no i very well know that the ocean isn't required to hold that many. my point was that that few spread accross the ocean would space them out so much they would most likely never come in contact with eachother. the reason i suggested the ocean is b/c this process is required to take place on earth b/c in space there's too much radiation and life couldn't survive there in the first place yet alone get through the earth's atmosphere w/o getting burnned up. since the ocean covers most of the earth, and is most likely where these amino acids were created in the first place (accourding to your theory) and allows these small molecules to float around as opposed to just sitting on the ground not moving at all, i suggested the ocean. unless that's not plausable and these things had to form in the sun instead getting to the earth through a tiny wormwhole (yes sarcasm here not ignorance).

The video is funny because, despite all the science (well, mostly basic math) mumbo-jumbo, the author advertises his own ignorance on the subject matter at hand right there in the title. "Mathematical impossibility of evolution". I'm sure the author meant "improbability", because that is what his argument amounts to. Still false, but less so.

Other than that, it's clear that the author doesn't understand evolution very well. Evolution is not random; mutation is. Not all molecules in the DNA structure are shuffled in a mutation; larger building blocks are (in some cases, whole sections of code). Not all combinations are tried; nor do they have to be. I could go on, but what's the point?

To keep things simple, evolution basically amounts to the following.
1) Children take to their parents, but are slightly different.
2) Those differences might influence their odds of survival.
3) If and when they survive, they might have children of their own.
4) goto 1.

That is all. If you think one through three are true, you believe in "Evolution".


The premise underpinning the math is flawed. No use in trying to get the numbers right.

(December 17, 2011 at 12:24 pm)chipan Wrote: no i very well know that the ocean isn't required to hold that many. my point was that that few spread accross the ocean would space them out so much they would most likely never come in contact with eachother. the reason i suggested the ocean is b/c this process is required to take place on earth b/c in space there's too much radiation and life couldn't survive there in the first place yet alone get through the earth's atmosphere w/o getting burnned up.

I can only surmise that you have some compelling reason to "know" all of this, and that the countless scientists working in the related fields are just too stupid and/ or ignorant to realize their folly?

Or is it a conspiracy?

Quote:I'm sure the author meant "improbability", because that is what his argument amounts to. Still false, but less so.

Never give one of these douchebags the benefit of the doubt. He said what he meant because that is how those morons think. Black/white. No shades of gray.

(December 17, 2011 at 12:24 pm)chipan Wrote: no i very well know that the ocean isn't required to hold that many. my point was that that few spread accross the ocean would space them out so much they would most likely never come in contact with eachother. the reason i suggested the ocean is b/c this process is required to take place on earth b/c in space there's too much radiation and life couldn't survive there in the first place yet alone get through the earth's atmosphere w/o getting burnned up. since the ocean covers most of the earth, and is most likely where these amino acids were created in the first place (accourding to your theory) and allows these small molecules to float around as opposed to just sitting on the ground not moving at all, i suggested the ocean. unless that's not plausable and these things had to form in the sun instead getting to the earth through a tiny wormwhole (yes sarcasm here not ignorance).

Make claims, fail to support those claims, move on to the next talking point. So, you've decided to hop on board with me then? What was impossible or impossibly improbable only a few posts ago is now not so difficult to understand. You've had some misconceptions about probability and the effect of large numbers on any given flip of the coin cleared up for you? Now you're talking about the "miracle of survival". Think I may have mentioned something like that. Nonetheless, survival does not require or invoke any god whatsoever. Large numbers at play again. The majority of these simple lifeforms did not survive. You're objections add nothing to our understanding of the subject, and have already been handled.

You're right btw, space is hostile to our sort of life. So is the ocean, if only by way of it's vast emptiness. Most of the ocean is a huge desert even to this day. Neither were "fine tuned" for us.

"I can only surmise that you have some compelling reason to "know" all of this, and that the countless scientists working in the related fields are just too stupid and/ or ignorant to realize their folly?"

no i don't claim to know more than the scientists. i just claim that they are using bad science to prove a point. macro evolution is almost as bad a science as global warming is.

"Make claims, fail to support those claims, move on to the next talking point. So, you've decided to hop on board with me then? What was impossible or impossibly improbable only a few posts ago is now not so difficult to understand. You've had some misconceptions about probability and the effect of large numbers on any given flip of the coin cleared up for you? Now you're talking about the "miracle of survival". Think I may have mentioned something like that. Nonetheless, survival does not require or invoke any god whatsoever. Large numbers at play again. The majority of these simple lifeforms did not survive. You're objections add nothing to our understanding of the subject, and have already been handled."

what is spiritual is impossible to prove and hard to understand. no i'm not talking about the miricle of survival, i'm talking about the origin of life itself. life needs to be formed before it can survive and there is no good theory that says how it formed itself and stephen hawking himself said scientists aren't exactly sure how life started. but the only theory i've heard (correct me if i'm wrong) is in earth's early atmosphere was composed as such to make it possible that when lightning struck the water it created protien units (amino acids) and these units over time fell into place to make protiens and those eventually fell into place to make the simplist of cells. even the simplist of cells are so complated we cannot reconstruct them using raw materiels. it sounds like a complicated virsion of the spontanious generation theory (that life can form out of things are not alive) which was proved wrong over 150 years ago. they proved life cannot form out of dead meat back then only to have another theory arise that life can form out of raw materials being constructed by forces of nature. which btw is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics that order cannot be created out of dissorder.

@ chipanZ..Sorry buddy, spirituality is just mind fucking yourself with tryptophan

(December 19, 2011 at 1:43 am)chipan Wrote: what is spiritual is impossible to prove and hard to understand.

Correct, it is very difficult, if not impossible to prove that something that doesn't exist actually does. It isn't hard to understand though. Perhaps it;s giving you trouble, I have no such trouble understanding spiritual concepts or beliefs.

Quote:no i'm not talking about the miricle of survival, i'm talking about the origin of life itself. life needs to be formed before it can survive and there is no good theory that says how it formed itself and stephen hawking himself said scientists aren't exactly sure how life started. but the only theory i've heard (correct me if i'm wrong) is in earth's early atmosphere was composed as such to make it possible that when lightning struck the water it created protien units (amino acids) and these units over time fell into place to make protiens and those eventually fell into place to make the simplist of cells.

Perhaps you should ask a biologist about biology? When your car starts malfunctioning is Stephen Hawking your man, or do you take it in to a mechanic? Nonetheless, the origin of life is a hotly debated subject. That we currently can't say for certain doesn't prevent us from ruling out certain fairy tales. "We don't know" does not default to "goddidit". Our lack of knowledge in any given area is not an open door through which you get to smuggle ghosts and magic. What you're describing is a rough version of one of our theories. I'll link you the wiki at the bottom.

Quote:even the simplist of cells are so complated we cannot reconstruct them using raw materiels.

And? You have billions of years and a lab the size of the earth to try and replicate this "experiment" That's what we're talking about here, never forget it. Are you seriously criticizing a theory based on the fact that we cant make monster hop out of jars of peanut butter?

Quote:it sounds like a complicated virsion of the spontanious generation theory (that life can form out of things are not alive) which was proved wrong over 150 years ago. they proved life cannot form out of dead meat back then only to have another theory arise that life can form out of raw materials being constructed by forces of nature. which btw is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics that order cannot be created out of dissorder.

You've misrepresented what spontaneous regeneration was and why it was incorrect. No worries, that's in the link. The experiment I think you're referring to was actually an attempt to show that flies came from decaying meat (they didn't realize that there were eggs on the meat, because they were difficult to see). This was an effort to prove spontaneous generation, which again, you've misrepresented. Just so happens that they don't. Someone's been taking you for a ride about this stuff I think. Yes, one of the current theories is that life arose out of "raw materials" that were present here. Are you proposing that life arose of of materials that were/are not present here? There's a theory for that too (fairies need not apply, everyday stuff that can be shown to exist has it handled). The law you're invoking, and I've explained this to you before, does not apply to our system (the earth) the way in which you believe it does. This law is governed by probability, and so even in a system that does not recieve energy from elsewhere it does not apply in all cases, boggles the mind doesn't it? We receive energy from the sun, and a shitload of it. One day we won't, and then that law will apply in the manner which you're describing, with disastrous results (for life..the cosmos don't give a shit). You need to learn the difference between closed and open systems and how entropy affects them before you go any further with this. I'll link you the wiki for this as well. Fact check your stuff before you throw it out as gospel, seriously. Had you typed your claims into google before you posted them you probably wouldn't have hit the button. This sort of information isn't cutting edge, it's very available, it's completely accessible, there's no excuse for arguments like this. I've got to mention this as an aside, you do realize that the idea of creation from nothingness by a god that is not a physical being or "alive" is actually exactly the type of claim (albeit with far less explanatory power...none to be precise, and absolutely no observations or evidence offered as support) as the ones you seem to want to argue against. Why is it that you have no trouble with life from non life and nothingness when that non life is a god in the absence of evidence, but when confronted with abiogenesis (a superficially similar claim), which does have evidence to support it and makes no claims to life arising from "nothingness" you balk?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

"Correct, it is very difficult, if not impossible to prove that something that doesn't exist actually does. It isn't hard to understand though. Perhaps it;s giving you trouble, I have no such trouble understanding spiritual concepts or beliefs."

yes b/c u look at them as though they were made up by a bunch of schizophrenics and i look at then as if they're possible. that's the difference.

"Perhaps you should ask a biologist about biology? When your car starts malfunctioning is Stephen Hawking your man, or do you take it in to a mechanic? Nonetheless, the origin of life is a hotly debated subject. That we currently can't say for certain doesn't prevent us from ruling out certain fairy tales. "We don't know" does not default to "goddidit". Our lack of knowledge in any given area is not an open door through which you get to smuggle ghosts and magic. What you're describing is a rough version of one of our theories. I'll link you the wiki at the bottom."

good point perhaps i should quote biologists on matters of biology but anyways the fact that we don't know only proves that it's a matter of faith to believe it happened that way not evidence.

"And? You have billions of years and a lab the size of the earth to try and replicate this "experiment" That's what we're talking about here, never forget it. Are you seriously criticizing a theory based on the fact that we cant make monster hop out of jars of peanut butter?"

nope, just that you call it fact before it's proven

"You've misrepresented what spontaneous regeneration was and why it was incorrect"

i said generation not REgeneration you know, when people thought things like flies are born out of dead meat proven wrong by taking the meat and sealing it away from flies and observing that maggots did not form. an old easy experiment done to prove the theory wrong.

"Are you proposing that life arose of of materials that were/are not present here?"

nope just that they were constructed by a designer. we usually think that those things that look like they were designed are, and that the greater the design the greater the designer. does this not apply to life?

"You need to learn the difference between closed and open systems and how entropy affects them before you go any further with this."

i know the difference but the big question is, is there a way to make an open system into a closed system?

Yes, that is the difference. You need to feel that your narratives are possible, and so you assume they are ignoring the mountains of evidence to the contrary. I make no such assumption. I don;t think schizophrenics wrote the bible by the way, I don't think the people who came up with and modified these stories were hearing voices of any kind. They appear to have been telling stories. Here you are making assumptions again..assuming that anyone heard anything in the first place.

It means no such thing. I don't know how a telephone works, but I don't need to dial my faith line before I place a call. It's honest to say "we can't say for certain". We have a pretty good idea of how these things could happen, we have observations which lead us to believe that our theories have merit. You have nothing. Don't even attempt to equate your faith with science.

When I say fact I mean fact, when I say theory I mean theory, learn the difference and google it if you have doubts. You don't have to take my word for anything. Is there any fact in particular that you take issue with? Perhaps the fact that we can't make monsters jump out of jars of peanut butter? What do you have to offer me beyond your word? Nothing. I'm beginning to think that you're not confused, but deliberately deceitful.

Yeah sorry, typo. You've misrepresented the theory. The links I gave you cover the broad strokes (and link to the fine strokes).

Ah, well you have a proposition but no evidence. At some point you'll have to bring some to this party. No design, no designer, no "greatness" based on a non-existent design from a non-existent designer. I know you want to skip the tough part but I'm afraid your arguments won't work unless you can establish the foundation in the first place.

That's the big question is it? Looks like you're trying to be evasive and move on to something new without addressing anything that's been brought to your attention whatsoever. Typical fundy shit.