If there is 1 chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion that evolution is correct then that is far more a chance than the chance that there was an eternal all knowing creator god-thingy that used his magic spells to poof everything into existence out of nothing..With this question Christians are simply trying to redirect attention away from their own failures.
If there is 1 chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion that evolution is correct then that is far more a chance than the chance that there was an eternal all knowing creator god-thingy that used his magic spells to poof everything into existence out of nothing..With this question Christians are simply trying to redirect attention away from their own failures.
If there is 1 chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion that evolution is correct then that is far more a chance than the chance that there was an eternal all knowing creator god-thingy that used his magic spells to poof everything into existence out of nothing..With this question Christians are simply trying to redirect attention away from their own failures.
(res.) number of planets. So to express the number of times we expect life to form out of evolution can be said the limit as x approaches infinity of x times 1 over infinity. This equals 1 and therefore says that life must happen at least once. This is a pretty conservative estimate actually and I would love to actually propose further research into it.
Lets have a math lesson! In simple terms probability can be described as the number of time some hing can/has happened over the total of fails and successes. So lets break this down. There is a given probability for evolution so one over some number. That there shows that it is possible if it were impossible the probability of it would equal zero. Okay no into a little more heavy stuff!! Lets say that the chance of evolution and life ever spontaneously coming to existence is (cont.)
(res.) If it is nearly impossible then it can be said that it is 1 over infinity which approximately is zero but yet it is not. To figure out how many times a thing will happen. You take the probability of it happening times how many times it can happen, or x times the probability. So in this case the probability will be representing the probability of life coming through evolution on any planet. The universe is really big and has a large amount of stars and there for almost infinite (cont.)
Sincere and genuine people seeking the truth should look at the scientific accuracy of the quran and they will see it is the undeniable truth - take care
islam accepts the concept of evolution BUT not from one species to another.
@Maj555 Muslims "prove" the scientific accuracy of the Quran in the same way that other religions prove their Holy Reference Manuals - by interpreting vague passages as if they were specific and by ignoring anything they don't want to address.
@5tonyvvvv Amino acids likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002).
@5tonyvvvv Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).
@warren52nz LOL..These are assumptions..If this chemistry works lets see a cell?..Atheist are so stubborn, they think this RNA research could happen on a primordial earth..HAHAHA
Synthesizing machines trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment, along with activated bases,which were not made from scratch.and controlled TEMPERATURES!!!! would all be found on a primordial earth???
@5tonyvvvv Well your real problem is that Evolution is an established FACT! So any problems you may have with it have to face that. Don't forget there were 3 billion years to get it right. THREE BILLION!!!!
You may not have the background in Biology to put in a paper that disproves it but thousands of others have. And not even one of them has been able to even put a dent in the Theory of Evolution for over 150 years. You may as well give up. Denying it because you don't like it is silly.
@warren52nz "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life.not time and chance.
(Pizzarello and Weber 2004)...LOL..In 2009 jack szostak tried to make artificial, life just like Craig venter in 2008..all they did was copy and borrow information and insert digital code from other living sources..nothing was created!!! ..Homochirality has not been solved.
The probability of water molecules evaporating from anywhere on the Earth and subsequently coming together above my head to produce a raindrop that hits me on the head is - 1 in 10 to the one septillion power. That many zeros is about one million times greater than all of the characters in all of the books and copies of books ever created by man…
Um, okay.. But who designed the designer, and who in turn designed that designer, etc, etc..? Sticking designers into your already evidence free theory just makes the solution infinitely more complex and therefore infinitely less likely to be correct (you might want to Google William of Ockham..)
Other fun fact is, no matter how meager a chance is, number do not deny possibility that there IS a chance.So using probability calculations to disprove something is straight out stupid by itself.
@bustayoface I don' t know where I used irony in this video or this thread. However, irony permeates creationism from the insistence that scientists are arrogant and creationists are humble to claim that scientists are dishonest and creationists are just trying to ask honest questions.
@TheFallibleFiend : Creationism is an irrational response to a gap in scientific knowledge. I agree that science does not have all the answers (yet), but Creationism is by no means a valid equivalent to evolution (which is proven). Just because we don't know all the mechanisms involved in evolution, that doesn't mean evolution is not a proven fact and it definitely isn't evidence for Creationism.
The chances of life occurring are indeed rather small in our limited view of the universe. However worth considering is the positively massive number of planets that exist. More planets exist than humankind can collectively imagine or catalog.
No matter how small the chances are, as long as they are non-zero, they're practically guaranteed to occur given the massive size of the universe. Life had to occur somewhere. It's not that the universe was made for life, it's that we could only be here.
I've come up with a theory about something unlikely not happening. You can say the Big Bang and evolution have incredibly low chances of happening, (the probability of occurrence is minimal). But my theory goes like this. If given time, anything that is possible will happen, if unimpeded. So you can say that the Big Bang has only a 1 in 1000000000000000000 chance of happening, since it had an infinite amount of time to occur, it had to have happened. Same goes for evolution.
Alot of Scientists, (Physicists looking at the construction of the universe, and biologists looking at DNA), are starting to see how mind blowingly complex the world is, and that evolution just couldn't happen, that the world was designed by an intelligence with a purpose.
@Gilbertus1986 - No it is evident you have not done your homework, unless you consider regurgitating previously debunked crap from creationist websites, work.
.
Transitional forms abound.
.
Natural processes (including natural selection) can and do account for INCREASES in both the amount of genetic material and for the increases in the information contained in that material.
.
Mendel did not have enough data to declare that "Species do not transform..." Anyway, he has since been proven WRONG.
@Noisegator Lol.. I already KNOW you don't study biology..
Give me proof of natural selection increasing the genetic information within a cell... Lol the original poster here cannot, and he seems like an intelligent guy, so it is highly likely you will not either.
@Gilbertus1986 Try Google- it's a search engine. Type "mutation increasing information". For a primer watch this video watch?v=I14KTshLUkg. For more information, seek modern biology text books or scholarly articles and books written by scientists, not christian apologists.
.
There are many mechanism by which new genetic variance and additional material are introduced into cell lines. Natural selection does not add material but it does import information about the environment into the organism.
"Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isnt anyone listening?" Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Father of Genetics.
@Gilbertus1986 Mendel was brilliant. But I note that you don't have the same disregard for him because he faked data that creationists usually have for Haeckel. I wonder why that is. Anyway, science has progressed in over one hundred years. The quote is irrelevant.
If I haven't put forward a challenge then why do you avoid answering it, and giving BS in retort. I thought I was going to have a good scientific converstation. Rather than get mocked for asking a logical question that leaves you avoiding it.
@Gilbertus1986 No. You're not interested in a scientific conversation. You're interested in rejecting whatever science disagrees with your religion. As with the subject of transitionals, you're going to respond with some nonsense you got from Icons of Evolution or some other creationist tripe. That's not a discussion. If you're truly interested, you would locate materials on the web (as a start), maybe checking out CDK007's video on the subject - 1w0FiwfyUMM
Lol yet again you dodge away from answering a logical and valid question.. I will look at your site and I will put up some information for YOU to see too. We can't have the exchange of information being one-sided can we. However it I need to get sleep, I am in Australia and it is 2am!!!
@Gilbertus1986 I'm not dodging a question. I'm simply choosing not to invest a lot of energy in something when I expect you to just ignore the science and repeat what you think is logical. Your question is not logical or valid. It would nevertheless be a good question, even though it implies false facts, if you were actually trying to learn, but you aren't.
For starters, it's not sex vs no-sex any more than it's eye vs no-eye, or life vs no-life. Evolution doesn't require things to just pop into existence.
@TheFallibleFiend Mutations are detrimental, this is proven everyday, cancer and deformitiy are trademarks of mutation. There has yet to be ONE advantageous mutation. Since evolution is based on advantageous mutations, you would think that there would be many of them.Actually our DNA has their own self-repairation mechanism for random mutations, so if random mutations are suposed to be good in terms for evolution, then why do our body try to undo mutations?
@Gilbertus1986 Some mutations are detrimental. Some few are beneficial. The majority are neutral. Bacterial resistance is also a hallmark of evolution (not good for us, but good for the bacteria).
You also make the common mistake of positing a false dichotomy - either things are X or they are not X. Evolution works in the presence of many competing factors.
Hence the fact that the scientific community doesn't agree, means zip. Since the establishment is built upon intolerance of new ideas. The world is a facinating place that literally screams... DESIGN.. Just look at how complex a cell is and the hundreds of processes needed for it to stay alive and the thousands of proteins and enzymes needed for life to happen.
@TheFallibleFiend Obviously you haven't seen the complexity of life on the micro scale. A single cell is more complicated than ANY man-made machine ever will be, yet the machines are DESIGNED, (even though they are inferior)... However we are to believe that the cell was made by random chance, despite its glaringly obvious complexity. How can design be unscientific as you claim?
@Gilbertus1986 - Complicated and/or not understood =/= designed, as much as you may want it to.
Have you read any literature on the subject? This is an old canard that creationists actually advise not to use now, as it one of the fastest ways to demonstrate significant ignorance of evolutionary processes.
Go to cdk007 channel or simply search for video "The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak", you can skip right to 1:45, there's nothing too complex and impossible about the very begining of life.
DESIGN you say, do you realize, that no engineer would ever design something that ineffective and flawed.. hell, STUPID as mammal's eye? That includes human eye too. We have inherited that from the times, were our ancestors were small organisms with translucent bodies.
How can all this happen bit by bit. Each process has many parts, without one the process stops... Like a processing line. Look at respiration in the mitochondria, (krebs cycle + oxidative phosporylation). ATP Synthase is THE worlds smallest motor / generator... yet it was DESIGNED at the beginning of life.
It is unrealistic all of this came from RANDOM, BLIND chance...
Dude, RANDOMNESS is the premise of Evolution!! Random chance, no designer. Richard Dawkins book, "The BLIND watchmaker" goes into this in much more detail.
Otherwise if it was designed, it implies a designer... ie- GOD... Which is proof of God, or an otherworldy intelligence.
Also if there is a purpose for life, that too implies an intelligence in the design of life to fulfill that purpose.
@HunterHornet That seems unlikely since he wrote on his website, "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."
I'm talking about the FIRST complex multicellular organism... Ie there are no others before it... How could it reproduce? Please answer instead of sweeping the question under the rug..
@TheFallibleFiend Stop stalling dude.. You know what I am getting at..
The first organism that needed to reproduce via sexual means, MUST have had a pair to mate with, evolving at the same time, place and in the same way... However with RANDOM CHANGE, (a blind watch maker), this is more impossible, than life coming about on its own.
@Gilbertus1986 How can I be stalling when I've stated repeatedly that I have no intention of doing your homework for you? I don't owe you your homework. You can't even be bothered to start with wiki. It's doubtful you would even understand it anyway, I guess, but you could at least try.
@TheFallibleFiend Lol.. If you have nothing to say, don't change the subject by attempting to belittle me with slander. I never asked you to do my homework for me, nor to explain anything...
All I asked was to think about the "theory" of evolution in a logical manner... :) Without any pre-concieved notions or ideas that the media may have told you..lol
@Gilbertus1986 The "media" doesn't appear to know much more about it than the average creationist. You demand evidence that is freely available on the internet. You knew beforehand you were going to reject whatever evidence existed - without even understanding the issues. I'm sure you thought of the thermodynamic argument on your own and the probability stuff, and the stuff about transitionals. You're not after evidence. You're out to justify your irrational beliefs.
@TheFallibleFiend There you go with the assumptions again.. No dude I have researched this topic and I am a reformed Christian-evolutionist. I used to believe that God did evolution... However with the evidence I have found, I reject evolution as a logical "theory"..
@TheFallibleFiend I have done my homework, and just because I disagree with your beliefs please don't say I know nothing. I have put forward a logic challenge before with the "The first organism that needed to reproduce via sexual means", will you respond to this?
@Gilbertus1986 No. You have engaged in some activity which you believe to be homework. You know lots of things - most of which are false. You haven't put forward a challenge. There is so much wrong with your reasoning it's hard to know where to begin. To begin, if I have no explanation at all that doesn't mean evolution is impossible. Like most creationists, you're a lot better at using the word "logic" in a sentence than you are in actually employing it.
@TheFallibleFiend Again you are avoiding my question with BS, just like a politician.. Just saying, "oh you don't know", is crap and you know it. Lol What I asked you was a very logical question, and the fact that you cannot seem to find an answer. Seems to prove that the evidence for evolution is "shakey" at best.
@TheFallibleFiend This is (hopefully) my last post to you, please consider this and perhaps do some research into the wonderful world of microbiology. Or perhaps join a decent forum, (I have and the people I am talking to know this MUCH MUCH more than I)
Mendel and his experiements were ignored since they provided evidence contrary to that of Dawins ideas. Pasteur too was ignored as he challenged the popular belief of germs at the time... Yet Pasteur was PROVEN right... Same with many other scientists.. My lectuer told me of the person who discovered the workings of ATP synthase.. Yet this man was laughed at... Yet after a few years, he was PROVEN right, and was awarded the nobel prize for his work.
@TheFallibleFiend There is no proof behind the genetics of evolution. Nor is there proof in how life came about from nature. Nor is there proof that said "life", changed into you and me. The fossil record IS incomplete, palentologists WILL admit that. Geological timeline is worked out based on circular reasoning, with a prediposition to a darwinistic view of the world... NOT ON FACTS.. C14 dating is fallable, as it is based on assumptions, with a prediposition to a darwinistic view of the world.
@Gilbertus1986 - Sexual reproduction evolved by stages. Exclusive sexual differentiation, as expressed in mammals, is not the same in earlier life forms. The sexual exchange of genetic material was an optional adjunct to asexual methods like budding or fission or even parthenogenesis.
.
Sexual reproduction was not essential but it was advantageous. Eventually it became the only way for more complex animals and plants, but that waas not always so.
@Gilbertus1986 Of course I can support what I said. I leave making unsupported claims to the anti-scientific propaganda belchers like yourself, since you are so adept at it.
.
So how about you list a few of the Physicists and Biologists who say that evolution "just couldn't happen", since there are "a lot" of them, that should be easy.
.
My points on sexual reproduction are common knowledge for anyone having a high school education (assuming they paid some attention). Do some reading.
Also the info I get ARE NOT FROM CREATIONIST SITES.. This is an assumption on your part. Ok lets use some deductive logic... When the first mulicellular organsim "evolved", what sex was it? Was it male or female? How was it able to reproduce by itself... Were others needed to "evolve" at the exact same time, in the exact same way for a population to form. How can this be possible if it is RANDOM.. Its illogical dude, just think about it :)
So I'll take it there is no evidence? Don't worry I have asked this question to many people and NONE of them has given a logical and proven answer.
Evolution is unproved and unproveable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable. Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward of the 100th anniversary edition of Darwins book, Origin of Species in 1959)
This evoutionist agrees, THERE IS NO PROOF DUDE!! lol
@Gilbertus1986 You can take it that you haven't done your homework and are not qualified to judge a logical answer. Fortunately, the progress of actual science doesn't depend on the willingness of non-participants to do actual homework as opposed just repeating stupid stuff they were spoon-fed on creationist web sites.
What are the so-called transitional fossils?... I have multiple quotes from palentologists, (some are evolutionists), that say there are none as of yet... ;)
@Gilbertus1986 I'm sure you have lots of out of context quotes that you have been spoon-fed by creationist sources. None of that refutes actual evidence. If you had any genuine interest, you could find transitionals with a simple web search: archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, Lucy, eohippus. Take your pick.
@TheFallibleFiend Tetrapod footprints found in Poland and reported in Nature in January 2010 were securely dated at 18 million years older than Tiktaalik, which means that Tiktaalik cannot be part of the fish-to-legged-animal transition, which is now considered to have occurred at around 400 million years ago. [reference to Nature paper]
@Gilbertus1986 Interestingly, Per Ahlberg - and all the other members of that research team - accept evolution as a fact. Frankly, I thought creationists laughed at and rejected Ahlberg, because of his reconstruction (sawing and reconfiguring) of Ichthyostega. The prints are about 10 my older than Tiktaalik, which does not mean that Tiktaalik was not a transitional. Hint: calling something a transitional between A & B doesn't mean it's either a direct descendant or ancestor of A and B.
@TheFallibleFiend The evolution of the horse, (eohippus), is false. The fragments of fossils used are from many different countries. Also three-toed horses have been found in the same rock strata as one-toed? How did they evolve from the other? Also the amount of ribs decreases then increases then decreases how can evolution cope with this?
@Gilbertus1986 The evolution of the horse is not false. Yes, you can have different species represented in the same strata - just as we have different species of animals alive today.
@TheFallibleFiend Yet how did the one toed form EVOLVE FROM the three toed form, when they lived TOGETHER.. What you say Defies all evolutionary processes.. lol.. "When my information changes I change my opinion, what do you do Sir?"
@Gilbertus1986 Makes no difference that they lived approximately together. What evolutionary process does it violate? You demonstrate only that you have a comic book understanding of evolution.
@TheFallibleFiend Perhaps YOU should do some PROPER research before you debunk someone who disagrees with you. I haven't seen any evidence from you, and all you say is that you are right....????
@TheFallibleFiend Yep and I have just disproved your "pointers"... Your transitional forms have been PROVEN false by science dude... IF you had done YOUR homework you would have known this... Stop using false evidence and show me some REAL evidence... You said there was a "vast preponderance" of it, how about other things appart from fossils?
@TheFallibleFiend Never asked you to do my homework. I am asking you to provide EVIDENCE that hasn't been proven false. Otherwise I may start to think you are a liar..lol
@Gilbertus1986 The evidence has been not been proven false. What you think is irrelevant. The progress of science doesn't depend on the understanding of those who are intellectually lazy.
@TheFallibleFiend Lol I never knew name calling and slander were part of a scientists "tools"... I ask you for evidence, you procure some, I show they are false, you call me lazy?? How is that logical dude. You say they aren't false when the information out there says otherwise. Ignorance is bliss I guess ;)
@TheFallibleFiend Same thing. The evidence you demand is revealed by honest homework - which you have not done. Claiming that you've done your homework is not the same as actually doing your homework. Claiming that you've refuted something isnt' the same as actually refuting it. You have no interest in the actual evidence.
Evolution is unproved and unproveable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable. Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward of the 100th anniversary edition of Darwins book, Origin of Species in 1959)
@Gilbertus1986 Evolution is not proved in a mathematical sense any more than any other scientific law or theory, such as gravitation. However, it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Special creation is not unthinkable, but it's also not a scientific explanation. Evolution is demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt to those who have actually studied it (which excludes people who just repeat silly stuff they read somewhere without understanding).
@TheFallibleFiend I have studied evolution, it seems to me you really don't know what these proofs are. You keep spouting that there is irrefutable proof and "beyond reasonable doubt" I don't want your babble I want the EVIDENCE! THAT is what Science is about... And if the FACTs point to a creating force, then it Scientists SHOULD accept that.
@Gilbertus1986 It seems to me that if you had actually studied evolution, you wouldn't be reciting provably false assertions that are very common on creationist non-science sites. No, you don' t want the evidence; if you did, you would have found it by now. You're not going to get far with your comic book understanding of science and an unwillingness to engage in anything remotely resembling actual homework on the subject.
@TheFallibleFiend So basically you are saying you have no proof..lol.. What a joke!! Otherwise you'd say it to prove yourself and not look like a goose. Attempting to debunk me will not change the fact thatI have provided evidence, you cannot. :)
Whatever happened to your "vast preponderance of evidence"?
@TheFallibleFiend and in relation to your transitional fossils... Archteroptx isn't one of them. SCIENTISTS say it is a Bird, just a bird.. Also research Fossil BIRD, Confuciusornius... You may actually learn some REAL science.
@TheFallibleFiend Actually it does. Since it is still a bird, it means that it isn't a transitional form from the non-bird ancestor... there is no link conecting archteroptx to a non-bird ancestor.. If there is no link then how can it logically be called a transitional fossil. Furthermore, confuciusornius is almost like a modern bird yet it lived around 140 M years ago.... the same time as Archteroptx.. therefore they didn't evolve from one another.
Fossil records are fallible, have no intermediate fossils, Millers experiment proves nothing (I can prove this), Heyckles embryo pictures were FAKES, mutations are ONLY detrimental, natural selection doesn't add NEW genetic data, where is your proof?
@Gilbertus1986 You're reciting stuff you read and don't understand. There is plenty of very strong evidence for evolution, but most of what you think you know is just plain wrong. Be honest, you're not really interested in understanding the evidence - you're interested in complaining about what you don't understand. Mutations are not only detrimental, Haeckle's drawings were faked, but not all embryology is wrong because of it, Miller's exps prove something, there are plenty of intermediates.
@TheFallibleFiend I understand the science perhaps more than you. It seems you are confused about laws and theories.. My lectuer says theories are "laws in progress", due to lack of evidence. Millers experiment proved that life cannot form with oxygen and also cannot form without it...lol..
It is the same defence strategy. If you can't provide evidence, just say they are stupid...I am STILL waiting for YOUR PROOF... FACTUAL PROOF.. SCIENCE IS FACTUAL
No dude, to believe in Evolution is to say that there was no creating force behind.. How life formed... Hence they are saying that life formed by itself... Evolution is Materialistic... Yet to even believe in evolution one must have "Faith"; to believe that time can accomplish such odds...
@Gilbertus1986 Believing evolution may or may not require faith, but accepting evolution only requires understanding. Magic is not an explanation. To say that the vast preponderance of physical evidence supports and is explained by evolution doesn't require faith - and it doesn't say anything about God.
@TheFallibleFiend There is no "vast preponderance of physical evidence", otherwise it would be a Law.. Probability defies evolution, thermodynamics defie evolution, from the evidence mutations are bad defies evolution, chemical creation of DNA and proteins, doesn't happen, defies evolution. It really is just an ideology a "religion" ;)
@Gilbertus1986 That you are unaware of the evidence or choose to ignore it does not make it disappear. There is a vast preponderance of evidence. The terms law and theory aren't determined by amount of evidence - they're determined by what a model does. If it describes what is happening, it's called a law. If it describes HOW it happens, it's called a theory.
@Gilbertus1986 The theory of evolution does not depend on any theory of abiogenesis. Thermodynamics does not defy evolution; nor vice versa. Your facts are not facts. However, evolution can indeed appear to be an ideology to one who is ignorant of the science.
@TheFallibleFiend Dude I KNOW the science I have just given you science. Yet you say I am wrong.. Without giving proof of such claims. I used to believe evolution myself till I saw that Science does in fact defy it. I am curious for you to state these so-called "proofs" of evolution.
Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. Nor is it random chance. Evolution is governed by strict laws and rules. This video really on makes you look like an ignorant fool.
i don't clearly understand your point. The video opposes creationism - and of course evolution is not related to abiogenesis. The problem is that creationists tie the things together (erroneously).
I did and my original point still stands. Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origins of life. You are constantly saying "evolutionists say", or "They say" People who take stock in evolution can believe whatever they want about how life was created. Evolution only dictates how those organisms change over time not how they came to be.
Then the point of the video eludes you. I'm presenting the creationist perspective which is, of course, a stupid point. I have made the same point you're making in other places. In this video, I show that they're wrong for other another reason as well.
another factor which is omitted by creationists is that many combinations are prohibited.(some combinations are not possible due to geometric constraints)
One can factor in things too, it increases probability. it becomes very likely.
What is more likely is that life started many times and was zapped by random chemicals, however in the end there is a statistical 'pressure' for it come through.
it replicates by definition, then growth is exponential.
Life developed anyway. Given enough time and the right conditions life will develop. An Atheist could say to a theist if asked how do you know life developed from chemicals? The answer is, "were here aren't we" which is like a religious answer but at least there is testable evidence of the claim.
The origin of life can only be considered random if you ignore chemistry. Simple chemicals will react to form more complex compounds, as the end product is thermodynamically or kinetically favoured. Positive and negative charges will attract, even in a random environment.
I probably didn't understand your video in detail because I am not familiar with the backstory about wallowitz's statement or the misuse thereof- but it seems to boil down to the good old thing of being surprised by the fact that one's legs have the exact right length to reach the ground.
not to mention it's probably pretty hard to build a proper mathematical model if so little data is available on the process. Heck, people still have problems building a good model where lots of data is..
The probability of over 50% of the people watching this video owning a cell phone phone is high but the probability that over 50% of the people watching this video owning a cell phone 20 years ago was low. Probabilities are not constant. This means that you can niether pick the present probability of life evolving as it has from the present point in time or the probability of God splitting the Red Sea in the next hour in any argument.
The problem with probability is that almost nobody really understands what it means.
Even the most common example of probability; a deck of cards; is far beyond the comprehension of even myself.
The chance of getting a given shuffle is 1/52! = 1/(8x10^67)
It's like the probability of landing picking an arbitrary point in the universe, and it being in a ball with the radius of Saturn's orbit (going by approximations from Wikipedia).
The chance of getting a given shuffle should be 1/52 * 1/51 * 1/50 * 1/49 all the way down to 1/1 (when there is only one card left in the deck you have a 100% chance (1/1) of getting that card)
What does the exclamation mark mean in the equation?
Since 8x10^67 is not equal to 52 how do you get the same answer when dividing 1 by them?
BTW, the "e" or "engineering" notation can be a little confusing sometimes, since "e" sometimes refers to the base of the natural logarthms (2.718). So it's important to look at the context when we see it used.
Actually, when writing scientific notation in shorthand, one almost always uses the capital letter "E" rather than lower case "e" to avoid confusion. "e" is used as the natural log base, while "E(n) is designated as meaning "10^n"
I personaly believe creationism is such a retrocess. That kind of way of thinking does not do any good to the human society, it's the mental framework that got us into middle age. Even if you're a christian you have to recognize that the mind framework that gave us prosperity as human beings and btw serves as the foundation of democracy is a completely different way of thinking, the one behind the ideas of biogenesis.
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFallibleFiend Even the Catholic church accepts evolution, with the addition that it was a process designed and guided by God.
MrSitemaster2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If there is 1 chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion that evolution is correct then that is far more a chance than the chance that there was an eternal all knowing creator god-thingy that used his magic spells to poof everything into existence out of nothing..With this question Christians are simply trying to redirect attention away from their own failures.
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If there is 1 chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion that evolution is correct then that is far more a chance than the chance that there was an eternal all knowing creator god-thingy that used his magic spells to poof everything into existence out of nothing..With this question Christians are simply trying to redirect attention away from their own failures.
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
If there is 1 chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion that evolution is correct then that is far more a chance than the chance that there was an eternal all knowing creator god-thingy that used his magic spells to poof everything into existence out of nothing..With this question Christians are simply trying to redirect attention away from their own failures.
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Respond to this video... Hey everyone check out the probability of chance video on my channel!
Jusstfnsk8 3 months ago
(res.) number of planets. So to express the number of times we expect life to form out of evolution can be said the limit as x approaches infinity of x times 1 over infinity. This equals 1 and therefore says that life must happen at least once. This is a pretty conservative estimate actually and I would love to actually propose further research into it.
TheHMD93 8 months ago
Lets have a math lesson! In simple terms probability can be described as the number of time some hing can/has happened over the total of fails and successes. So lets break this down. There is a given probability for evolution so one over some number. That there shows that it is possible if it were impossible the probability of it would equal zero. Okay no into a little more heavy stuff!! Lets say that the chance of evolution and life ever spontaneously coming to existence is (cont.)
TheHMD93 8 months ago
(res.) If it is nearly impossible then it can be said that it is 1 over infinity which approximately is zero but yet it is not. To figure out how many times a thing will happen. You take the probability of it happening times how many times it can happen, or x times the probability. So in this case the probability will be representing the probability of life coming through evolution on any planet. The universe is really big and has a large amount of stars and there for almost infinite (cont.)
TheHMD93 8 months ago
@TheHMD93 i meant to say now not no
TheHMD93 8 months ago
Comment removed
ThomasWinkworth 10 months ago
@warren52nz that is a lie!
kdcox1205 11 months ago
@kdcox1205 Nope. Warren was right. Evolution is a fact.
TheFallibleFiend 11 months ago
Homochirality does not disprove evolution. Talk Origins response: CB040
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
Sincere and genuine people seeking the truth should look at the scientific accuracy of the quran and they will see it is the undeniable truth - take care
islam accepts the concept of evolution BUT not from one species to another.
Maj555 1 year ago
@Maj555 Muslims "prove" the scientific accuracy of the Quran in the same way that other religions prove their Holy Reference Manuals - by interpreting vague passages as if they were specific and by ignoring anything they don't want to address.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend . Homochirality proves evolution can never happen..In regards to RNA/DNA - could you please explain the problem of Chirality?
Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments in 1952 - all the amino acids that formed lacked Chirality.!!
It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.or in a test tube
they believe in some chemistry unknown to life and science.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Amino acids likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002).
warren52nz 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).
warren52nz 11 months ago
@warren52nz LOL..These are assumptions..If this chemistry works lets see a cell?..Atheist are so stubborn, they think this RNA research could happen on a primordial earth..HAHAHA
Synthesizing machines trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment, along with activated bases,which were not made from scratch.and controlled TEMPERATURES!!!! would all be found on a primordial earth???
Yeah this is undirected natural processes..LOL
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Well your real problem is that Evolution is an established FACT! So any problems you may have with it have to face that. Don't forget there were 3 billion years to get it right. THREE BILLION!!!!
You may not have the background in Biology to put in a paper that disproves it but thousands of others have. And not even one of them has been able to even put a dent in the Theory of Evolution for over 150 years. You may as well give up. Denying it because you don't like it is silly.
warren52nz 11 months ago
@warren52nz "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life.not time and chance.
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
(Pizzarello and Weber 2004)...LOL..In 2009 jack szostak tried to make artificial, life just like Craig venter in 2008..all they did was copy and borrow information and insert digital code from other living sources..nothing was created!!! ..Homochirality has not been solved.
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Unsurprisingly, homochirality is confusing to the guys who majored in religion instead of science.
TheFallibleFiend 11 months ago
@Maj555 The quran isn't scientifically accurate then. Evolution from one species to another is certainly real.
fudrick43 11 months ago
@Maj555 there is no way to seperate evolution from speciation, you can't take one and not the other, because the SAME process produces speciation.
kotoroshinoto 7 months ago
Fun Fact:
The probability of water molecules evaporating from anywhere on the Earth and subsequently coming together above my head to produce a raindrop that hits me on the head is - 1 in 10 to the one septillion power. That many zeros is about one million times greater than all of the characters in all of the books and copies of books ever created by man…
I think this proves that rain is impossible...
Have a happy day.
apeek7 1 year ago
Um, okay.. But who designed the designer, and who in turn designed that designer, etc, etc..? Sticking designers into your already evidence free theory just makes the solution infinitely more complex and therefore infinitely less likely to be correct (you might want to Google William of Ockham..)
JocastaWoolfolk 1 year ago
Other fun fact is, no matter how meager a chance is, number do not deny possibility that there IS a chance.So using probability calculations to disprove something is straight out stupid by itself.
SwineNahNah 1 year ago
"EVILUTIONISTS"??? So people who do not share your beliefs are evil?
bustayoface 1 year ago
@bustayoface reference: "evilutionists" The title and leading text were ironic. But, yes, some people consider evolution to be evil.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend--I don't understand the irony.
Could you please explain it.
bustayoface 1 year ago
@bustayoface I don' t know where I used irony in this video or this thread. However, irony permeates creationism from the insistence that scientists are arrogant and creationists are humble to claim that scientists are dishonest and creationists are just trying to ask honest questions.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend : Creationism is an irrational response to a gap in scientific knowledge. I agree that science does not have all the answers (yet), but Creationism is by no means a valid equivalent to evolution (which is proven). Just because we don't know all the mechanisms involved in evolution, that doesn't mean evolution is not a proven fact and it definitely isn't evidence for Creationism.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker yip.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend : If you agree with me, your title is very misleading ;-)
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker That's because the title is ironic.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFallibleFiend : Ignorant people consider evolution to be evil. Rational educated people consider it a fact.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
The chances of life occurring are indeed rather small in our limited view of the universe. However worth considering is the positively massive number of planets that exist. More planets exist than humankind can collectively imagine or catalog.
No matter how small the chances are, as long as they are non-zero, they're practically guaranteed to occur given the massive size of the universe. Life had to occur somewhere. It's not that the universe was made for life, it's that we could only be here.
evilagram 1 year ago
i would recommend for everyone who says that evolution cant happen to read "The Collapse of Chaos" by Ian Steward and Jack Cohen
maxf130 1 year ago
I've come up with a theory about something unlikely not happening. You can say the Big Bang and evolution have incredibly low chances of happening, (the probability of occurrence is minimal). But my theory goes like this. If given time, anything that is possible will happen, if unimpeded. So you can say that the Big Bang has only a 1 in 1000000000000000000 chance of happening, since it had an infinite amount of time to occur, it had to have happened. Same goes for evolution.
Jarut195 1 year ago
Alot of Scientists, (Physicists looking at the construction of the universe, and biologists looking at DNA), are starting to see how mind blowingly complex the world is, and that evolution just couldn't happen, that the world was designed by an intelligence with a purpose.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 ''the world was designed... with a purpose''
Please tell the scientific community what the world's purpose is.
We would like to know.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 - No it is evident you have not done your homework, unless you consider regurgitating previously debunked crap from creationist websites, work.
.
Transitional forms abound.
.
Natural processes (including natural selection) can and do account for INCREASES in both the amount of genetic material and for the increases in the information contained in that material.
.
Mendel did not have enough data to declare that "Species do not transform..." Anyway, he has since been proven WRONG.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Lol.. I already KNOW you don't study biology..
Give me proof of natural selection increasing the genetic information within a cell... Lol the original poster here cannot, and he seems like an intelligent guy, so it is highly likely you will not either.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Try Google- it's a search engine. Type "mutation increasing information". For a primer watch this video watch?v=I14KTshLUkg. For more information, seek modern biology text books or scholarly articles and books written by scientists, not christian apologists.
.
There are many mechanism by which new genetic variance and additional material are introduced into cell lines. Natural selection does not add material but it does import information about the environment into the organism.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 You don't understand evolution.
Natural Selection selects from information already there,
Variation in species must be present for this to happen.
Darwin proved variation exists, he didn't know about mutations or DNA, he didn't need to.
gregrutz 1 year ago
"Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isnt anyone listening?" Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Father of Genetics.
weloennigDOTde/mendel02.htm
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Mendel was brilliant. But I note that you don't have the same disregard for him because he faked data that creationists usually have for Haeckel. I wonder why that is. Anyway, science has progressed in over one hundred years. The quote is irrelevant.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
If I haven't put forward a challenge then why do you avoid answering it, and giving BS in retort. I thought I was going to have a good scientific converstation. Rather than get mocked for asking a logical question that leaves you avoiding it.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 No. You're not interested in a scientific conversation. You're interested in rejecting whatever science disagrees with your religion. As with the subject of transitionals, you're going to respond with some nonsense you got from Icons of Evolution or some other creationist tripe. That's not a discussion. If you're truly interested, you would locate materials on the web (as a start), maybe checking out CDK007's video on the subject - 1w0FiwfyUMM
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend
Lol yet again you dodge away from answering a logical and valid question.. I will look at your site and I will put up some information for YOU to see too. We can't have the exchange of information being one-sided can we. However it I need to get sleep, I am in Australia and it is 2am!!!
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I'm not dodging a question. I'm simply choosing not to invest a lot of energy in something when I expect you to just ignore the science and repeat what you think is logical. Your question is not logical or valid. It would nevertheless be a good question, even though it implies false facts, if you were actually trying to learn, but you aren't.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
For starters, it's not sex vs no-sex any more than it's eye vs no-eye, or life vs no-life. Evolution doesn't require things to just pop into existence.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Mutations are detrimental, this is proven everyday, cancer and deformitiy are trademarks of mutation. There has yet to be ONE advantageous mutation. Since evolution is based on advantageous mutations, you would think that there would be many of them.Actually our DNA has their own self-repairation mechanism for random mutations, so if random mutations are suposed to be good in terms for evolution, then why do our body try to undo mutations?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Some mutations are detrimental. Some few are beneficial. The majority are neutral. Bacterial resistance is also a hallmark of evolution (not good for us, but good for the bacteria).
You also make the common mistake of positing a false dichotomy - either things are X or they are not X. Evolution works in the presence of many competing factors.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend
Hence the fact that the scientific community doesn't agree, means zip. Since the establishment is built upon intolerance of new ideas. The world is a facinating place that literally screams... DESIGN.. Just look at how complex a cell is and the hundreds of processes needed for it to stay alive and the thousands of proteins and enzymes needed for life to happen.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Argument from ignorance is a fallacy. Calling what we see "design" is not science.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Obviously you haven't seen the complexity of life on the micro scale. A single cell is more complicated than ANY man-made machine ever will be, yet the machines are DESIGNED, (even though they are inferior)... However we are to believe that the cell was made by random chance, despite its glaringly obvious complexity. How can design be unscientific as you claim?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Creationists say it was random chance, not the theory of evolution. The theory shows how life got complex.
gregrutz 1 year ago
SO HOW DO YOU DEFINE WHATS NOT DESIGNED>
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 - Complicated and/or not understood =/= designed, as much as you may want it to.
Have you read any literature on the subject? This is an old canard that creationists actually advise not to use now, as it one of the fastest ways to demonstrate significant ignorance of evolutionary processes.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Go to cdk007 channel or simply search for video "The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak", you can skip right to 1:45, there's nothing too complex and impossible about the very begining of life.
DESIGN you say, do you realize, that no engineer would ever design something that ineffective and flawed.. hell, STUPID as mammal's eye? That includes human eye too. We have inherited that from the times, were our ancestors were small organisms with translucent bodies.
SwineNahNah 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
How can all this happen bit by bit. Each process has many parts, without one the process stops... Like a processing line. Look at respiration in the mitochondria, (krebs cycle + oxidative phosporylation). ATP Synthase is THE worlds smallest motor / generator... yet it was DESIGNED at the beginning of life.
It is unrealistic all of this came from RANDOM, BLIND chance...
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Not all of evolution is random in the way you think.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend
Dude, RANDOMNESS is the premise of Evolution!! Random chance, no designer. Richard Dawkins book, "The BLIND watchmaker" goes into this in much more detail.
Otherwise if it was designed, it implies a designer... ie- GOD... Which is proof of God, or an otherworldy intelligence.
Also if there is a purpose for life, that too implies an intelligence in the design of life to fulfill that purpose.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Darwin wrote, 'Origin of Species ..throught.. Natural Selection' Not randomness.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gilbertus1986 - "It is unrealistic all of this came from RANDOM, BLIND chance..."
Correct., but evolution says no such thing.
Educate yourself.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
stephen hawkings even admitted that the chance of carbon based life coming about through undirected means is highly unlikely.
HunterHornet 1 year ago
@HunterHornet That seems unlikely since he wrote on his website, "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
I'm talking about the FIRST complex multicellular organism... Ie there are no others before it... How could it reproduce? Please answer instead of sweeping the question under the rug..
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Organisms didn't adopt sexual reproduction as soon as they became multicellular.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Stop stalling dude.. You know what I am getting at..
The first organism that needed to reproduce via sexual means, MUST have had a pair to mate with, evolving at the same time, place and in the same way... However with RANDOM CHANGE, (a blind watch maker), this is more impossible, than life coming about on its own.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 How can I be stalling when I've stated repeatedly that I have no intention of doing your homework for you? I don't owe you your homework. You can't even be bothered to start with wiki. It's doubtful you would even understand it anyway, I guess, but you could at least try.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Lol.. If you have nothing to say, don't change the subject by attempting to belittle me with slander. I never asked you to do my homework for me, nor to explain anything...
All I asked was to think about the "theory" of evolution in a logical manner... :) Without any pre-concieved notions or ideas that the media may have told you..lol
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 The "media" doesn't appear to know much more about it than the average creationist. You demand evidence that is freely available on the internet. You knew beforehand you were going to reject whatever evidence existed - without even understanding the issues. I'm sure you thought of the thermodynamic argument on your own and the probability stuff, and the stuff about transitionals. You're not after evidence. You're out to justify your irrational beliefs.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend There you go with the assumptions again.. No dude I have researched this topic and I am a reformed Christian-evolutionist. I used to believe that God did evolution... However with the evidence I have found, I reject evolution as a logical "theory"..
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend I have done my homework, and just because I disagree with your beliefs please don't say I know nothing. I have put forward a logic challenge before with the "The first organism that needed to reproduce via sexual means", will you respond to this?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 No. You have engaged in some activity which you believe to be homework. You know lots of things - most of which are false. You haven't put forward a challenge. There is so much wrong with your reasoning it's hard to know where to begin. To begin, if I have no explanation at all that doesn't mean evolution is impossible. Like most creationists, you're a lot better at using the word "logic" in a sentence than you are in actually employing it.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Again you are avoiding my question with BS, just like a politician.. Just saying, "oh you don't know", is crap and you know it. Lol What I asked you was a very logical question, and the fact that you cannot seem to find an answer. Seems to prove that the evidence for evolution is "shakey" at best.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend This is (hopefully) my last post to you, please consider this and perhaps do some research into the wonderful world of microbiology. Or perhaps join a decent forum, (I have and the people I am talking to know this MUCH MUCH more than I)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend
Mendel and his experiements were ignored since they provided evidence contrary to that of Dawins ideas. Pasteur too was ignored as he challenged the popular belief of germs at the time... Yet Pasteur was PROVEN right... Same with many other scientists.. My lectuer told me of the person who discovered the workings of ATP synthase.. Yet this man was laughed at... Yet after a few years, he was PROVEN right, and was awarded the nobel prize for his work.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend There is no proof behind the genetics of evolution. Nor is there proof in how life came about from nature. Nor is there proof that said "life", changed into you and me. The fossil record IS incomplete, palentologists WILL admit that. Geological timeline is worked out based on circular reasoning, with a prediposition to a darwinistic view of the world... NOT ON FACTS.. C14 dating is fallable, as it is based on assumptions, with a prediposition to a darwinistic view of the world.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 - Sexual reproduction evolved by stages. Exclusive sexual differentiation, as expressed in mammals, is not the same in earlier life forms. The sexual exchange of genetic material was an optional adjunct to asexual methods like budding or fission or even parthenogenesis.
.
Sexual reproduction was not essential but it was advantageous. Eventually it became the only way for more complex animals and plants, but that waas not always so.
.
This stuff is just a google away, you know.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Do you have ANY proof of what you claimed about sexual reproduction? Or is this all assumptions posted on the internet... :)
A case where people are being told what to think, rather than HOW to think.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Of course I can support what I said. I leave making unsupported claims to the anti-scientific propaganda belchers like yourself, since you are so adept at it.
.
So how about you list a few of the Physicists and Biologists who say that evolution "just couldn't happen", since there are "a lot" of them, that should be easy.
.
My points on sexual reproduction are common knowledge for anyone having a high school education (assuming they paid some attention). Do some reading.
Noisegator 1 year ago
Also the info I get ARE NOT FROM CREATIONIST SITES.. This is an assumption on your part. Ok lets use some deductive logic... When the first mulicellular organsim "evolved", what sex was it? Was it male or female? How was it able to reproduce by itself... Were others needed to "evolve" at the exact same time, in the exact same way for a population to form. How can this be possible if it is RANDOM.. Its illogical dude, just think about it :)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 More evidence that you have done any homework.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Yes I know I have done my homework thankyou :) lol
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
So I'll take it there is no evidence? Don't worry I have asked this question to many people and NONE of them has given a logical and proven answer.
Evolution is unproved and unproveable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable. Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward of the 100th anniversary edition of Darwins book, Origin of Species in 1959)
This evoutionist agrees, THERE IS NO PROOF DUDE!! lol
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 You can take it that you haven't done your homework and are not qualified to judge a logical answer. Fortunately, the progress of actual science doesn't depend on the willingness of non-participants to do actual homework as opposed just repeating stupid stuff they were spoon-fed on creationist web sites.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
What are the so-called transitional fossils?... I have multiple quotes from palentologists, (some are evolutionists), that say there are none as of yet... ;)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I'm sure you have lots of out of context quotes that you have been spoon-fed by creationist sources. None of that refutes actual evidence. If you had any genuine interest, you could find transitionals with a simple web search: archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, Lucy, eohippus. Take your pick.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Tetrapod footprints found in Poland and reported in Nature in January 2010 were securely dated at 18 million years older than Tiktaalik, which means that Tiktaalik cannot be part of the fish-to-legged-animal transition, which is now considered to have occurred at around 400 million years ago. [reference to Nature paper]
Oh sorry did I burst your bubble
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Interestingly, Per Ahlberg - and all the other members of that research team - accept evolution as a fact. Frankly, I thought creationists laughed at and rejected Ahlberg, because of his reconstruction (sawing and reconfiguring) of Ichthyostega. The prints are about 10 my older than Tiktaalik, which does not mean that Tiktaalik was not a transitional. Hint: calling something a transitional between A & B doesn't mean it's either a direct descendant or ancestor of A and B.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend The evolution of the horse, (eohippus), is false. The fragments of fossils used are from many different countries. Also three-toed horses have been found in the same rock strata as one-toed? How did they evolve from the other? Also the amount of ribs decreases then increases then decreases how can evolution cope with this?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 The evolution of the horse is not false. Yes, you can have different species represented in the same strata - just as we have different species of animals alive today.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Yet how did the one toed form EVOLVE FROM the three toed form, when they lived TOGETHER.. What you say Defies all evolutionary processes.. lol.. "When my information changes I change my opinion, what do you do Sir?"
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Makes no difference that they lived approximately together. What evolutionary process does it violate? You demonstrate only that you have a comic book understanding of evolution.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Perhaps YOU should do some PROPER research before you debunk someone who disagrees with you. I haven't seen any evidence from you, and all you say is that you are right....????
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 I'm not here to do your homework for you. I've given you the same kind of "evidence" that you've given me; namely pointers.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Yep and I have just disproved your "pointers"... Your transitional forms have been PROVEN false by science dude... IF you had done YOUR homework you would have known this... Stop using false evidence and show me some REAL evidence... You said there was a "vast preponderance" of it, how about other things appart from fossils?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Never asked you to do my homework. I am asking you to provide EVIDENCE that hasn't been proven false. Otherwise I may start to think you are a liar..lol
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 The evidence has been not been proven false. What you think is irrelevant. The progress of science doesn't depend on the understanding of those who are intellectually lazy.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Lol I never knew name calling and slander were part of a scientists "tools"... I ask you for evidence, you procure some, I show they are false, you call me lazy?? How is that logical dude. You say they aren't false when the information out there says otherwise. Ignorance is bliss I guess ;)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Same thing. The evidence you demand is revealed by honest homework - which you have not done. Claiming that you've done your homework is not the same as actually doing your homework. Claiming that you've refuted something isnt' the same as actually refuting it. You have no interest in the actual evidence.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
Evolution is unproved and unproveable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable. Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward of the 100th anniversary edition of Darwins book, Origin of Species in 1959)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Evolution is not proved in a mathematical sense any more than any other scientific law or theory, such as gravitation. However, it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Special creation is not unthinkable, but it's also not a scientific explanation. Evolution is demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt to those who have actually studied it (which excludes people who just repeat silly stuff they read somewhere without understanding).
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend I have studied evolution, it seems to me you really don't know what these proofs are. You keep spouting that there is irrefutable proof and "beyond reasonable doubt" I don't want your babble I want the EVIDENCE! THAT is what Science is about... And if the FACTs point to a creating force, then it Scientists SHOULD accept that.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 It seems to me that if you had actually studied evolution, you wouldn't be reciting provably false assertions that are very common on creationist non-science sites. No, you don' t want the evidence; if you did, you would have found it by now. You're not going to get far with your comic book understanding of science and an unwillingness to engage in anything remotely resembling actual homework on the subject.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend So basically you are saying you have no proof..lol.. What a joke!! Otherwise you'd say it to prove yourself and not look like a goose. Attempting to debunk me will not change the fact thatI have provided evidence, you cannot. :)
Whatever happened to your "vast preponderance of evidence"?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend and in relation to your transitional fossils... Archteroptx isn't one of them. SCIENTISTS say it is a Bird, just a bird.. Also research Fossil BIRD, Confuciusornius... You may actually learn some REAL science.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 It's being a bird does not detract from its being a transitional.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Actually it does. Since it is still a bird, it means that it isn't a transitional form from the non-bird ancestor... there is no link conecting archteroptx to a non-bird ancestor.. If there is no link then how can it logically be called a transitional fossil. Furthermore, confuciusornius is almost like a modern bird yet it lived around 140 M years ago.... the same time as Archteroptx.. therefore they didn't evolve from one another.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Fossil records are fallible, have no intermediate fossils, Millers experiment proves nothing (I can prove this), Heyckles embryo pictures were FAKES, mutations are ONLY detrimental, natural selection doesn't add NEW genetic data, where is your proof?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 You're reciting stuff you read and don't understand. There is plenty of very strong evidence for evolution, but most of what you think you know is just plain wrong. Be honest, you're not really interested in understanding the evidence - you're interested in complaining about what you don't understand. Mutations are not only detrimental, Haeckle's drawings were faked, but not all embryology is wrong because of it, Miller's exps prove something, there are plenty of intermediates.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend I understand the science perhaps more than you. It seems you are confused about laws and theories.. My lectuer says theories are "laws in progress", due to lack of evidence. Millers experiment proved that life cannot form with oxygen and also cannot form without it...lol..
It is the same defence strategy. If you can't provide evidence, just say they are stupid...I am STILL waiting for YOUR PROOF... FACTUAL PROOF.. SCIENCE IS FACTUAL
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Lol my quotes were from EVOLUTIONISTS!! How can that be creationist stuff????? Perhaps you have a grudge or something??
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
No dude, to believe in Evolution is to say that there was no creating force behind.. How life formed... Hence they are saying that life formed by itself... Evolution is Materialistic... Yet to even believe in evolution one must have "Faith"; to believe that time can accomplish such odds...
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Believing evolution may or may not require faith, but accepting evolution only requires understanding. Magic is not an explanation. To say that the vast preponderance of physical evidence supports and is explained by evolution doesn't require faith - and it doesn't say anything about God.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend There is no "vast preponderance of physical evidence", otherwise it would be a Law.. Probability defies evolution, thermodynamics defie evolution, from the evidence mutations are bad defies evolution, chemical creation of DNA and proteins, doesn't happen, defies evolution. It really is just an ideology a "religion" ;)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 That you are unaware of the evidence or choose to ignore it does not make it disappear. There is a vast preponderance of evidence. The terms law and theory aren't determined by amount of evidence - they're determined by what a model does. If it describes what is happening, it's called a law. If it describes HOW it happens, it's called a theory.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 The theory of evolution does not depend on any theory of abiogenesis. Thermodynamics does not defy evolution; nor vice versa. Your facts are not facts. However, evolution can indeed appear to be an ideology to one who is ignorant of the science.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Dude I KNOW the science I have just given you science. Yet you say I am wrong.. Without giving proof of such claims. I used to believe evolution myself till I saw that Science does in fact defy it. I am curious for you to state these so-called "proofs" of evolution.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. Nor is it random chance. Evolution is governed by strict laws and rules. This video really on makes you look like an ignorant fool.
Jadeshunt 2 years ago
Didn't watch it, did you?
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Comment removed
Lioobayoyo 2 years ago
i don't clearly understand your point. The video opposes creationism - and of course evolution is not related to abiogenesis. The problem is that creationists tie the things together (erroneously).
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
ok, i didn't get what you was explaining. I've taken your quotings as your ideas, sorry ^^.
Lioobayoyo 2 years ago
(i'm not a native english speaker)
BTW, i think that Jadeshunt made the same mistake probably(sic)
Lioobayoyo 2 years ago
it's okay. np. Sometimes I float between seriousness and sarcasm without warning.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Comment removed
Lioobayoyo 2 years ago
I did and my original point still stands. Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origins of life. You are constantly saying "evolutionists say", or "They say" People who take stock in evolution can believe whatever they want about how life was created. Evolution only dictates how those organisms change over time not how they came to be.
Jadeshunt 2 years ago
Then the point of the video eludes you. I'm presenting the creationist perspective which is, of course, a stupid point. I have made the same point you're making in other places. In this video, I show that they're wrong for other another reason as well.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Science has indeed run these numbers.
The part of this which is pointed to by creationists goes something like;
Given n compounds, how long would it take for them to combine to make life?
There is a vanishingly small chance of a die coming up all sixes 50 times consecutively.
However in an ocean of dice it is actually very likely that some will.
that's enough.
It has been estimated that starting with the early Earth chemistry as it is believed to have existed. it would take about a week.
marsCubed 2 years ago 4
another factor which is omitted by creationists is that many combinations are prohibited.(some combinations are not possible due to geometric constraints)
One can factor in things too, it increases probability. it becomes very likely.
What is more likely is that life started many times and was zapped by random chemicals, however in the end there is a statistical 'pressure' for it come through.
it replicates by definition, then growth is exponential.
marsCubed 2 years ago
oops, i meant 'this', instead of 'things'
typing with one hand (guitar in the other)
Also check out Ramsey Theory for an intersting new angle.
chemistry would not have been an even or homogeneous soup.
it would have had various 'poles of attraction' producing a spread or range of chemistry of different kinds.. as I read it.
marsCubed 2 years ago
Comment removed
Lioobayoyo 2 years ago
Life developed anyway. Given enough time and the right conditions life will develop. An Atheist could say to a theist if asked how do you know life developed from chemicals? The answer is, "were here aren't we" which is like a religious answer but at least there is testable evidence of the claim.
baxtar1963 2 years ago
ignorance is not an excuse. Evolution is not about probability stupid!
Apache1980 2 years ago 4
Evolution is not disproved by probability.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
The origin of life can only be considered random if you ignore chemistry. Simple chemicals will react to form more complex compounds, as the end product is thermodynamically or kinetically favoured. Positive and negative charges will attract, even in a random environment.
ExeFBM 2 years ago
@ExeFBM That's one of the points of the video.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
I probably didn't understand your video in detail because I am not familiar with the backstory about wallowitz's statement or the misuse thereof- but it seems to boil down to the good old thing of being surprised by the fact that one's legs have the exact right length to reach the ground.
not to mention it's probably pretty hard to build a proper mathematical model if so little data is available on the process. Heck, people still have problems building a good model where lots of data is..
Warsel 2 years ago
i meant "morowitz" not wallowitz, sorry.
Warsel 2 years ago
Exactly correct.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
The probability of over 50% of the people watching this video owning a cell phone phone is high but the probability that over 50% of the people watching this video owning a cell phone 20 years ago was low. Probabilities are not constant. This means that you can niether pick the present probability of life evolving as it has from the present point in time or the probability of God splitting the Red Sea in the next hour in any argument.
usernameofnobody 2 years ago
You are an idiot.
Abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing.
Evolution therefore has nothing to do with random chance.
Idiot.
hpholland 2 years ago
You didn't actually watch the video. Okay.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
The problem with probability is that almost nobody really understands what it means.
Even the most common example of probability; a deck of cards; is far beyond the comprehension of even myself.
The chance of getting a given shuffle is 1/52! = 1/(8x10^67)
It's like the probability of landing picking an arbitrary point in the universe, and it being in a ball with the radius of Saturn's orbit (going by approximations from Wikipedia).
NamesForDogs 2 years ago
"The chance of getting a given shuffle is 1/52! = 1/(8x10^67)"
And the interesting thing is that you get such an unlikely outcome everytime you shuffle the pack.
artyfarty2 2 years ago 3
How did you get that equation?
The chance of getting a given shuffle should be 1/52 * 1/51 * 1/50 * 1/49 all the way down to 1/1 (when there is only one card left in the deck you have a 100% chance (1/1) of getting that card)
What does the exclamation mark mean in the equation?
Since 8x10^67 is not equal to 52 how do you get the same answer when dividing 1 by them?
greencap1 2 years ago
greencap,
NamesForDogs was using the exclamation mark as the standard notation for factorial.
52! means 1*2*3* ... * 50 * 51 *52
So he wrote the same thing you did, but using a more compact notation.
Regarding the other, his intent was that 52! is APPROXIMATELY equal to 8x 10^67. (I would write it as 8e67)
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Ok! It makes a lot more sense then :-D
Thank you for teaching me that!
(And I guess that "e" means "to the power of" then, right?)
greencap1 2 years ago
Close. It means "times 10 to the power of," so
"8 x10^ 67" becomes 8e67
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
BTW, the "e" or "engineering" notation can be a little confusing sometimes, since "e" sometimes refers to the base of the natural logarthms (2.718). So it's important to look at the context when we see it used.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
@TheFallibleFiend
Actually, when writing scientific notation in shorthand, one almost always uses the capital letter "E" rather than lower case "e" to avoid confusion. "e" is used as the natural log base, while "E(n) is designated as meaning "10^n"
yassensei 2 years ago
I personaly believe creationism is such a retrocess. That kind of way of thinking does not do any good to the human society, it's the mental framework that got us into middle age. Even if you're a christian you have to recognize that the mind framework that gave us prosperity as human beings and btw serves as the foundation of democracy is a completely different way of thinking, the one behind the ideas of biogenesis.
zuruva 3 years ago
Quote mining FTL :)
Brianswers 3 years ago