Page 30 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2025262728293031323334 LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 675
  1. #581  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Assuming this timeline is a reasonable approximation, what is a good source for the statistical probability analysis that demonstrates that such time-frames are sufficient for the occurence of the required series of random mutations?
    You are trying to argue from implausibility. It doesn't work that way.

    Surur
  2. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #582  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    You are trying to argue from implausibility. It doesn't work that way.

    Surur
    But, when taking their position on most subjects, isn't that just their universal thing?
  3. #583  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    But, when taking their position on most subjects, isn't that just their universal thing?
    It might be funny if it were not so sad. They take the most implausible position of all but then question the plausibility of everything else. Let's face it guys, they believe in what they want to be true, without regard to plausibility. There is little to recommend their position but wanting makes it so.
  4. #584  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    It would be intresting to see what this timeline looked like 15 or 20 years ago.
    Why? Most of it would have been the same. Undoubtedly, Kurzweil's predictions would not have been as fleshed out, but computer technology wasn't at quite the same level then.
    Back then people thought that by the year 2000 we'd have flying cars.
    I think you'd probably need to go farther back to find those assumptions.
    I guess we just didn't have enough time for that improbability to come to pass.
    You're getting seriously confused if you're trying to draw a comparison between evolution and technological advances.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #585  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    It might be funny if it were not so sad. They take the most implausible position of all but then question the plausibility of everything else. Let's face it guys, they believe in what they want to be true, without regard to plausibility. There is little to recommend their position but wanting makes it so.
    But, naturally, they respond very directly and responsibly regarding their own positions on [pick-a-subject], right?
  6. #586  
    Hellooo out there, or in here whichever your perspective.

    Lets try this. We are flying on a rock through a space around a gigantic nuclear fireball. Fact
    OR
    We are imagining through the process of a higher "Realm" that...We are flying on a rock through a space around a gigantic nuclear fireball. Fact?

    At the onset of "naming things", (language) we named things for, "what they were not."
    Once we named a rock a rock a tree could not be a rock because it was distinctly different, so we named it a tree and so on. Language is the naming of things by comparing them to what they were not, the things already named. Definition by opposition.
    So now we find ourselves with this vast new knowledge over "time" at a point where we are being allowed to talk of such things.
    At this ultimate of times we find that we are trying to name "The Realm that is not this." It has to exist for it is being defined by this finite, cause and effect realm where we are born into a charactor of which we seem to have no input. Fast was needed in this realm to define slow, rich to define poor, evil to define good etc. This realm had to be this way for there to be "Truth". A hands off cause and effect world where praying seems to help get us through but not much more it can do.
    So from this perspective we have found out that the polar opposite is infinite, Omniscientific, and full of the answers we do not have here. Sounds like Heaven to me.
    If this perspective were followed we would understand that for us to keep the "other side" alive we must keep this side alive. One defining the other in ultimate "reality". For there would be no GOD if there was no thing to define it.
    We would take care of each other with the understanding that evil was needed, poor were needed, rich were needed and so on.
    Take this to heart. It is a new perspective on this life and like the scientists who forever thought that Omega equalled One and the universe would oneday have the strength to slowly receed back unto itself and the big bang would start all over again they have realized that the universe is not receeding it is leaving the centrific pull of gravity and speeding up as it does.
    Like the pebble thrown on the calm pond it will expand to flatline. Like another metaphor of the inchworm first laying flat then gathering energy as it pulls itself up to curve it's space and create energy in the tension only to move forward back to flat with the knowledge gained through it's efforts to give it a new position and perspective.
    This universe is on it's way to flat , we have done well, let's not blow it in the end. Let us take care of each other and ride it to it's entropical end to what some call "Heaven", our polar opposite. ...pass it on as it is just the facts.
  7. #587  
    Quote Originally Posted by Surur
    You are trying to argue from implausibility. It doesn't work that way
    I asked a question. I thought it was the scientific process. Here is a second: what doesn't work what way?
  8. #588  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Assuming this timeline is a reasonable approximation, what is a good source for the statistical probability analysis that demonstrates that such time-frames are sufficient for the occurence of the required series of random mutations?
    There are numerous scientific publications on this and similar subjects. I just picked one at random here: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=096...TOR-reducePage

    There is absolutely no problem with the likelihood of mutations leading to speciation over time. If there would be a problem, science would not accept evolution as a fact.

    I get the impression you still underestimate the overwhelming amount of data which is totally consistent with evolution (and totally inconsitent with young earth or literal Genesis. Evolution is a rock-solid case. Open questions are only about relatively minor details of the process, not about the factual basis of evolution having taken place.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #589  
    One can not argue just bases on raw probability of genes coalescing into the human genome, when their are selection and amplification steps involved in the form of natural selection.

    I hope you acknowledge this point.

    Surur
  10. #590  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    There are numerous scientific publications on this and similar subjects. I just picked one at random here: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=096...TOR-reducePage
    Thanx.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post

    There is absolutely no problem with the likelihood of mutations leading to speciation over time. If there would be a problem, science would not accept evolution as a fact.
    Yeah. I figured it was an area of study that had already been broached.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post

    I get the impression you still underestimate the overwhelming amount of data which is totally consistent with evolution (and totally inconsitent with young earth or literal Genesis. Evolution is a rock-solid case. Open questions are only about relatively minor details of the process, not about the factual basis of evolution having taken place.
    The impressions you should have are:

    1. I am interested in learning more
    2. I would prefer to read on the subject from the perspective of reputable source that demonstrates the likelihood, rather than from the source of a skeptic (who I believe use what Surur is calling "raw probability" caculations)
    3. I have come to trust the references you and Surur provide in particular (as well as some others) as solid sources on the subject area
  11. #591  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    One can not argue just bases on raw probability of genes coalescing into the human genome, when their are selection and amplification steps involved in the form of natural selection.

    I hope you acknowledge this point.

    Surur
    If by "raw probability" you mean taking the probability of various discrete occurences and multiplying them together to calculate an overall probability, I acknolwedge that is not an ideal approach.

    My reasoning for concurring may be off-base, so let me expose that. It seems that the theory holds that all species evolved ultimately from a (population of?) single-cell being(s). It occurs to me that the required mutations/adaptations do not have to occur within a single hereditary line. That is, of the population of similar single celled beings, several could all mutate in differing ways, that each prove advantageous. Over time, and perhaps having incurred some other adaptations, two (or more) resulting beings could have become reproductively compatible. The offspring of such pairing could combine the "best of" all breeds.

    So, under this scenario, it would not be appropriate to calculate the probablity of just the ideal set of circumstances occuring with in a single hereditary trail. Rather the math should appreciate the possibility of two (or more) significantly divergent trails "merging"

    As to my immediate inquiry, it was stated that with sufficient time, the improbable becomes likely. A representative timeline was provided. The missing ingredient was the probability.

    Now I'm off to read what clulup's source has to say on the matter.
  12. #592  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    ...Open questions are only about relatively minor details of the process, not about the factual basis of evolution having taken place.
    If I come to resolve one of the open questions, I'll share the credit with you. it will be known as the "clupharim discovery"
  13. #593  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    If by "raw probability" you mean taking the probability of various discrete occurences and multiplying them together to calculate an overall probability, I acknolwedge that is not an ideal approach.

    My reasoning for concurring may be off-base, so let me expose that. It seems that the theory holds that all species evolved ultimately from a (population of?) single-cell being(s). It occurs to me that the required mutations/adaptations do not have to occur within a single hereditary line. That is, of the population of similar single celled beings, several could all mutate in differing ways, that each prove advantageous. Over time, and perhaps having incurred some other adaptations, two (or more) resulting beings could have become reproductively compatible. The offspring of such pairing could combine the "best of" all breeds.

    So, under this scenario, it would not be appropriate to calculate the probablity of just the ideal set of circumstances occuring with in a single hereditary trail. Rather the math should appreciate the possibility of two (or more) significantly divergent trails "merging"

    As to my immediate inquiry, it was stated that with sufficient time, the improbable becomes likely. A representative timeline was provided. The missing ingredient was the probability.
    At first I did not think your idea held water, because once speciation occurs species tend to hold on tightly to their innovations, and only share them with their offspring. However on reflection you made reference specifically to early life, and of course there we have the perfect example of what you are referring to. Mitochondia are just one cellular structure where an organism with all its innovations were incorporated wholesale into another, leading to the huge success of its offspring. This process is called endosymbiosis, and is thought to have been a major breakthrough in the development of modern cellular life.

    As a counterpoint to this very generous and sharing view of life and evolution, one can note that many innovations have been evolved separately many times over the millions of years. Examples include the eye (similar in structure, but clearly different in mammals and cephalopods) and wings (again similar in structure but clearly different between bats and birds).

    Surur
    Last edited by surur; 05/24/2007 at 09:27 AM.
  14. #594  
    After having addressed many issues here, I have a question to the creationists on the board, both young earth creationists and others, and to all those who think the bible is word by word, literally true:

    As pointed out in this thread, there is no shortage of scientific proof for evolution and for earth being billions of years old, not thousands (note: a one-million-fold difference - not a likely scientific error to start off with). Each year, thousands of biologists, geologists and other scientists graduate from universities in the US and the rest of the world without a trace of doubt, based on what they have studied both in theory in practical experiments, that evolution is what happened on earth, and that earth is billions of years old.

    Since their convictions contradict your beliefs, why do you think they are all wrong?
    Did they not study correctly?
    Are they not intelligent enough?
    Are they brainwashed? Naive?
    Is science a huge conspiracy producing false evidence for evolution?
    Other reasons I didn't think of?

    I'd honestly like to know.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #595  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    ......Since their convictions contradict your beliefs, why do you think they are all wrong?
    Did they not study correctly?
    Are they not intelligent enough?
    Are they brainwashed? Naive?
    Is science a huge conspiracy producing false evidence for evolution?
    Other reasons I didn't think of?

    I'd honestly like to know.
    They are godless?

    Faith is a gift; they have not been given it?

    The evidence of Holy Scripture, The Revealed Word of God, trumps all other evidence?
  16. Widdy's Avatar
    Posts
    75 Posts
    Global Posts
    78 Global Posts
    #596  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    There is absolutely no problem with the likelihood of mutations leading to speciation over time. If there would be a problem, science would not accept evolution as a fact.
    This muddies things up a bit.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070523/..._uk_fish_limbs
  17. #597  
    Quote Originally Posted by Widdy View Post
    I dont see how it muddies anything. In fact evolution is well known to reuse and re-purpose existing structures. This would be like saying fish already had genes for the middle ear, but use them for its jaw. It does not imply the plan for humans are already coded from the start in full in the earliest fish.

    Surur
  18. #598  
    Quote Originally Posted by Widdy View Post
    I agree with surur. This doesn't question evolution in the slightest way, to the contrary (the article doesn't insinuate anything of that sort either). It shows that new developments are not big leaps, but build on existing structures that evolve.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #599  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    After having addressed many issues here, I have a question to the creationists on the board, both young earth creationists and others, and to all those who think the bible is word by word, literally true:

    As pointed out in this thread, there is no shortage of scientific proof for evolution and for earth being billions of years old, not thousands (note: a one-million-fold difference - not a likely scientific error to start off with). Each year, thousands of biologists, geologists and other scientists graduate from universities in the US and the rest of the world without a trace of doubt, based on what they have studied both in theory in practical experiments, that evolution is what happened on earth, and that earth is billions of years old.

    Since their convictions contradict your beliefs, why do you think they are all wrong?
    Did they not study correctly?
    Are they not intelligent enough?
    Are they brainwashed? Naive?
    Is science a huge conspiracy producing false evidence for evolution?
    Other reasons I didn't think of?

    I'd honestly like to know.
    I'm hesistant to answer with this premise, as it tends to pit me against some of the most intelligent people on the planet. I am not setting my self forward as the champion willing to take on all intellectual challenges.

    I am willing, however, to share the basis of my skepticism--which is what I think is the real question.

    First, regarding the thousands of scientist who have no doubt, I would find it interesting to know how many have studied the theory versus have accepted it. With all the data and the clear consensus, one would only be prompted to quibble (and take on the ostracism that such an endeavor would invite) if they found violation in their area of study. As I have stated in prior conversations, I find the theory plausible and reasonable and generally factual. So, I'm not surprised that so many others do as well.

    The difference is, I have not moved from plausible, reasonable and factual to actual yet.

    Admittedly, my initial opposition was related to my own established beliefs. I have since realized that contradiction to my position is not basis for dismissal, but for discovery--largely because I don't even believe all the things I used to believe. So, I know I can not use what I believe as a barometer for truth. Rather, I must adapt my beliefs to truth.

    With that new perspective, I have only begun to take an in-depth look (spurred significantly by the interactions in this forum over the past two years) into the subject area. The key question driving my (admittedly casual) investigation is the reasoning that concludes that the simple mechanics of mutation observed within a discrete population are sufficient for the emergence of all life.

    Using terms picked-up from the article recently posted, I understand that the
    AGD grows significantly over 3000 generations of loci. However, when I look at the genetic differences between loci and humans, the AGD within the loci population is miniscule.

    It seems, to the untrained mind, that getting from loci to human would required some pretty significant leaps and bounds along the genetic trail. Yet it seems we're told that mutations tend to be small (i.e. species without "eyes" do not develop eyes in a single generation, but rather in one generation may have the emergence of some characteristic that is a precursor to what will eventually be an "eye"). When I consider the number of small changes that need to occur and compound to get from loci to humans, the key question becomes, 'how likely is that?' If I accept the premise that given enough time, the unprobable becomes likely, the key question becomes, 'has there been enough time?'

    So, I venture down the "probability" path.

    Here are things that make sense to me:

    If a single-celled replicable entity can emerge from an abiotic environment, then more than one can (enabling a population to co-exist).

    What is not clear is how many can. Two? Probably. Ten? Why not? 100? Not sure.

    Why am I not sure?

    If it is not a relatively rare occurence, the variety of life that has resulted should not have taken so long to get going.

    A crude illustration: If I have one match, I have one chance to light a fire. Thus I must have all the right conditions to sustain a fire because I only get one shot at it. The more matches I have, the more flexibility I have with the remaining conditions. But, then if I have an unlimited number of matches, my concern is not starting a fire but rather controlling the inferno.

    Back to the origin cell population...

    As I see it, it is not enough to have the emergence of a sufficient, but limited, number of single-celled, replicable entities, the entities must remain viable long enough to, in fact, replicate. Now, given the speed with which cells subdivide today, perhaps that is a non-issue.

    If replication has occured speedily, then perhaps within a short period of time, we have a sufficient number of "matches" for our biological fire.

    Now comes the fun part--Mutation.

    For the theory to work, there have to be mutations. Otherwise, we will only have a huge number of single-celled entities replicating all over themselves.

    For mutation to occur, it seems that either we have to have an external force acting on an entity, or the entity has to have within it already the potential expression of other characteristics. In either case, again with mutations being the rare exception, rather than the rule, we now have to assess the likelihood that a mutation proves "advantageous."

    It would seem that to whatever extent a mutation is rare, the probability for advantage would be rarer still.

    So to get to humans,
    1. we are talking about a rare number of emergences of started cells (I know that origin (how) technically is not a part of the theory, but it really can't be overlooked (that) --unless you assume that the sufficient starter entities have always existed)
    2. coupled with rare occurences of variation (by mutation)
    3. coupled with rarer occurences of advantageous variation (advantageous enough to predominate, but not so different as to be come isolated--verile, not sterile--sounds like a viagra slogan)
    4. then compounded, one rare advantage after another (in this case advantageous enough to differentiate from the others, but not so as to eliminate the others...at least early on)
    5. And all this is occuring with sufficient secuity from external forces as to not have the whole popultation wiped-out and have to start over

    Now that is my struggle from an early-stages perspective.

    From the today view, I don't get why equilibrium seems to have set in amongst the higher complex beings. Within humanity alone we currently have 6 billion uniquely identifable variations virtually of which only .0000000x% are reproductively isolated. And we have been like this for the past 6000 years

    Seriously, given the human population of the earth, why are we so "stable"?

    OK. I think I've provided enough to expose both my ignorance and my bias.

    Thanks to any and all, who will help me wade through.
  20. #600  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    OK. I think I've provided enough to expose both my ignorance and my bias.

    Thanks to any and all, who will help me wade through.
    Sorry, Shopharim. Yours is a good faith effort but it is not responsive to the question.

    We are not dealing here with bias, ignorance, doubt, or agnosticism. We are not dealing with people who are trying to appreciate and reconcile a body of evidence and a difficult hypothesis. We are dealing with certainty. We are asking about theism. We are asking about the single largest source of division and conflict in the world today. [Note that the atheists are not killing the theists but that the theists are killing one another.]

    It is this certainty that Clulup is asking the theists to explain.

    None of us will be safe until our grandchildren and their grandchildren are the same grandchildren.

Posting Permissions