For Inquisitor, et al: What is Evolution?

quote:

---

The likelihood that you will win the lottery is remote enough that you can safely say it will never happen. The likelihood that someone will win the lottery is very different.

---

But then compare the likelihood of someone winning the lottery to someone eventually emerging from inorganic particles. No matter how much time you calculate in and how many this's n thats bumping together you calculate in, the latter ainta gonna happen. Me personally winning the biggest lottery ever is a far, far greater likelihood.

How can you make any probability calculations about a process that very little is known about?When you assume a large number of atoms, that have to react purely randomly (all possible combinations are equally likely) and have to produce just one specific output (only one pattern in a protein for example) you arrive at a tiny probability that is a good enough representation of zero.So, that's obvious to most everyone. And that's not what anyone thinks got life started off. And, one more time, that's not evolution of living things. You don't make much headway in arguing against the evolution of living things by saying there can't be any living things in the first place. Once there are there what happens is the quesion answered by the ToE.So the question is not "How could that happen?"
The question is "What could have happened?".There is current research into the topic. It is way beyond this kind of issue. If you want to discuss find one of the abiogenesis topics or open a new one.

How can you make any probability calculations about a process that very little is known about?
When you assume a large number of atoms, that have to react purely randomly (all possible combinations are equally likely) and have to produce just one specific output (only one pattern in a protein for example) you arrive at a tiny probability that is a good enough representation of zero.OK, so to steer back to topic, How about this definition of ToE.
Evolution is a little known process taught in most educational institutions to the extent that it has become believed by most. This process is theorized to have proceeded over billions of years beginning with the original big bang after which large numbers of atoms reacting randomly proceeded to produce billions of timely combinations so as to eventually produce randomly all that is observed. This natural process is believed to have eventually produced the wonderful and marvelous results we see on planet earth, but alas, seems to have done little to nothing for all other observable planets and celestial bodies.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Value judgement on your part; not part of the theory. The big bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. What you've described is a philosophy of materialism. ToE isn't philosophy.So, to answer your question, that's a terrible definition of the Theory of Evolution. It might be a great definition of a certain philosophy but it's pretty clear you don't know what constitutes scientific theory.

quote:

---

OK, so to steer back to topic, How about this definition of ToE.
Evolution is a little known process taught in most educational institutions to the extent that it has become believed by most.

---

This is your opinion.

quote:

---

This process is theorized to have proceeded over billions of years beginning with the original big bang after which large numbers of atoms reacting randomly proceeded to produce billions of timely combinations so as to eventually produce randomly all that is observed.

---

This is just WRONG. Evolution has very little to do with pure random combination, and only covers events following the emergence of a population of replicators.

quote:

---

This natural process is believed to have eventually produced the wonderful and marvelous results we see on planet earth, but alas, seems to have done little to nothing for all other observable planets and celestial bodies.

---

This pretty much contradicts your assertion that evolution has been going on since the Big Bang.

quote:

---

But then compare the likelihood of someone winning the lottery to someone eventually emerging from inorganic particles.

---

And then compare the number of people buying lottery tickets to the number of planets in the universe. It's a matter of ratios.If it's a one in a hundred kajillion* chance, and there are a hundred kajillion planets it could have happened on, then all of a sudden the chances look pretty good that it would happen somewhere.* - completely arbitrary, possibly made-up number.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

quote:

---

cells and dna errupting from inorganic mass is as apples and oranges as you can get.

---

Straw man.

quote:

---

We know the likelyhood of human eggs producing a human, don't we?

---

The likelihood of producing YOU is what I referred to. Very very small. It happened. The more important point you do not seem to understand is that the miniscule odds are irrelevant. You exhibit the classic creationist fallacy of equating small possibility with impossibility. A little math training exposes this error for what it is. Here is the simplest explanation of why: Very unlikely x many trials = LIKELY! It's that simple.Again, I repeat: The likelihood of something happening is _USELESS_ in determining after the factwhether it happened. Especially since, as others have pointed out, we do not know all the variables, and therefore your probability is only speculative.[This message has been edited by zephyr, 05-13-2003]

quote:

---

If it's a one in a hundred kajillion* chance, and there are a hundred kajillion planets it could have happened on, then all of a sudden the chances look pretty good that it would happen somewhere

---

But it's not "one in a hundred kajillion chance". It's ZERO in a kajillian chances! Are there a kajillion planets capable of sustaining life? I don't think so.Besides, you forgot about factoring TIME into the equation to arrive at your belief in what you affirm is possible, which is why we get a zero probability since you don't have infinite time (and infinite trials) for your version of creation to occur. When exactly did the window of opportunity for the spontaneous generation (actually, this concept was debunked by science so I don't understand why it's so widely accepted) of life appear?Q: Is it in the realm of possibilities contained within your belief system that a human being could come together instantaneously from inorganic matter? Technically speaking, is such a scenario possible?

quote:

---

But it's not "one in a hundred kajillion chance". It's ZERO in a kajillian chances! Are there a kajillion planets capable of sustaining life? I don't think so.

---

Unsupported assertions, where is your evidence?

quote:

---

Besides, you forgot about factoring TIME into the equation to arrive at your belief in what you affirm is possible, which is why we get a zero probability since you don't have infinite time (and infinite trials) for your version of creation to occur.

---

I don't recall anyone arguing for infinite time or infinite trials. Moreover, these would only be necessary if you actually provide evidence for a true ZERO value of the probability of abiogenesis.

quote:

---

When exactly did the window of opportunity for the spontaneous generation of life appear?

---

I don't personally know, and neither do you, but our ignorance doesn't mean it didn't happen.

quote:

---

(actually, this concept was debunked by science so I don't understand why it's so widely accepted)

---

Again, you don't understand so it's impossible? Maybe you should try doing some research about theories of abiogenesis and recent experiments' effects thereon.

quote:

---

Q: Is it in the realm of possibilities contained within your belief system that a human being could come together instantaneously from inorganic matter? Technically speaking, is such a scenario possible?

---

I see a strawman being assembled, starting with this irrelevant question. The term "belief system" is totally inappropriate for the discussion, but I'll avoid that for now. The best answer: my learning leads me to expect a finite, non-zero probability of any particular arrangement of matter spontaneously coming about. My knowledge of physics will fall apart if I try to explain any further than that. Hopefully someone else can give you a better answer.

Where, exactly, was this debunked with respect to the conditions appropriate for the early Earth? Are you referring to Pasteur's experiments, perhaps?Welcome, Daddy! Register and hang around a while!

quote:

---

The big bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

---

It had to start somewhere. Right?? When you begin with inorganic chunks floating about in space and end up with life on planet earth as we see it, aside from intelligent intervention, you've got evolution all the way, don't you?Most evolutionists I know or have read about believe in the BB, including Christians.

quote:

---

So, to answer your question, that's a terrible definition of the Theory of Evolution. It might be a great definition of a certain philosophy but it's pretty clear you don't know what constitutes scientific theory.

---

What is observed provides more evidence for the supernatural than it does for ToE. The fossil record, as well as human history supports more evidence for sudden creation of living species than it does for evolution of the species. So that makes my definition more scientific than yours. A number of scientists would rate both of my definitions on this thread higher than that of the evolutionists. It's all how you read and interpret what is observed.

No, you don't. The ToE (neo Darwinism ) is specifically defined to be talking about changes in living things. It says nothing about how they got there. It says nothing about cosmology.Darwin made this clear at the very beginning.If you use the word "evolution" to mean just "change" then, fine, it can be applied to almost anything. But that is not what the discussion is about.I'm sure that most "evolutionists" (whatever that is) "believe" in the BB, plate tectonics, special relativity, quantum mechanics and so on. So what?There is a tendancy for individuals who use evidence and reason to arrive at what they accept as most probably true to arrive at the same places. Why is this surprising?The only reason you've got them all jumbled up and lumped together is because you don't like the outcome from all these different scientific disciplines. Too bad."It had to start somewhere. Right??"
Yup, but there are different ideas of how. There are lots of scientists who "believe" in the big bang but think that God kicked it off.Evolutionary biologists know it had to start somewhere. Most of them don't pay much attention to that as they are concerned with what happened afterward and happens now.Others (chemists rather than "evolutionists") are working on issues regarding the origin of life.Physicists and cosmologists work on how the universe started and how it behaves. I'd be very surprised if many of them give a wee thought to life and it's evolution very often. It simply isn't something they are concerned about in their work.Could you explain why you have such trouble separating these areas of inquiry?

Sure, but the people doing the most work in evolutionary biology aren't cosmologists, they're biologists. Why would that be unless cosmology was irrelavent to evolution?Evolution isn't a theory to explain the history of reality. It's an explanation relevant only to the diversity of life on earth. Evolution begins with a replicating organism on planet earth, not before.Clearly what you are against is a philisophy of materialism; this is larger than just evolution. Hrm, interesting - what would evidence for the supernatural look like? How would we tell the difference between what we can't yet explain and what we'll never be able to explain? Interesting - in what way? How does the clearly preserved sorting of the fossil record, combined with relative inferred age, support sudden universal creation? It doesn't seem to, to me. Wheras, an astronomically larger number of scientists would agree with my criticisms of your definition. So what's your point? I have way more scientists on my side.

quote:

---

Could you explain why you have such trouble separating these areas of inquiry?

---

Thanks NN, for the breakdown on the various inquiries. I guess my problem with this is that it seems the strategy is to divide and conquer since the whole is so hard for evolutionists to reconcile. It is my understanding that nearly all evolutionists believe in the BB and getting from there to the simplest life is the first high hurdle where the bar comes down. Then you have literally billions of unattainable hurdles getting from there to here. So my problem is that unlike Genesis creation, you have no foundation under your nice looking house.

quote:

---

Hrm, interesting - what would evidence for the supernatural look like? How would we tell the difference between what we can't yet explain and what we'll never be able to explain?

---

It looks like scores of nicely detailed specific fulfilled Biblical prophecies. It looks like Ballard's recent discovery of man made things deep in the Black Sea. It looks like the extinction of the dinosaurs. It looks like man made articles found in coal beds. It looks like sea fossils high in the mountain ranges. It looks like modern extreme weather patterns, the industrial revolution and so on. Like I say, it's all in how you interpret what you see.

quote:

---

Interesting - in what way? How does the clearly preserved sorting of the fossil record, combined with relative inferred age, support sudden universal creation? It doesn't seem to, to me.

---

Imo, the dating methods are flawed, failing to factor the flood.

quote:

---

Wheras, an astronomically larger number of scientists would agree with my criticisms of your definition. So what's your point? I have way more scientists on my side.

---

True, but only since modern schools have indoctrinated the students in it for so long without substantial documentation. Begin with theory in your search and you can promote anything with enough backing........anything from religion to medical quakery to so called science.The fact that there are more and more bonafide creationist scientists who are taking notice of new archeological and scientific discoveries to support sudden creation of life gives credence to the need for science to acknowledge that what is observed supports the possibility of the supernatural as much as your views, depending on the interpretation of the data.------------------
Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing except he reveal the secret to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7