(January 9, 2015 at 7:33 pm)bob96 Wrote: Imagine an alternate universe which contains a single hydrogen atom. (Lets not include dark matter or other forces in the discussion for the purpose of simplicity.) You could replace the atom with a proton, a neutron, a sub-atomic particle, or a string. The point is, it's real. It can be measured.

Now where did this hydrogen atom come from?
Was it just always there?
Did it spontaneously appear, ie. magically?
Did someone create it?

How did it come into being?

Every second, vast numbers of virtual particle pairs come into existence and mutually destroy each other. What has been called collectively, the quantum foam. Where do they come from? There is a vast sea of energy out there in the Universe that is drawn on to create these particles. Where did that come from? Where does this supposed God come from that religious theologians prattle about?

(January 14, 2015 at 6:42 pm)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:

(January 9, 2015 at 7:33 pm)bob96 Wrote: Imagine an alternate universe which contains a single hydrogen atom. (Lets not include dark matter or other forces in the discussion for the purpose of simplicity.) You could replace the atom with a proton, a neutron, a sub-atomic particle, or a string. The point is, it's real. It can be measured.

Now where did this hydrogen atom come from?
Was it just always there?
Did it spontaneously appear, ie. magically?
Did someone create it?

How did it come into being?

Every second, vast numbers of virtual particle pairs come into existence and mutually destroy each other. What has been called collectively, the quantum foam. Where do they come from? There is a vast sea of energy out there in the Universe that is drawn on to create these particles. Where did that come from? Where does this supposed God come from that religious theologians prattle about?

Also empty space is simply not empty.

(January 13, 2015 at 3:49 am)bob96 Wrote: Dawkin's himself has acknowledged that there is not enough time in the Universe for it to have self assembled, blind mutation after blind mutation.

Please provide a citation for this. Otherwise, it's bullshit.

(January 15, 2015 at 9:54 am)Chas Wrote:

(January 13, 2015 at 3:49 am)bob96 Wrote: Dawkin's himself has acknowledged that there is not enough time in the Universe for it to have self assembled, blind mutation after blind mutation.

Please provide a citation for this. Otherwise, it's bullshit.

I second that and also Dawkins would not even say that.

If Dawkins really said that then the universe would have imploded into a paradox singularity.

(January 15, 2015 at 9:54 am)Chas Wrote:

(January 13, 2015 at 3:49 am)bob96 Wrote: Dawkin's himself has acknowledged that there is not enough time in the Universe for it to have self assembled, blind mutation after blind mutation.

Please provide a citation for this. Otherwise, it's bullshit.

Actually, I seem to recall this from a TED talk. It was about how evolution is not simply "blind mutation," but is instead constrained and shaped by environmental pressures. Once the process of molecular reproduction begins, mutation and development are anything but blind.

So it's an accurate quote, ripped from context to make it seem as if it means something other than what Dawkins was saying. Quelle Surprise.

(January 15, 2015 at 11:40 am)Davka Wrote: So it's an accurate quote, ripped from context to make it seem as if it means something other than what Dawkins was saying. Quelle Surprise.

It really really depends on what you mean by blind. Mutations themselves are blind in the sense that they do not usually change their rates to accomodate environmental factors, no? So if Dawkins used the word "blind", then probably to allude to his Shakespeare weasel example, where there is no selection process between mutations.

So the quote is simply saying the wrong thing if no context is provided, and completely supports evolution in context.

(January 15, 2015 at 11:55 am)Alex K Wrote: It really really depends on what you mean by blind. Mutations themselves are blind in the sense that they do not usually change their rates to accomodate environmental factors, no?

I think the better way to phrase it is that mutations are blind, but their persistence is not. You can get any mutation (though one might add that even those mutations are constrained by what it is possible to express via existing genes and their potential for change) but those that we'll actually see over more than one generation are not blind in the least, as they're constrained by a very specific set of factors relevant to the organism in question.

(January 15, 2015 at 12:15 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 11:55 am)Alex K Wrote: It really really depends on what you mean by blind. Mutations themselves are blind in the sense that they do not usually change their rates to accomodate environmental factors, no?

I think the better way to phrase it is that mutations are blind, but their persistence is not. You can get any mutation (though one might add that even those mutations are constrained by what it is possible to express via existing genes and their potential for change) but those that we'll actually see over more than one generation are not blind in the least, as they're constrained by a very specific set of factors relevant to the organism in question.

Ok, ok. But calling mutations themselves (and by that we mean individual mutations by default) anything other than blind is extremely misleading, don't you think.

(January 9, 2015 at 7:33 pm)bob96 Wrote: Imagine an alternate universe which contains a single hydrogen atom. (Lets not include dark matter or other forces in the discussion for the purpose of simplicity.) You could replace the atom with a proton, a neutron, a sub-atomic particle, or a string. The point is, it's real. It can be measured.

Now where did this hydrogen atom come from?
Was it just always there?
Did it spontaneously appear, ie. magically?
Did someone create it?

How did it come into being?

You imagined it. Since it's a hypothetical, there are mutliple possible answers, especially if you don't rule out magic.