the scope of the theory of evolution, and utimately may be beyond the scope of human comprehension.

Johnny
March 14th, 2006, 02:37 PM
It is not clear what the theory of evolution actually states because there doesn't seem to be any single, compact, universally accepted statement of the theory to be found. In fact Ernst Mayr, one of the architects of NeoDarwinism, and an evolutionist of such distinction that Gould called him "The Darwin of the 20th Century", stated in his book, What Evolution Is that there are actually 7 theories of evolution!If you are unclear on what the theory states, don't you think it would be prudent to find out what the theory actually says before posting a lie? Or maybe you subscribe to the idea that since you don't know what the theory says you're entitled to make crap up. Perhaps you could post Mayr's seven theories so we can see exactly which one contains the aforementioned statement. Maybe shalom will stand up and defend this statement, since he was quick to shower your lie with accolades.

bob b
March 14th, 2006, 02:41 PM
That was an interesting article - it does seem reasonable that there is a probablity so small that it is "transfinite", as the article said.

Still, the question of what the probabilty of a protien being formed, etc - and a whole slew of other related questions related to the origin of life - are all far beyond the scope of the theory of evolution, and utimately may be beyond the scope of human comprehension.

Actually we don't even have to consider how the first proteins were formed in order to cast extreme probabilistic doubt upon macroevolution.

This is because it now appears with the latest research on protein folding that the number of proteins that are "feasible", that is that will fold up and provide a function, is miniscule compared to what evolutionists had been assuming in the "random mutation plus natural selection" scenario.

They had been assuming something like one in a thousand tries would yield a "better" protein, but new research is indicating that it may be less than one in a trillion or even one in a googleplex (10^50 ?).

This means that in going from one "feasible" protein to one that is even better, as macroevolution would require, the odds are what we might call "heavily loaded against it".

Stay tuned. This area is "red hot".

Johnny
March 14th, 2006, 02:53 PM
This is because it now appears with the latest research on protein folding that the number of proteins that are "feasible", that is that will fold up and provide a function, is miniscule compared to what evolutionists had been assuming in the "random mutation plus natural selection" scenario.This is not "latest research".


They had been assuming something like one in a thousand tries would yield a "better" protein, but new research is indicating that it may be less than one in a trillion or even one in a googleplex (10^50 ?).Reference? Source? Or did that one come from the Make Crap Up department?

GuySmiley
March 14th, 2006, 03:07 PM
This is not "latest research".

Reference? Source? Or did that one come from the Make Crap Up department?
You should let us in on the more recent research that you know of that contradicts it. Wouldn't that be a more powerful argument than your boo-yay method?

Johnny
March 14th, 2006, 03:16 PM
You should let us in on the more recent research that you know of that contradicts it.I am not trying to contradict him, I am pointing out that this concept is not "new".

I've been keeping my eyes open for your posts recently. I know you recently bought a copy of "What Evolution Is", and I'm interested in some of your thoughts on it.

GuySmiley
March 14th, 2006, 03:26 PM
I am not trying to contradict him, I am pointing out that this concept is not "new".

I've been keeping my eyes open for your posts recently. I know you recently bought a copy of "What Evolution Is", and I'm interested in some of your thoughts on it.
I only got to read about 30 pages of it so far, I got sidetracked with two other books that I had to read first, but I'm getting back to it next. My kid got tested for dyslexia and has it, so I wanted to read up on that in a hurry, its really interesting, how language works in our heads and all. Anyway . . .

His intro is interesting though, he says quite shortly that evolution is 'change.' He also says he wrote the book with 3 types of readers in mind. Those who want to learn more about evolution in order to defend it, those who are questioning evolution and need to learn more, and those who want to argue against evolution. I thought that was funny.

Lord Vader
March 14th, 2006, 07:51 PM
I urge everyone to go a google search for the keywords "do proteins exist". There is growing evidence that they don't. Has anyone ever seen proof that they exist? Or did you just hear about it a lot from school teachers and the media?

bob b
March 15th, 2006, 11:48 AM
I urge everyone to go a google search for the keywords "do proteins exist". There is growing evidence that they don't. Has anyone ever seen proof that they exist? Or did you just hear about it a lot from school teachers and the media?

It took me a while, but I finally got the message. There are certain people who post on these forums who have nothing useful to say and should properly be simply ignored. Of course Jukia is another fitting example.

Jukia
March 15th, 2006, 12:49 PM
It took me a while, but I finally got the message. There are certain people who post on these forums who have nothing useful to say and should properly be simply ignored. Of course Jukia is another fitting example.

Crushed, I am crushed.

Lord Vader
March 15th, 2006, 05:45 PM
It took me a while, but I finally got the message. There are certain people who post on these forums who have nothing useful to say and should properly be simply ignored. Of course Jukia is another fitting example.

Growing chorus of boos from scientists against evolution at the end of a google search: not there. Growing dissent in the sci. community: not there. Alarm bells being sounded against evolution at the end of a google search: not there. Anyone can look. Anyone can look. Anyone can look. Anyone can look. Anyone can look.

I looked at the first 6 pages; I'm not even sure I saw an instance of the word "evolution". Was there some expectation that no one was going to bother to look since the subject is too abstruse to bother? If it's such a "hot" area of contention, one would expect to at least get a match for one of the big anti-science websites, but none were found. Is it on page 24? I didn't go that far.

And now you want folks to ignore me after one facetious post (regarding this subject). I don't know, Bob, I'm feeling too much like a cop in an episode of, "Cops" who is standing their listening to the "explanation" of someone they pulled over.

bowhunter
March 15th, 2006, 07:10 PM
Johnny,

And those who stated, "What Johnny said."

You are the one who is wrong on all of your NO's.

Evolution has to have a start, when is that Johnny? Hmmm? Show ONE time that a dog transitioned into a dat, half dog half cat, or any other animal doing so. A dog is a dog is a dog. A cat is a cat is a cat.

The funny part is, MOST Americans get it, the brainwashing in Public Schools notwithstanding.

SUTG
March 15th, 2006, 07:43 PM
Show ONE time that a dog transitioned into a dat, half dog half cat, or any other animal doing so. A dog is a dog is a dog. A cat is a cat is a cat.

:rotfl:

You might want to join bob b in enrollling in that Biology 101 class. The only thing you are showing with this kind of nonsense is that you have no understanding of the theory. Of course you can refute the crazy bob b version of evolution, but who cares? No-one is interested in that.

No, no-one has ever seen a creature that is one third giraffe, one third elepahant, and one third human.

bowhunter
March 15th, 2006, 08:25 PM
:rotfl:

You might want to join bob b in enrollling in that Biology 101 class. The only thing you are showing with this kind of nonsense is that you have no understanding of the theory. Of course you can refute the crazy bob b version of evolution, but who cares? No-one is interested in that.

No, no-one has ever seen a creature that is one third giraffe, one third elepahant, and one third human.

And no one has ever seen a skeleton of one either.

Lord Vader
March 15th, 2006, 08:58 PM
Evolution has to have a start, when is that Johnny? Hmmm? Show ONE time that a dog transitioned into a dat, half dog half cat, or any other animal doing so. A dog is a dog is a dog. A cat is a cat is a cat.



HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

Hey Cleetus, you ever see a half Cat, half Dog?
I shore aint, Zeke.
Well dem scientists say there was a Dog what turned into a Giraffe and then it turned into a man!
Well, Zeke, maybe they been drinkin' some o' your Moonshine!
Har! Good one, Cleetus.

bowhunter
March 15th, 2006, 09:29 PM
Yep, THAT'S mature los vaderos.

You don't even see the irony in your own words. AMAZING

Johnny
March 15th, 2006, 11:35 PM
Maybe bowhunter is an extremely subtle and patient troll.

Jukia
March 16th, 2006, 06:37 AM
Maybe bowhunter is an extremely subtle and patient troll.

Or maybe not, maybe he is just uninformed.

bob b
March 16th, 2006, 08:44 AM
Nevertheless, you haven't seen the half-dog half-cat either have you?

Which brings up an interesting point. What are so called "mosaic" creatures doing in nature anyway? Don't they know that their presence falsifies the strongest argument for common descent?

Like "convergent" evolution, one can't get rid of falsifying evidence by just choosing to give it a "fancy" (so-called scientific) name.


No, no-one has ever seen a creature that is one third giraffe, one third elepahant, and one third human.

Yes, but if they did it would just be another case of a "mosaic". No problem. Our theory is so flexible it can explain anything!!!

avatar382
March 16th, 2006, 10:43 AM
There doesn't have to be a half-dog or half-cat. Dogs didn't necessarily comes from cats, and cats didn't necessarily come from dogs.

The theory of evolution states that dogs and cats share a common ancenstor. That ancestor need not resemble a dog, OR a cat!

bob b
March 16th, 2006, 11:44 AM
There doesn't have to be a half-dog or half-cat. Dogs didn't necessarily comes from cats, and cats didn't necessarily come from dogs.

The theory of evolution states that dogs and cats share a common ancenstor. That ancestor need not resemble a dog, OR a cat!

So what was it and why do you believe that such a hypothetical creature ever existed?

GuySmiley
March 16th, 2006, 12:58 PM
There doesn't have to be a half-dog or half-cat. Dogs didn't necessarily comes from cats, and cats didn't necessarily come from dogs.

The theory of evolution states that dogs and cats share a common ancenstor. That ancestor need not resemble a dog, OR a cat!
You guys are so confusing. What do you mean it need not resemble a dog or a cat? Shouldn't the common ancestor have four legs, probably a tail, etc. Shouldn't it resemble a dog and a cat in many ways? The closest common ancestor according to your theory shouldn't look like a snake for example right? I mean all the characteristics that cats and dogs share probably didn't evolve independantly right? (according to your theory)

SUTG
March 16th, 2006, 12:59 PM
Our theory is so flexible it can explain anything!!!

What theory are you talking about? What do you call the crackpot version of evolution you've been peddling around here?

avatar382
March 16th, 2006, 02:13 PM
You guys are so confusing. What do you mean it need not resemble a dog or a cat? Shouldn't the common ancestor have four legs, probably a tail, etc. Shouldn't it resemble a dog and a cat in many ways? The closest common ancestor according to your theory shouldn't look like a snake for example right? I mean all the characteristics that cats and dogs share probably didn't evolve independantly right? (according to your theory)

Well, you're right in that one would expect the ancestor to share general traits with the descendants. In the case of dog/cat, you could say that the ansestor probably didn't lay eggs, probably lived on land, yes - probably had four legs and a tail, probably mammailian...

Remember, "resemble" is a relative term. I meant mainly that the anscestor need not have any cat-specific or dog-specific (as opposed to mammal specific) traits.

avatar382
March 16th, 2006, 02:19 PM
So what was it and why do you believe that such a hypothetical creature ever existed?

Honestly, I don't know what the common anscestor(s) between dogs and cats is.

I believe such a creature existed because of all of the evidence supporting the TOE (which I can link you to if you are really interested.

For one thing, dogs and cats share Kingdom, Phylum, Class and Order.

death2impiety
March 16th, 2006, 02:29 PM
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

Hey Cleetus, you ever see a half Cat, half Dog?
I shore aint, Zeke.
Well dem scientists say there was a Dog what turned into a Giraffe and then it turned into a man!
Well, Zeke, maybe they been drinkin' some o' your Moonshine!
Har! Good one, Cleetus.

Hey paw, how'd dat dar Vader evolve himself a sense of humor?
I don't know cheebus, he must been related to dem dar laughin hi eenas.

bob b
March 16th, 2006, 04:31 PM
Honestly, I don't know what the common anscestor(s) between dogs and cats is.

I believe such a creature existed because of all of the evidence supporting the TOE (which I can link you to if you are really interested.

OK, as long as its a credible site such as a university.

Jukia
March 17th, 2006, 06:48 AM
OK, as long as its a credible site such as a university.

Is this a serious comment? Is this the new creationist definition of credible? Have we thrown away AiG, Creation Safaries, etc.?

avatar382
March 17th, 2006, 09:24 AM
Is this a serious comment? Is this the new creationist definition of credible? Have we thrown away AiG, Creation Safaries, etc.?

Heh, I was about to say the same!


OK, as long as its a credible site such as a university.

Bob, are science textbooks and articles in scientific journals "credible"?

bob b
March 17th, 2006, 10:00 AM
Heh, I was about to say the same!
Bob, are science textbooks and articles in scientific journals "credible"?

In the vast majority of scientific areas they are, but in the field of Origins, the study of what happened in the past, there is far less credibility, in fact, as I have shown, there are numerous insurmountable contradictions.

The reason? Simple. One cannot observe or set up experiments to directly test what happened in the past. One can only infer what happened based on one's assumptions and today's evidence. If one assumes that the creation of the universe and life had to occur "naturally" then all inferences would of course lead to the conclusion that they happened "naturally, whether in fact they did or not.

This is why some scientists (as well as internet forum addicts) spend so much time trying to prove that there is no God, because then their "naturalistic" assumptions regarding the universe and life thereby gain more credibility.

avatar382
March 17th, 2006, 10:19 AM
In the vast majority of scientific areas they are, but in the field of Origins, the study of what happened in the past, there is far less credibility, in fact, as I have shown, there are numerous insurmountable contradictions.

The reason? Simple. One cannot observe or set up experiments to test what happened in the past. One can only infer what happened based on one's assumptions and today's evidence. If one assumes that the creation of the universe and life had to occur "naturally" then all inferences would of course lead to the conclusion that they happened "naturally, whether in fact they did or not.

This is why some scientists (as well as internet forum addicts) spend so much time trying to prove that there is no God, because then their "naturalistic" assumptions regarding the universe and life thereby gain more credibility.

1.) Were you serious when you said you would consider material on a university site to be credible? You realize that university professors generally publish in scientific journals - so I don't understand why one would be credible and the other not...

2.) The "numerous contradictions" you allude to have been in the area of abiogenesis/origin of life/origin of the universe, wholly outside the scope of the TOE. I've said it a thousand times and I'll say it again: the TOE is about diversity of life, not the origin of life.

3.) All science is naturalistic by necessity. Naturalism is the reason science has progressed and we enjoy technology today. Do you deny this?

4.) I personally have no interest in "proving" there is no God. As an agnostic, I believe such knowledge is probably unattainable by humans. My interest is in correcting misinformation about the theory of evolution. As I have pointed out, there are theists that accept the TOE, and the TOE is compatible with theism.

For scientists, the question of the supernatural (God, etc) is wholly outside of the scope of science. Science, being naturalistic, makes no statement for or against the existance of God or the supernatural. It is only literalists who claim so when science renders their literalistic beliefs obsolete.

Jukia
March 17th, 2006, 10:21 AM
This is why some scientists (as well as internet forum addicts) spend so much time trying to prove that there is no God, because then their "naturalistic" assumptions regarding the universe and life thereby gain more credibility.


Total and absolute rubbish.

bob b
March 17th, 2006, 01:03 PM
1.) Were you serious when you said you would consider material on a university site to be credible? You realize that university professors generally publish in scientific journals - so I don't understand why one would be credible and the other not...

The evidence presented on a university website is in the vast majority of cases very credible even if conclusions about the implications of such evidence is not always equally so.


2.) The "numerous contradictions" you allude to have been in the area of abiogenesis/origin of life/origin of the universe, wholly outside the scope of the TOE. I've said it a thousand times and I'll say it again: the TOE is about diversity of life, not the origin of life.

Wrong. The key contradictions are in the ToE. Check the WEASEL thread.


3.) All science is naturalistic by necessity. Naturalism is the reason science has progressed and we enjoy technology today. Do you deny this?

Of course not. Why do you think I call myself a "science lover"?


4.) I personally have no interest in "proving" there is no God. As an agnostic, I believe such knowledge is probably unattainable by humans. My interest is in correcting misinformation about the theory of evolution. As I have pointed out, there are theists that accept the TOE, and the TOE is compatible with theism.

It may be "compatible" with theism ("The Force"), but it is definitely not compatible with Christianity, Judaism or Islam.


For scientists, the question of the supernatural (God, etc) is wholly outside of the scope of science. Science, being naturalistic, makes no statement for or against the existance of God or the supernatural.

Oh, but they do by implication. By claiming that some things are a "fact" which are not a fact they lure people into believing that their speculations have proven that the Bible is false, and therefore cause many Christians to lose confidence in the accuracy of scripture. If evolutionists made no statements for or against God or the supernatural then why do they insist on examining scripture in order to discredit it?


It is only literalists who claim so when science renders their literalistic beliefs obsolete.

See? You do the same thing don't you?

At this point in the game the only leg you have left to stand on is radiometric dating, and that one is beginning to show signs of wavering in the wind.

Why do you think that long ages would be evidence for evolution? Are you one of those who believe that "given enough time anything can happen?"