Thulsa Doom
New Member
Ok Ill bite. Fish in a barrel sound appealing to me right now for some reason. How is evolution a failed explanation for what we see in nature exactly?
Umm...???
- Thread starter A.B.Normal
- Start date
RDX
Member
Well, yes I am biased, everyone is. I try to rationalize and explain my standpoints though. Notice in my statement that I said the creationism must not be accepted as the theory of origin, but rather it must be CONSIDERED.
As far as arguments against biology, this debate could get rather long. First and foremost I consider the sheer mathematical impossibilities that the theory of evolution requires. From a physics standpoint, a biological standpoint, and a chemistry standpoint, the nature of our earth and the observable universe is far too structured to be done my random means. I could list many examples but I will name just a few.
I borrow an example from John Polkinghorne, a professor of quantum theory at Cambridge, who in one of his books, makes this comment, “If you examined the early relationship between expansion and contraction forces in the early picoseconds of the universe, you will see that the exactitude is so precise that the margin of error and the precision required would be like taking aim at a one square inch object 20 billion light years away at the other end of the universe and hitting that bull’s-eye.”
That sort of precision was every picosecond for the first few minutes of the formation of the universe. Do you have any idea have short a picosecond is? This is the time it takes for something traveling at the speed of light to cross the width of a human hair…
Or, take this quote from a declared non-theist Chundra Mikrama, Professor of Applied Mathematics at University of Cardith in Wales during the Arkansas trail on creation,” Random trial is only 1 part in 10 ^40,000 power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced, even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the belief that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court. The enormous information contact of even the simplest living cell, cannot in our view be generated in what are often called natural processes. For life to have originated on the Earth, it would have been necessary that quite explicit instructions should have been provided for its assembly. There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup as we ourselves hoped would be possible a year or two ago.”
The ACLU layer replied, “But Judge, anything would look like design after the fact. For example, 60 thousand people may come and show up at a football game. Nobody would have ever expected that type of assembly of people, predicted that for a particular football game.”
Chundra, half laughing replied to the Judge, “I don’t think this man understands probability. The first thing that I want to say to you is that the example that he just gave to you actually proves design and not accident. Number one, they knew that there was a football game going on. Number two, they bought tickets for it. Had they at every football game they attended, sat all 60 thousand of them in alphabetical order every time, then he might have a case in point.”
The crossexaminer then went on to ask, “If you say mathematical that this world is impossible by accident, how do you believe it came to be if you are a non-theist yourself?”
Chundra replied, “Some space ship from another planet must have brought pores to seed the Earth. And that’s how it came into being.”
It was clear to Chundra Mikrama and many other very knowledgeable people that sheer improbabilities rule out the theory of evolution. His alternative…
That’s exactly my point; science has yet to put forth an all-encompassing theory of origin that can be reasonably accepted.
Even Stephen Hawking, a devout atheist, admits in his book Black Holes and Baby Universes that the natural scale upon with the fundamental elements of nature are far too grand to be explained by sheer chance. He goes on to explain that if the universe expanded at a rate during its first few years that was just miniscule of a fraction slower or faster than it did, we would not exist. The electroweak and the strong forces would not have merged correctly making the formation of even the simplest atoms impossible. He does not reconcile this matter though and just goes on to say that we do not currently have the knowledge required to explain these occurances.
I will stop there for now. Once you have decided that you have given sufficient evidence affirming that evolution could have occurred by random chance, I will go on to my next reason why evolution is just not a reasonable theory.
As far as arguments against biology, this debate could get rather long. First and foremost I consider the sheer mathematical impossibilities that the theory of evolution requires. From a physics standpoint, a biological standpoint, and a chemistry standpoint, the nature of our earth and the observable universe is far too structured to be done my random means. I could list many examples but I will name just a few.
I borrow an example from John Polkinghorne, a professor of quantum theory at Cambridge, who in one of his books, makes this comment, “If you examined the early relationship between expansion and contraction forces in the early picoseconds of the universe, you will see that the exactitude is so precise that the margin of error and the precision required would be like taking aim at a one square inch object 20 billion light years away at the other end of the universe and hitting that bull’s-eye.”
That sort of precision was every picosecond for the first few minutes of the formation of the universe. Do you have any idea have short a picosecond is? This is the time it takes for something traveling at the speed of light to cross the width of a human hair…
Or, take this quote from a declared non-theist Chundra Mikrama, Professor of Applied Mathematics at University of Cardith in Wales during the Arkansas trail on creation,” Random trial is only 1 part in 10 ^40,000 power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced, even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the belief that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court. The enormous information contact of even the simplest living cell, cannot in our view be generated in what are often called natural processes. For life to have originated on the Earth, it would have been necessary that quite explicit instructions should have been provided for its assembly. There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup as we ourselves hoped would be possible a year or two ago.”
The ACLU layer replied, “But Judge, anything would look like design after the fact. For example, 60 thousand people may come and show up at a football game. Nobody would have ever expected that type of assembly of people, predicted that for a particular football game.”
Chundra, half laughing replied to the Judge, “I don’t think this man understands probability. The first thing that I want to say to you is that the example that he just gave to you actually proves design and not accident. Number one, they knew that there was a football game going on. Number two, they bought tickets for it. Had they at every football game they attended, sat all 60 thousand of them in alphabetical order every time, then he might have a case in point.”
The crossexaminer then went on to ask, “If you say mathematical that this world is impossible by accident, how do you believe it came to be if you are a non-theist yourself?”
Chundra replied, “Some space ship from another planet must have brought pores to seed the Earth. And that’s how it came into being.”
It was clear to Chundra Mikrama and many other very knowledgeable people that sheer improbabilities rule out the theory of evolution. His alternative…
That’s exactly my point; science has yet to put forth an all-encompassing theory of origin that can be reasonably accepted.
Even Stephen Hawking, a devout atheist, admits in his book Black Holes and Baby Universes that the natural scale upon with the fundamental elements of nature are far too grand to be explained by sheer chance. He goes on to explain that if the universe expanded at a rate during its first few years that was just miniscule of a fraction slower or faster than it did, we would not exist. The electroweak and the strong forces would not have merged correctly making the formation of even the simplest atoms impossible. He does not reconcile this matter though and just goes on to say that we do not currently have the knowledge required to explain these occurances.
I will stop there for now. Once you have decided that you have given sufficient evidence affirming that evolution could have occurred by random chance, I will go on to my next reason why evolution is just not a reasonable theory.
RDX
Member
Gonz said:
I think I'm going to respectfully decline answering that question, because I do not personally agree with this viewpoint.
I believe that a sort of evolution exists within individual species, but the evolution of life into these species and of life itself is very hard to accept.
BeardofPants
New Member
Gonz said:
Firstly, none of that would have been possible without cognitive thought processes, language, the wheel, etc, most of which preceded the nuclear family. Secondly, the people of the pacific were amongst some of the best sea navigators in history. Again, not particularly reliant on the nuclear family. Your argument has all the relevances of .... fluff.
Gonz said:
You probably misread it. H. sapiens sapiens tracks back at least 200,000 years. The development of modern H. sapiens sapiens really flourished (art, etc) around 35-50,000 years ago so perhaps you're thinking of that?
Thulsa Doom
New Member
RDX said:
I dont understand the relevance of these points. The universe evolved just as it evolved. does it really matter that there could be an infinite number of alternative universe development possibilities? We are inside of this one. Therefore we have a sample of one. Not much to work with there if you ask me. So im not very surprised that this universe developed just the way it did. We shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in the universe with certain fundamental laws that leads to parameters finely tuned for life. We couldn't very well be in any of the others. These examples you give are classic examples of confusing what creationists call "fine tuning" with probability. And anyway what has this got to do with evolution of life on earth?
what the heck is that supposed to mean? what context is this in and what is he speaking of exactly? im a bit dubious about throwing out random statistics with no clear link to what they are referring to.
RDX
Member
That's just it though, there are no other alternatives. Physicists have tried it over and over again. If you change any of the fundamental laws whether it is the electroweak force or the strong guage force, atoms cannot form, molecules cannot form...of any sort. We are left with a giant soup of fundamental matter, that cannot combine to form "new species" of building blocks. We are in the only universe that can support life form, or any complex molecules for that matter.
As far as the contraction and expansion of the universe in its early stages is concerned, the rate and temperature are very important. If the rate is too fast and thus the universe cools too quickly, the 4 (or 3 if you combine the 2 weak forces) forces would break down and the universe would expand uncontrolled. The resulting speed and decreasing density would not allow for large clusters of matter to form and we would have a cold universe, with small discrete particles spread throughout the universe with no chance of any stars, galixies, planets, or life forming. On the other hand, if the early expansion of the universe was too slow, it would have been reversed before anything got below several million degrees kelvin, and the universe would have collapsed in on itself. The bull's eye from 20 billion light years away shows the tolerance for the expansion value.
I'm sorry, in all my mad typing I forgot to give you the background of that quote. He was stating the odds for an average size human enzyme to come together by chance and to fold into a useful biological state given that all of the required amino acids and molecules required for structural support exist in a confined area. Considering that all the atoms in the known universe are estimated to be about 10^80, he is pointing out how impossible it is for a simple enzyme to form by chance. Considering that enzymes are only a very small part of a typical cell, he concludes that it is obsurd to hypothesize that life, even on a minute scale, was formed by chance.
You propose the arguement that things are because they are. We live in this wolrd, with this set of physical laws because it is the only world that we could live in. While this is hard to refute, it does raise some dilemas. For example, you could take a jumbo jet and state that it was made by sheer random events. Even though you know that the odds of the metals being extracted from their natural state and the polymers forming by chance is absurd, you can still make the claim that the jet was formed by chance. Given an infinite number of universes, a Jumbo jet could form by chance. Its existance is the proof of that you might say. But as we all know they don't just appear out of nowhere by an act of chance. Why? Because it is improbable. Probability governms the happenings of the future and of the past. We can predict to a decent extent the coming weather patterns of the coming month, we can forcast the population growths of contries, we can predict what CO2 levels will approach in the next 5 years. Our predictions are not always right, but they're close. They are close because they are made on the most probable events. Or world is governed by probability. Our daily experiences are in direct contrast to evolution which states that virtually every occurance in the past happened even though it was highly improbable. Evolution is in direct contrast to what we observe; it claims that we live in the most inprobable of all worlds being molded by events that are improbable beyond belief, when in reality we see a world governed by probability.
As far as the contraction and expansion of the universe in its early stages is concerned, the rate and temperature are very important. If the rate is too fast and thus the universe cools too quickly, the 4 (or 3 if you combine the 2 weak forces) forces would break down and the universe would expand uncontrolled. The resulting speed and decreasing density would not allow for large clusters of matter to form and we would have a cold universe, with small discrete particles spread throughout the universe with no chance of any stars, galixies, planets, or life forming. On the other hand, if the early expansion of the universe was too slow, it would have been reversed before anything got below several million degrees kelvin, and the universe would have collapsed in on itself. The bull's eye from 20 billion light years away shows the tolerance for the expansion value.
I'm sorry, in all my mad typing I forgot to give you the background of that quote. He was stating the odds for an average size human enzyme to come together by chance and to fold into a useful biological state given that all of the required amino acids and molecules required for structural support exist in a confined area. Considering that all the atoms in the known universe are estimated to be about 10^80, he is pointing out how impossible it is for a simple enzyme to form by chance. Considering that enzymes are only a very small part of a typical cell, he concludes that it is obsurd to hypothesize that life, even on a minute scale, was formed by chance.
You propose the arguement that things are because they are. We live in this wolrd, with this set of physical laws because it is the only world that we could live in. While this is hard to refute, it does raise some dilemas. For example, you could take a jumbo jet and state that it was made by sheer random events. Even though you know that the odds of the metals being extracted from their natural state and the polymers forming by chance is absurd, you can still make the claim that the jet was formed by chance. Given an infinite number of universes, a Jumbo jet could form by chance. Its existance is the proof of that you might say. But as we all know they don't just appear out of nowhere by an act of chance. Why? Because it is improbable. Probability governms the happenings of the future and of the past. We can predict to a decent extent the coming weather patterns of the coming month, we can forcast the population growths of contries, we can predict what CO2 levels will approach in the next 5 years. Our predictions are not always right, but they're close. They are close because they are made on the most probable events. Or world is governed by probability. Our daily experiences are in direct contrast to evolution which states that virtually every occurance in the past happened even though it was highly improbable. Evolution is in direct contrast to what we observe; it claims that we live in the most inprobable of all worlds being molded by events that are improbable beyond belief, when in reality we see a world governed by probability.
chcr
Too cute for words
Umm, RDX, you are not operating under the mistaken assumption that physicists understand what happened in the first few seconds of the universe, are you? There are in fact plenty of alternatives. I find it arrogant in the extreme that some physicists think we have catalogued all of the possibilites. There are theories, certainly (some more popular than others), but until we have a unified field theory, I don't think we can begin to understand what is happening to the universe now, let alone what happened 15 billion or so years ago. We can take measurements and make empirical judgements, but it's really little more advanced than saying thunder is the gods bowling. Probability is a best guess based on current and past data. It works for things we understand but is useless for things we don't (Schroedingers cat, for instance).
Improbable events happen all the time; this is observable. When we have hundreds of life bearing planets to observe, then perhaps we'll be able to make a judgement of how improbable evolution is. Maybe it's inevitable given an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere and the presence of water. Maybe even these aren't required. Just because you don't have a clear understanding of how or why something happens doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it isn't understandable. The evidence clearly states that it happened here.
RDX
Member
A person winning the lottery isn't probable, but it is within the realm of possibility. An enzyme being made by chance is not within the realm of possibility. Furthermore, evolution requires event after event to take place, all being VERY improbable. It's like a person winning the lottery every day for the next 50 years, except even more so.
It's one thing for a planet to a planet to be made by chance (not all that improbable), it's another for life to form randomly on that planet. 100's of planet's do little to help the odds, million's have the same effect. Even if there were billions of viable planets in the universe, odds are still against life forming spontaneously. The biological odds are just too great.
No, I don't believe that physicists understand what happened during the first few seconds of the universe, infact I don't believe they know what happened billions or millions ago either. I'm just pointing out that due to our current model, these events are required to happen at the beginning of the universe. You are saying that our knowledge is incomplete, and yes it is. I think it will be less than a 20 years before we have a unified field theory (M-theory looks like the most promising right now IMO). The problem remains though that every part of the basic atomic building blocks are in a very delicate dance. The relation of the strong force to the electroweak force must be very exact, or the nucleous of an atom will either fall apart or combine with other atoms to form an ever increasing nuclear mass. I'm not saying that other universes cannot exist, they would just exist in a state that cannot support life.
Regarding the probability and our understanding...Yes, we cannot determine exact parameters of subatomic species at a specific time. Just because an electron acts erratic does not mean it acts in an improbable manner. We know atoms can undergo events like quantum tunneling, but probability plays a role there. Since it becomes more and more improbable for a molecule to undergo quantum tunneling when an increasing atoms are added over an increasing distance, we do not obersve quantum tunneling in everyday life. The Schroedinger wave equation and Heisenburg principle, are used to derive models of electron behavior based on probability. We do not understand all the mechanics behind the movements of these particles, yet we can predict their behavior based on statistics.
It's one thing for a planet to a planet to be made by chance (not all that improbable), it's another for life to form randomly on that planet. 100's of planet's do little to help the odds, million's have the same effect. Even if there were billions of viable planets in the universe, odds are still against life forming spontaneously. The biological odds are just too great.
No, I don't believe that physicists understand what happened during the first few seconds of the universe, infact I don't believe they know what happened billions or millions ago either. I'm just pointing out that due to our current model, these events are required to happen at the beginning of the universe. You are saying that our knowledge is incomplete, and yes it is. I think it will be less than a 20 years before we have a unified field theory (M-theory looks like the most promising right now IMO). The problem remains though that every part of the basic atomic building blocks are in a very delicate dance. The relation of the strong force to the electroweak force must be very exact, or the nucleous of an atom will either fall apart or combine with other atoms to form an ever increasing nuclear mass. I'm not saying that other universes cannot exist, they would just exist in a state that cannot support life.
Regarding the probability and our understanding...Yes, we cannot determine exact parameters of subatomic species at a specific time. Just because an electron acts erratic does not mean it acts in an improbable manner. We know atoms can undergo events like quantum tunneling, but probability plays a role there. Since it becomes more and more improbable for a molecule to undergo quantum tunneling when an increasing atoms are added over an increasing distance, we do not obersve quantum tunneling in everyday life. The Schroedinger wave equation and Heisenburg principle, are used to derive models of electron behavior based on probability. We do not understand all the mechanics behind the movements of these particles, yet we can predict their behavior based on statistics.
chcr
Too cute for words
Gonz said:
Everyone loves to quote that, but no one ever quotes the later letter where he states that that was merely a figure of speach and he in no way believed in a "personal creator."
Einstein said:
Kind of like if I say "Jesus H. Christ" it does not necessarily imply that I am a christian (and what does the "H" stand for?).
RDX
Member
When I define living species, I mean that they exhibit characteristics that we would define as living: display order, capable of reproducing, aquire energy, sense/respond to enviroment display homeostasis properties...
Even the simplist life form that we can attpempt to model that displays these characteristics, has virtually no chance of forming by random chance.
Take for example the DNA chain of the chromosome of the bacterium E. coli. Harold J. Morowitz, Professor of Biophysics at Yale University, has taken into account the covalent bond energies required to actually form such a DNA molecule. He arrives at a probability figure for the spontaneous formation of one complete bacterium of Escherichia coli in the history of the universe, of less than one chance in 10 to the power 100 billion (which can be written 10^100,000,000,000).
I find it interesting that at the university I am now attending, 3 of the 4 biology professors that I have studied under are strong supporters of biological evolution. On the other hand, out of the 3 math professors that I have talked to that specialize in statistics and probability, none of them support or even consider biological evolution to be plausible.
Even the simplist life form that we can attpempt to model that displays these characteristics, has virtually no chance of forming by random chance.
Take for example the DNA chain of the chromosome of the bacterium E. coli. Harold J. Morowitz, Professor of Biophysics at Yale University, has taken into account the covalent bond energies required to actually form such a DNA molecule. He arrives at a probability figure for the spontaneous formation of one complete bacterium of Escherichia coli in the history of the universe, of less than one chance in 10 to the power 100 billion (which can be written 10^100,000,000,000).
I find it interesting that at the university I am now attending, 3 of the 4 biology professors that I have studied under are strong supporters of biological evolution. On the other hand, out of the 3 math professors that I have talked to that specialize in statistics and probability, none of them support or even consider biological evolution to be plausible.
chcr
Too cute for words
And yet you have trouble believing that the biologists might have a better understanding of biology than the mathemeticians??????
As I say, you have decided a conclusion is true and are now trying to support it with the facts that agree while ignoring the ones that don't. This is typical but it is not science.
All the DNA of all the species on earth is related, and therefore for statistical piurposes, substantially the same. With no other sample to compare you can just as easily draw the conclusion that it is impossible (vanishingly improbable if you prefer) or that it is inevitable. Until just a few years ago, no one understood how bumblebees fly. Statistically it was possible to prove that they coud not. Problem with perception or statistics? As I've said many times, believe what you want to, I do.
RDX
Member
I believe that the mathemeticians have a better understanding about the probability of the events happening. I'm trying to get across my point that many people accept evolution just as blindly as people accept religion.
Well...yes, I'm trying to validate my point not disprove it.
So what do you regard as the most powerful evidence pointing towards a universe made by evolution? I've listed a few statistical reasons why I don't support evolution, what would you support your stance on evolution with? Or if you prefer, what evidence contradicts a theory involving a deity?
chcr
Too cute for words
You are not wrong about that, however if you look at all the evidence, evolution has clearly occurred, and continues to. The fossil record is undieniable. The DNA evidence is irrefutable. These certainly do not preclude a deity, but they do preclude the popular creation "theories." What precludes a deity, IMO, is the interconnectedness of what is clearly mythology with religious dogma. It's all a big myth to placate the masses. This is why religion was invented, and it's my opinion that it has outlived it's usefulness.
Note that I have had this argument many times. The "theory" of evolution is not whether or not it occured, it clearly did. The theory has to do with the mechanism by which it occured. Natural selection is simply one of these (most likely, IMO, but any of them are hard to prove). Catatstrophic extinctions is another popular one. So is intelligent design (I split this one into deity and spaceguys). Some of the designs don't seem that intelligent to me, and of course I'm more likely to favor a theory which does not require outside help.
The universe? Same reasons I suppose, if you accept that nebulae are the fossils of stars (well, some of them).
One of the problems I have with creationism is the way various creationist groups pick and choose what parts of biblical creation to accept or ignore, the same as they do with scientific evidence. If you support biblical creation, I think you have to support it the way it is written down. You can't simply make up a "theory" and start collecting those pieces of research that seem to support it. In science, you gather the evidence, look at all the evidence, then try to come up with a plausible theory that is supported by all the evidence.
Finally, deciding a conclusion is true and trying to make the evidence support it is sophistry. Look at the evidence first, then draw your conclusions. You may come to the same ones, those then will be your beliefs. If they are not the same as mine, I will continue to believe thay are wrong. That does not in any way abrogate your right to believe them.
RDX
Member
Well I concur that natural selection occurs and variation does occur within a species, I do not believe that we all formed from the same genetic ancestor. I don't think that DNA evidence really proves anything about evolution. It certainly doesn't refute it, but as you said it doesn't refute creation theories either.
The fossil record is another matter to consider. The first problem I have is that there are abrubt appearances of animals. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata. Secondly, fossilization requires very special conditions. Dinosaur and other fossils could not have formed in the way suggested by most Evolutionary books. Animals of moderate to large size almost never fossilize unless they are buried quickly and deeply - before scavengers, bacteria and erosion reduce them to dust. Huge dinosaurs, huge schools of fish, and many diverse animals are found entombed by massive muddy sediments which hardened into rock.
An example that points to a relatively young earth would be found in a recent discovery by Montana State University. An article published in 1997, outlines their discovery. In 1990 a beautifully preserved Tyrannosaurus rex was brought to their lab for study. To their surprise "some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized." Upon closer inspection it was discovered that the bone contained unfossilized blood vessels that contained small dried amounts of red blood cells. Although bacterial and fungi contamination prevented them from getting good DNA results, tests for detecting hemoglobin were conducted and came out positive. This information strongly suggests that the T rex may have existed in much more recent times than had been previously thought.
This is true, I believe it should be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole. By the same token though, if all scientific evidence is examined, there are some very large problems that confront both creation theories and evolution theories. The evidence clearly does not overwhelmingly point to one over the other, and I don't think it ever will.