Interesting email response

[MDoranD]

A friend and I have been exchanging emails about Science and Christianity. This is the most current exchange. Interested to hear your thoughts.

--------------------------------------------

I wrote:


>
>Scientists use extremely powerful telescopes, i.e. Hubble telescope, to
>look hundreds of light years away into our galaxy and beyond. Through
>these images, that we occasionally see, the scientists claim to be
>looking at light images of galaxies from millions of years ago. (i.e.
>since light only travels at the speed of light and these galaxies are so
>far away, the images we are seeing of them actually happened millions of
>years ago.) These images show hundreds of thousands of other galaxies
>similar in size to our milky way. Do you personally think God created
>all of this imense space with the intention of just having one civilized
>being? Noone could do anything but guess at these questions, and I know
>that, but it boggles the mind to think that out of all of this space,
>God has chosen just little ol' Earth to house his only created
>civilization.
>
>If, in your lifetime, another life form (whether intelligent or not) was
>identified and proven to be in existence, how would this affect your
>views on Christianity? I have never heard that the bible specifically
>states that there is only one life form created for only one planet, but
>how, in your opinion, would this affect Christianity? If at all?
>
>Do you feel, that in the vastness of space, with the vastness of atoms
>combining and joining as they venture through space, that it is possible
>for an unintelligent life form to be created by accident? To
>clarify--That even though God put us here for a purpose on this planet,
>that over time and millions of years, another life form creates by
>itself? I dont feel like working the math of probability, but even the
>most rare occurence, say 1 in 1 quatrillion chance of that happening,
>COULD happen due to the sheer size of space and the time its had to
>happen?

------------------------------------

He responded:

1. Actually, it is (supposedly*) billions of light years away. Who knows?
Know what I think, though? He created all that stuff so we'd say, "holy
crap! God is awesome." It's not only the seemingly infinite outer universe
but also the seemingly infinitesmal inner universe of the cell that I think
is so ridiculously fascinating. Even a small, simple bacteria cell is an
insanely complicated factory -- far more sophisticated than any technology
ever created by man -- consisting of over one hundred thousand million
atoms. I've also read astronomers who note that earth is located in an
impossibly perfect place to VIEW what's out there in the universe. We have
the perfect atmosphere, perfect distance from the sun (know the only place
in our solar system you can view a perfect solar eclipse? earth ... know
why? because the sun is 400 times larger than the moon, but also exactly 400
times farther away ... coincidence?), perfect place in the milky way --
right between two spiral arms -- to OBSERVE all this cool stuff that God
made. From other galaxies or even other planets you wouldn't have the view
we have. Interesting ...

2. Well, I don't think it says anywhere in the Bible that we are the only
life in the universe, but you do have to understand (1) how ridiculously
rare earth is and (2) how ridiculously impossible it is to form life from
chance. There's a great, easy book to read called The Case for a Creator by
Lee Strobel which does an awesome job explaining this. Let me just use one
example.

The building blocks of life are proteins. Proteins are made up of chains of
amino acids, which are made from atoms. I'll spare you the calculations (I
have them if you want them), but the probability of forming just one small
(100 amino acids long) protein molecule -- which is LIGHT YEARS away from an
actual functioning cell, to say nothing of a complex organism -- is 1 chance
in 10 to the 125th. That's a 1 with 125 zeros after it. A quadrillion has
15 zeroes. Dig? If you tried a million times a second every second since
the beginning of time (assuming about 15 billion years), you'd still never
even come close to a functioning protein molecule.

See, this is the stuff no one pays attention to. If it's that unlikely to
get one lousy protein, how are we going to get a whole cell -- which is
thousands of proteins, all working together with the complexity of a NASA
biosphere or something? And we've only scratched the surface of this
conversation. I think God invented science to allow us to be blown away
with His amazing genius. Think about it -- you could fit the complete
programming instructions (DNA) for every species that's ever been on earth
inside of a teaspoon, and still have enough room for every book ever
written!!!



p.s. * = I say "supposedly" because it looks pretty likely that the speed of
light has slown down dramatically since the beginning of time. So, if, in
the beginning, light speed was, say, 1,000,000 times faster, then what
appears to be 15 billion light years away might only be 15,000 light years
away. That stuff is still being hashed out.
-------------------------------------------------


MDoranD

[HedonismBot]

It is interesting to read your friends responses, did you reply to him yet? I have never heard that we are in the perfect location to view the universe, does anyone know of any information on this? As to the improbability of life forming, yes it is extremely extremely rare, however multiply that by how many times these processes are going on and I think it is 100% there is life out there.

There are 100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars which have had planets for billions of years, I really don't see the conditions for life not occuring many many times over this scope of time and distance.

[MDoranD]

I have not replied to him yet. He made some points in his email that I was not aware of and thought Id see what you guys thought.

MDoranD

[cambraceres]

This friend of your'e sounds like many other christians using junk science to further their case for intelligent creation.

What was he talking about in the postscript?

The speed of light is still being hashed out?

it is?

Cambraceres

[MDoranD]

[ QUOTE ]
This friend of your'e sounds like many other christians using junk science to further their case for intelligent creation.

What was he talking about in the postscript?

The speed of light is still being hashed out?

it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was unaware of the speed of light ever slowing down. Anyone know anything about this, or why he would make that claim? In his defense, he does tons of reading on this, so I doubt hes pulling it from thin air.

MDoranD

[MidGe]

Yep, ,looks like a new way to attempt preaching.

1. What an outdated anthropocentrist view. Reminds me of the earth being the center of the univers.

2. I think God invented science to allow us to be blown away
with His amazing genius. Unfortunately, he failed. How many problems are there how many inefficiencies in the body, how many awful climates etc... etc...

All be discussed and dismissed before.

May I recommend your friend read Rcihard Dawkins instead of Lee Strobel.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
There are 100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars which have had planets for billions of years, I really don't see the conditions for life not occuring many many times over this scope of time and distance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah and if each one of those planets had 100 billion monkeys randomly typing 60 characters a second without stopping for 15 billions years the probability of a shakespearean play being produced is essentially 0. Infinite Monkey Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem)

If a shakespearean play cannot be produced randomly in this universe what makes you think life can?


Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

Took two seconds to find something about it on

varying speed of light (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6092)

Stu

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]
Infinite Monkey Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem)


[/ QUOTE ]

By far the best part of that wikipedia article:

In 2003, scientists at Paignton Zoo and the University of Plymouth, in Devon in England reported that they had left a computer keyboard in the enclosure of six Sulawesi Crested Macaques for a month; not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five pages (PDF) consisting largely of the letter S, they started by attacking the keyboard with a stone, and continued by urinating and defecating on it.

[HedonismBot]

OK while everyone says how incredibly unlikely life is, can someone please point me to a place with actual calculations like this guy claims to have? I doubt the scientific community has assigned a certain % chance of life arrising on Earth given the ammounts of different gases etc. however if there are any numbers like this could someone please link, or use your search magic, I've turned up nothing. Awesome.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
OK while everyone says how incredibly unlikely life is, can someone please point me to a place with actual calculations like this guy claims to have? I doubt the scientific community has assigned a certain % chance of life arrising on Earth given the ammounts of different gases etc. however if there are any numbers like this could someone please link, or use your search magic, I've turned up nothing. Awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think doing calculations on something like this is next to useless. It all depends on the assumptions you make for the problem, and from what I can tell, every single one of these assumptions is still up for debate in the scientific community. E.g. what gases were present in the early atmosphere and at what quantities, etc.

Even if you find a supposed "scientific" calculation, it will probably be crap.

Don't get me wrong, I think the occurance of life is quite amazing and the probability of life evolving from lone chemical constituents is likely extremely low (depending on how you look at it), but to assign a number to such a probability is pretty silly at this point.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
OK while everyone says how incredibly unlikely life is, can someone please point me to a place with actual calculations like this guy claims to have? I doubt the scientific community has assigned a certain % chance of life arrising on Earth given the ammounts of different gases etc. however if there are any numbers like this could someone please link, or use your search magic, I've turned up nothing. Awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do a search for "Intelligent Design" and you'll find these numbers. It's junk science, done solely to promote Christianity. It's these numbers that the religious folks on here will routinely spout in order to "prove" that an invisible man created life in 7 days, rather than a series of complex chemical reactions over a billion years.

[Matt R.]

I think a more interesting question would be what environmental conditions *must* be in place to allow the assembly of an RNA molecule from its precursors. Or is there a molecule that confers heritability that is simpler than RNA... and RNA evolved from this?

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
If a shakespearean play cannot be produced randomly in this universe what makes you think life can?


[/ QUOTE ]

What an awesome proof that shakespearean plays do not exist.

[MDoranD]

[ QUOTE ]
If a shakespearean play cannot be produced randomly in this universe what makes you think life can?


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
What an awesome proof that shakespearean plays do not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does everyone assume they wouldnt type Shakespeare in Monkey?


MDoranD

[HedonismBot]

Frin the Wikipedia link:

The theorem graphically illustrates the perils of reasoning about infinity by imagining a vast but finite number. If every atom in the Universe were a monkey producing a billion keystrokes a second for the entire history of the Universe, it is still very unlikely that any monkey would get as far as "slings and arrows" in Hamlet's most famous soliliquy.

I don't believe this for a second. I'm gonna get a pen and paper and work this out now.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a shakespearean play cannot be produced randomly in this universe what makes you think life can?


[/ QUOTE ]

What an awesome proof that shakespearean plays do not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oddly enough, this reply sparked an idea.

The probability of producing a Shakespearean play by randomly banging on a keyboard (the whole monkey idea) is essentially zero, even over an extraordinarily long time line. The fact that we observe works of Shakespeare means that they very likely were not produced randomly. I think we can take as a given that Shakespeare's works were not random -- they were written by Shakespeare, a conscious being.

So, if we take the event of a Shakespearian play being created as being a non-random event, then the event of Shakespeare existing is non-random as well. Put another way, if Shakespeare exiting is a random event, then any event that *depends* on shakespeare existing must be random as well. Extrapolate this back to the assembly of the first heritable molecules, since of course Shakespeare could not create his works if life never came into being.

Doesn't this point to the idea that the existence of life is *not* random? Or, can something that is truly non-random come from something that is truly random? Maybe the latter sentence is true... I don't know at this point but intuitively it seems false.

Note that I'm not saying non-random equals God must have created it. I'm just saying that there is some "force" driving the assembly of the basic molecules required for life (kind of like evolution on the atomic scale).

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are 100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars which have had planets for billions of years, I really don't see the conditions for life not occuring many many times over this scope of time and distance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah and if each one of those planets had 100 billion monkeys randomly typing 60 characters a second without stopping for 15 billions years the probability of a shakespearean play being produced is essentially 0. Infinite Monkey Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem)

If a shakespearean play cannot be produced randomly in this universe what makes you think life can?


Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists love the Infinite Monkey Thereom because it's a straw man that supposedly supports their argument. However, it incorrectly states the problem. By requiring the monkeys to get the answer 100% correct, you've created a nearly infinite improbability. But evolution doesn't work that way. You get partial credit for solving part of the problem and then you build from there.

Imagine the monkeys trying to write Hamlet by randomly banging on the keys, but rather than requiring them to get the entire play right all at the same time, they get credit for getting a word right and it locks into place. Now they only need to solve the remaining words, getting credit each time they get one right. Solution time is cut considerably.

Now, before I get the inevitable "that's not how evolution works, there are no partial eyes, partial limbs, etc." argument, I'll admit that's an imperfect analogy. I can build a better one, but it'd be a lot less concise. (It would be along the lines of the monkeys simply need to build something that works, then tag on pieces to each end that also work. Something like that.)

Suffice it to say, the Infinite Monkey Argument is a heck of a lot more imperfect than my analogy. But I think the chances of it going away are about as likely as the monkeys coming up with Hamlet in one fell swoop.

[cardcounter0]

This makes sense until you look at it from another direction.

Randomly deal yourself 100,000 poker hands. Make note of all the hands. Calculate the odds of this 100,000 poker hand sequence being regenerated randomly. The odds are billions to 1. And yet, that 100,000 hand sequence just occured! Therefore we can only conclude that you didn't randomly deal those hands?

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Took two seconds to find something about it on

varying speed of light (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6092)

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, talk about misappropriating science to your own purposes. The article talks about something possibly varying by .000000045% over billions of years and you want to use that to validate an argument that says the speed of light has varied by a factor of 1,000,000. Don't they teach you about the dangers of extrapolation is creationism class?

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
This makes sense until you look at it from another direction.

Randomly deal yourself 100,000 poker hands. Make note of all the hands. Calculate the odds of this 100,000 poker hand sequence being regenerated randomly. The odds are billions to 1. And yet, that 100,000 hand sequence just occured! Therefore we can only conclude that you didn't randomly deal those hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying the existence of a Shakespearean play is a random event? It just looks non-random from our perspective?

[HedonismBot]

My initial feelings were wrong. Or, I now feel differently than I originally did.

[daryn]

i like what your friend has to say. i know everyone here jumps on him since he believes in religion. i find that funny.

one thing i hate is when he says (and when others say) "the sun is 400 times larger than the moon, but also exactly 400 times farther away ... coincidence?"


coincidence? yeah.

[KeysrSoze]

Abiogenesis, given optimum conditions, is orders of magnitude more probable than random typing producing an arbitrary set of works.

Besides, monkeys producing Shakespears works has already happened. They just took a few tens of millions of years to evolve into humans for it to happen.

[Hopey]

I think you need to find new friends.

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]

they get credit for getting a word right and it locks into place. Now they only need to solve the remaining words, getting credit each time they get one right. Solution time is cut considerably.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but how do the monkey's know that they just typed the correct word so that it locks into place?

Is there a template? If so then who made the template?

[MDoranD]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to find new friends.

[/ QUOTE ]


I was waiting for this. I disagree. Surrounding yourself with people who see things exactly the way you do is a boring existence. Or maybe you were attempting humor.


MDoranD

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

they get credit for getting a word right and it locks into place. Now they only need to solve the remaining words, getting credit each time they get one right. Solution time is cut considerably.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but how do the monkey's know that they just typed the correct word so that it locks into place?

Is there a template? If so then who made the template?

[/ QUOTE ]

They obviously don't. It's an analogy. Geez.

I could just as easily said the first thing they typed was obviously a masterpiece, just in a language you don't understand. What if they produced Don Quioxte rather than Hamlet? Would they still be wrong? You're also assuming there's also one correct answer, which is also a huge fallacy.

[flatline]

[ QUOTE ]
We have
the perfect atmosphere, perfect distance from the sun (know the only place
in our solar system you can view a perfect solar eclipse? earth ... know
why? because the sun is 400 times larger than the moon, but also exactly 400
times farther away ... coincidence?), perfect place in the milky way --
right between two spiral arms -- to OBSERVE all this cool stuff that God
made.

[/ QUOTE ]

Distance from Earth to Moon: 384,403 km
Distance from Earth to Sun: 149.6 million km
Ratio of aproximately 388

Moon's diameter: 3,476 km
Sun's diameter: 1.392 million km
Ratio of aproximately 400

Somewhat interesting, but don't you think God would be a little more exact if he wanted this to be proof of his awesomeness? Seems a lot more like coincidence.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to find new friends.

[/ QUOTE ]


I was waiting for this. I disagree. Surrounding yourself with people who see things exactly the way you do is a boring existence. Or maybe you were attempting humor.


MDoranD

[/ QUOTE ]

I was attempting humour. Actually, I have a few religious friends. We know enough not to debate religion, though. Someone whose beliefs are based solely on "faith" is hard to debate with, so there's really no point.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have
the perfect atmosphere, perfect distance from the sun (know the only place
in our solar system you can view a perfect solar eclipse? earth ... know
why? because the sun is 400 times larger than the moon, but also exactly 400
times farther away ... coincidence?), perfect place in the milky way --
right between two spiral arms -- to OBSERVE all this cool stuff that God
made.

[/ QUOTE ]

Distance from Earth to Moon: 384,403 km
Distance from Earth to Sun: 149.6 million km
Ratio of aproximately 388

Moon's diameter: 3,476 km
Sun's diameter: 1.392 million km
Ratio of aproximately 400

Somewhat interesting, but don't you think God would be a little more exact if he wanted this to be proof of his awesomeness? Seems a lot more like coincidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair (and accurate), the moon has been slowly moving away from the Earth since it's creation. I'm not sure if this accounts for the differences in ratio, but the moon's distance from the Earth is gradually increasing.

That being said, you'd think that a supreme being would make it so that the moon would stay put. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[wh1t3bread]

Your original analogy assumes only one correct answer. I'm not assuming anything.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
I've also read astronomers who note that earth is located in an impossibly perfect place to VIEW what's out there in the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if we were in the middle of the galaxy rather than the edge, he would argue how impossibly lucky we were to have all tghese amazing stars so close, rather than be off out on one of the edges.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
i like what your friend has to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Stu Pidasso]

This is the part I found most interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
The theorem graphically illustrates the perils of reasoning about infinity by imagining a vast but finite number. If every atom in the Universe were a monkey producing a billion keystrokes a second for the entire history of the Universe, it is still very unlikely that any monkey would get as far as "slings and arrows" in Hamlet's most famous soliliquy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]

Boy, talk about misappropriating science to your own purposes. The article talks about something possibly varying by .000000045% over billions of years and you want to use that to validate an argument that says the speed of light has varied by a factor of 1,000,000. Don't they teach you about the dangers of extrapolation is creationism class?

[/ QUOTE ]

Misappropriating science? I didn't even make a point or provide analysis. I knew I had heard from some non creationist source that the speed of light may vary so I simply provided a link. I forgive you for the error though, its not your fault you were not taught the think critically.

Want to know what I believe about creationism? Its that if there is a God, then God would not have created the universe in a way that makes it obvious that he did it. What scientest tell us about the creation of the univerese is completely consistent with how I beleive God would have done it.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Creationists love the Infinite Monkey Thereom because it's a straw man that supposedly supports their argument. However, it incorrectly states the problem. By requiring the monkeys to get the answer 100% correct, you've created a nearly infinite improbability. But evolution doesn't work that way. You get partial credit for solving part of the problem and then you build from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

The purpose of the infinite monkey theorem is to show that the creation of life is not a purely random event. There must be some process to it. Its an extremely potent argument in that respect.

Stu

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Abiogenesis, given optimum conditions, is orders of magnitude more probable than random typing producing an arbitrary set of works.

Besides, monkeys producing Shakespears works has already happened. They just took a few tens of millions of years to evolve into humans for it to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

... and all the while the vast majority of them were worshipping some sort of higher being(s). Ironic, isn't it?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Abiogenesis, given optimum conditions, is orders of magnitude more probable than random typing producing an arbitrary set of works.

Besides, monkeys producing Shakespears works has already happened. They just took a few tens of millions of years to evolve into humans for it to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

... and all the while the vast majority of them were worshipping some sort of higher being(s). Ironic, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not ironic, inevitable. Small minds will always cling to the idea of "God" to explain the unexplainable.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Abiogenesis, given optimum conditions, is orders of magnitude more probable than random typing producing an arbitrary set of works.

Besides, monkeys producing Shakespears works has already happened. They just took a few tens of millions of years to evolve into humans for it to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

... and all the while the vast majority of them were worshipping some sort of higher being(s). Ironic, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not ironic, inevitable. Small minds will always cling to the idea of "God" to explain the unexplainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even more ironic. I'm going to laugh myself to sleep now. Good night and... God bless. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

could someone please link


[/ QUOTE ]

Coppedge (http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_tp.htm)

This is an old work but does give an overview of the problem. I don't claim it's certain proof of anything but does raise some interesting questions. Coppedge himself may have had too high an opinion of the usefulness of the method.

Having said that, it really wouldn't matter if you could demonstrate with 100% certainty that there hasn't been enough time for evolution to occur by chance on earth because they always have the HAT (Hopeful Alien Theory, or panspermia) as an out.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

could someone please link


[/ QUOTE ]

Coppedge (http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_tp.htm)

This is an old work but does give an overview of the problem. I don't claim it's certain proof of anything but does raise some interesting questions. Coppedge himself may have had too high an opinion of the usefulness of the method.

Having said that, it really wouldn't matter if you could demonstrate with 100% certainty that there hasn't been enough time for evolution to occur by chance on earth because they always have the HAT (Hopeful Alien Theory, or panspermia) as an out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your openness in addressing potential weaknesses.

Unfortunately, I won't be perusing his work.

His title page reads:

"MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND THE LAWS OF CHANCE
IN NONTECHNICAL LANGUAGE

A new approach to the subject, based on
exciting recent discoveries involving
proteins and DNA, the "golden molecule "
of heredity

by

JAMES F. COPPEDGE, Ph.D.

Probability Research in Molecular Biology"


A quick google revealed that his Ph.D. is in theology and not biology. He may have some points to raise, but my skepticism guard is already pegged out to give a fair reading to a thesis on molecular biology from a guy with a PhD in theology and a Masters in chemistry.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He may have some points to raise, but my skepticism guard is already pegged out to give a fair reading to a thesis on molecular biology from a guy with a PhD in theology and a Masters in chemistry


[/ QUOTE ]

I always try to judge the work, not the worker.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He may have some points to raise, but my skepticism guard is already pegged out to give a fair reading to a thesis on molecular biology from a guy with a PhD in theology and a Masters in chemistry


[/ QUOTE ]

I always try to judge the work, not the worker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed... except in cases where I believe the worker (or at least those who use the worker's work) are deliberately attempting to be disingenuous.

Dr. Coppedge's work is all over the internet at ID sites, theological sites, etc. He is listed as Dr. Coppedge, Director, Center for Probability Research in Biology, Northridge, California. Now, such a title seems to suggest training in the field, does it not? Note that he isn't listed as Director, Center for Probability Research in Biology, California State University, Northridge, California. My googling seems to show that no such center exists at the school in Northridge. So what exactly is this center of biology research? And what credibility does it have if its director is not a biologist?

I don't give this a pass--nor would I expect you to give a pass to a physicist who portrays himself as a priest if he's not.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't give this a pass--nor would I expect you to give a pass to a physicist who portrays himself as a priest if he's not.


[/ QUOTE ]

It would depend on what the "priest" had to say and the subject. The math involved doesn't require a PH.D. and the biology is that from the date of the book, about 1973, and Coppedge, as far as I can tell, did good research and based his conclusions on the science current at the time. Attacking credentials is nothing but an excuse for dodging the issue. Labelling what I believe "science" and what you believe "pseudo-science" is just dishonest debate. If Coppedge is so wrong he should be easy to blow out of the water.

BTW, I didn't learn of Coppedge from the net. I bought the book when it first came out. Yeah, I'm ancient. But I've been looking for someone to show he's wrong ever since without success. Please don't cite the talk.origins response. I've read it and I don't think it does much to answer Coppedge.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't give this a pass--nor would I expect you to give a pass to a physicist who portrays himself as a priest if he's not.


[/ QUOTE ]

It would depend on what the "priest" had to say and the subject. The math involved doesn't require a PH.D. and the biology is that from the date of the book, about 1973, and Coppedge, as far as I can tell, did good research and based his conclusions on the science current at the time. Attacking credentials is nothing but an excuse for dodging the issue. Labelling what I believe "science" and what you believe "pseudo-science" is just dishonest debate. If Coppedge is so wrong he should be easy to blow out of the water.

BTW, I didn't learn of Coppedge from the net. I bought the book when it first came out. Yeah, I'm ancient. But I've been looking for someone to show he's wrong ever since without success. Please don't cite the talk.origins response. I've read it and I don't think it does much to answer Coppedge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am hereby declaring myself "Director, Center for Advanced Research in Intelligent Design, International Theological Institute."

I honestly have a PhD in aeronautical engineering, so I feel I am well qualified.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't give this a pass--nor would I expect you to give a pass to a physicist who portrays himself as a priest if he's not.


[/ QUOTE ]

It would depend on what the "priest" had to say and the subject. The math involved doesn't require a PH.D. and the biology is that from the date of the book, about 1973, and Coppedge, as far as I can tell, did good research and based his conclusions on the science current at the time. Attacking credentials is nothing but an excuse for dodging the issue. Labelling what I believe "science" and what you believe "pseudo-science" is just dishonest debate. If Coppedge is so wrong he should be easy to blow out of the water.

BTW, I didn't learn of Coppedge from the net. I bought the book when it first came out. Yeah, I'm ancient. But I've been looking for someone to show he's wrong ever since without success. Please don't cite the talk.origins response. I've read it and I don't think it does much to answer Coppedge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will eventually read some of his work and respond at a future date. I am curious if nothing else.

Dr. Jonathan R.
Director, Center for Advanced Research in Intelligent Design
International Theological Institute

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I honestly have a PhD in aeronautical engineering, so I feel I am well qualified.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. Now give us your message in everyday language so we'll have something to talk about instead of endlessly attacking credentials.

There is no place in his book concerning the probability issue that Coppedge requires the reader to trust him, his intelligence or his credentials.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

Dr. Jonathan R.
Director, Center for Advanced Research in Intelligent Design
International Theological Institute

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...awesome. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MidGe]

The endless refrains and reprises of Behe, Colledge et al, have been more than satisfactorily answered by, amongst others, Dawkins, a scientist with a bit more status and credibility, and a very pleasant and abordable writing style. He also is a bit more current than Colledge, and surely not as discredited as Behe was thru his performance in court recently.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Not ironic, inevitable. Small minds will always cling to the idea of "God" to explain the unexplainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you always have fall back on insulting people? Anyways some pretty great minds have believed in God.

Stu

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no place in his book concerning the probability issue that Coppedge requires the reader to trust him, his intelligence or his credentials.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but right at the end of his introduction he states:

"As a tentative conclusion before going on in our study of science, we may say that the two main objective sources from which we may draw information are nature and the Bible. "

I REST MY CASE!

This is not a scientific thesis on molecular biology if the Bible is RIGHT FROM THE START assumed to be an objective source of information! How can a book written 2000 years ago be considered an objective source by any scientist or reasonably intelligent person?

Crap, now that I'm reading this paper, it is even more obviously trash. His introduction is full of intentionally distorted statements that a religious pom-pom waver might overlook.

In his overview of what science is (from the Introduction), he never introduced the scientific method--HOW DO YOU OVERLOOK THIS? This is the essence of science. Instead, he wrote: "It is not that we need rid ourselves of metaphysics or assumptions, according to Professor Bohm, because it is a necessity that we have such a philosophical viewpoint. “All of us,” he says, “will think more clearly when we frankly and openly admit that a lot of. . . . ‘factual science’ is actually a kind of poetry..." Clearly, he is already setting the stage to undermine scientific credibility.

Introducing he evolution he states: "evolution may be defined as the belief that all living things, including man, resulted by natural changes from lifeless matter, with no supernatural intervention involved. This is the common current understanding of the term in its general use by most biologists, though of course there are many exceptions." This actually is not the common use of the term theory of evolution, but represents one aspect andc only one aspect which may or may not be agreed upon by proponents.

He states prior to this that: "No one is likely to consider a Supreme Being in his philosophy of life, or in his philosophy of science, who does not believe there actually is a God, of course. “Anyone who comes to God must believe that he exists,” says the Bible itself, in the book of Hebrews. By sensibly observing nature, one can find assurance that there is, indeed, a God. ..." He has in several ways to this point cast the religious view with far less skepticism than the scientific view, in my opinion. More setting the stage for the readers to lap up the main chapters, I am sure.

Still in the intro he writes: "If you are constantly told in effect that science accepts evolution as a fact, you may naturally ask yourself, “Who am I to question science?” " --- as he has defined evolution (see above), scientists do NOT accept it as fact. Note he cleverly avoids saying this but instead says "if you are constantly told..." This implies that scientists say this, without having to actually say they say this. More doublespeak.

I can't go on right now. For a treatise on molecular biology, I can't even get through the religious bias in the intro at the moment.


Dr. Jonathan R.
Director, Center for Advanced Research in Intelligent Design
International Theological Institute

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a scientific thesis on molecular biology if the Bible is RIGHT FROM THE START assumed to be an objective source of information!

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, it is preaching disguised as science to better hook the gullible. Better on OOT then this forum, imo.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Dr. Jonathan R.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dear Dr. - anyone with a PH.D. should know the difference between an introduction and the main text. I now question your credentials. However, I won't let that stop me from discussing the substance should you ever get there.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Dr. - anyone with a PH.D. should know the difference between an introduction and the main text. I now question your credentials.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Good rebuttal to all my points.

I am writing my thesis on ID with that same spirit.


INTRODUCTION:

ID is mainly crap. Asa starting point, we'll take scientific theories as an assumed fact.

MAIN BODY:

(you think this would be worth reading from here?)

[MidGe]

Hiya NotReady,

I thought introductions gave a context or motives for the body. You seem to infer that introductions are not related to the body, that there are there for gratuitous statements which have nothing to do with the work?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

(you think this would be worth reading from here?)


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. I'll just ignore what I disagree with in your intro since you haven't stated any content yet.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not ironic, inevitable. Small minds will always cling to the idea of "God" to explain the unexplainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you always have fall back on insulting people? Anyways some pretty great minds have believed in God.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, I was too harsh. After reading Sharkey's posts I was feeling a little punchy. I didn't mean to paint all religious people with the same brush.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I thought introductions gave a context or motives for the body


[/ QUOTE ]

I think they're pretty much what the author wants them to be, such as making non-scientific statements in a scientific book. My main reason for posting the link was in response to a question about the probability calculations. I admit I've only skimmed the second half of the book where Coppedge deals with other questions concerning evolution, and I might well disagree with him on some points. I see nothing wrong with a Christian admitting his bias in the introduction. It's actually good that he does. I don't think he ever bases any of what he says about probability and evolution on the Bible or religion.

[HLMencken]

Here's another gem that says a lot (still from the intro):

The Plan of This Book

Purpose: To invite attention to evidence which will enable the reader to arrive at the certainty that materialistic evolution cannot be true. To promote positive appreciation of the Creator...

How can you trust an author who explicitly states his purpose is to accept one theory over another. Purpose statements in the field of molecular biology should be to investigate a theory, not validate a conclusion.

He not only skipped the scientific method in his intro to science, but apparently skipped it in his overall approach.

OKAY... ONTO THE MAIN BODY...

Uh oh, stumbling over the VERY FIRST SENTENCE!

Materialists usually do not stop to consider that naturalistic philosophy cannot satisfactorily explain the very existence of being of atoms or anything else. This is a serious flaw.

A serious flaw for what? Say it is impossible to describe "why" fundamental particles exist (as is the case for scientists), what is the flaw? Is the "flaw" that they can't come up with a nice tidy explanation of the universe like "God made it"?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
My main reason for posting the link was in response to a question about the probability calculations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think those arguments have been superbly answered in Dawkins books.

[HLMencken]

If we ask: Does any intelligent person actually suppose that chance does account for what we now find existing on earth? Strange to say, the answer is yes.

3rd paragraph--more unnecessary bias in a supposedly objective treatise...

To say that chance plus “natural selection” has done it is the same as to say chance has performed it.

No, this isn't the same. Might as well say it was "chance" that God answered your prayer if you view things this way.

Chance is still the original hero of the story on which all else must wait. Most evolutionists are reluctant to say this directly, however.

No, they freely admit that it is the combination of random mutation and natural selection which drives evolution. But labeling it strictly as "chance" devalues its basis.

In the absence of intelligence, chance is all there is as the ultimate source of what happens...
Only true because the Dr. has stated already that he considers natural selection to be part of chance. So he can now say evolution is just "chance" and completely ignore the practical mechanism. If I label God's intervention in day-to-day affairs as "chance", then I too can say that the world is operating solely by chance.


Overall, his first section of the main body is full of distortion.

[HLMencken]

Second section of Chapter 1...

By the way, it perhaps is already clear to the reader that the “laws” of chance are not laws in the deterministic sense. The laws of probability do not say that things must necessarily happen in a certain way, but that on the average that is the way things occur.

See how the Dr. pulled this trick? First he says that natural selection is really part of chance since random mutation is an input. And now he goes back and speaks of chance in terms of random processes, even though he previously included the stochastic process of natural selection as part of the realm for "chance". This stochastic process is random in a sense, but not in the same way that "random" is used by the lay person--which of course is the target audience. There was a reason he labeled chance in this manner--he is already pulling a disingenuous bait and switch.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Might as well say it was "chance" that God answered your prayer if you view things this way.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. There is no chance for God. What do you think is ultimate, chance or order(natural selection)?

[ QUOTE ]

No, they freely admit that it is the combination of random mutation and natural selection which drives evolution. But labeling it strictly as "chance" devalues its basis.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have to pick one. They can't both be ultimate.

[ QUOTE ]

So he can now say evolution is just "chance" and completely ignore the practical mechanism


[/ QUOTE ]

So pick one.

[ QUOTE ]

Overall, his first section of the main body is full of distortion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see any distortion.

[HLMencken]

More Ch 1...

Probability theory is primarily involved when (1) there is believed to be no intelligent planning and (2) a cause-and-effect chain is not decipherable because the “causes are too complex to permit prediction.”

Why is (1) true? Isn't it a subset of (2)? The fact that he uses this very odd description of probability theory already shows where he's going with this.

Evolution is an ideal subject in which to apply the laws of chance. As defined earlier, evolutionary doctrine denies advance planning, and has random matter-in-motion as its basic causal source.

See how his bait and switch is working? He has now reduced an input-driven, environmentally-based mechanism such as natural selection to nothing more than "random matter-in-motion". Incidentally, the first part of this statement regarding advanced planning is not accepted by all evolutionists, nor is it necessarily a prerequisite to the theory. Notice he prefaces this all with "as defined earlier"--so his statements are correct if you go back to his dubious definition I highlighted earlier.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

he is already pulling a disingenuous bait and switch.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're reading far too much into it. He's writing in nontechnical language. Most people understand chance to mean uncaused. The issue concerning ultimate impersonality is different from the one he is addressing concerning ultimate chance. There's no deception involved. And he isn't equating the atheistic philosophy of the ultimacy of chance with the laws of probability.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Might as well say it was "chance" that God answered your prayer if you view things this way.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. There is no chance for God. What do you think is ultimate, chance or order(natural selection)?

[ QUOTE ]

No, they freely admit that it is the combination of random mutation and natural selection which drives evolution. But labeling it strictly as "chance" devalues its basis.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have to pick one. They can't both be ultimate.

[ QUOTE ]

So he can now say evolution is just "chance" and completely ignore the practical mechanism


[/ QUOTE ]

So pick one.

[ QUOTE ]

Overall, his first section of the main body is full of distortion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see any distortion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You already highlight the distortion through your retorts above. You define any action by God as ultimate and without chance, and any product of natural selection as purely chance with no other input.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

he is already pulling a disingenuous bait and switch.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're reading far too much into it. He's writing in nontechnical language. Most people understand chance to mean uncaused.

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY! But natural selection has inputs and causes and is not the layman's "uncaused" type of process. He is exactly playing on this type of naivete. Thank you confirming my point.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You already highlight the distortion through your retorts above. You define any action by God as ultimate and without chance, and any product of natural selection as purely chance with no other input.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I define God as ultimate. That's pretty much included in the idea of Absolute Personality. Where's the distortion? I don't define the product of natural selection as chance. Evolutionists do. Unless you pick order above chance as ultimate, which isn't an issue addressed by Coppedge's probability discussion.

[HLMencken]

On to Ch 2...

I love this leap of faith:

Chance Is Moronic

So chance requires twenty-eight trillion times the age of the earth to write merely the phrase: “The Theory of Evolution,” drawing from a set of small letters and capitals as described, drawing at the speed of light, a billion draws per second!...
Again, a child can do this, using sight and intelligence, in a few minutes at most. Mind makes the difference in the two methods. Chance really “doesn’t have a chance” when compared with the intelligent purpose of even a child.
“In the beginning, God . . . ” begins to appear more scientific, as we see how limited are the abilities of mindless chance.

How did anything he just said up there lead to "in the beginning..." appearing "scientific"? Oh, now it is convenient that we still have yet to see a basic definition of the scientific method.

So far:

Random draws with no input takes longer to realize order than draws with some input. Hmmmm.... I see again why "natural selection" was wrapped up in the generic term 'chance"--now it can be completely absent as a means of creating order because it is just another random draw. He has craftily conditioned the reader to see these processes as a gazillion-to-one longshot. Natural selection is NOT mindless in the manner he is using the word--you don't need an intelligent designer to have a process that produces order.

Since he likes simple math examples for laymen. Consider this one:

Choose 3 numbers within 5% of 1. Use selection to select the highest number and choose 3 numbers within 5% of this number. Repeat a large number of times. Lo and behold, you will be drawing very large numbers very quickly, and they keep getting larger. A very simple selection mechanism is clearly driving this process to more "complexity" (as defined by larger numbers)--and solely based on purely random draws. Try it with any starting number and any number of draws per iteration. You always get bigger numbers. Gee, how is this possible if the process is just driven by "chance"?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He is exactly playing on this type of naivete.


[/ QUOTE ]

He's addressing the issue of chance as ultimate. Evolutionists treat it that way so it's not surprising laymen think that's what they mean. He's showing the problems involved if chance is ultimate. That's honesty, not deception.

You haven't picked your ultimate principle of interpretation yet. I've got the clock on you.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
On to Ch 2...

I love this leap of faith:

Chance Is Moronic

So chance requires twenty-eight trillion times the age of the earth to write merely the phrase: “The Theory of Evolution,” drawing from a set of small letters and capitals as described, drawing at the speed of light, a billion draws per second!...
Again, a child can do this, using sight and intelligence, in a few minutes at most. Mind makes the difference in the two methods. Chance really “doesn’t have a chance” when compared with the intelligent purpose of even a child.
“In the beginning, God . . . ” begins to appear more scientific, as we see how limited are the abilities of mindless chance.

How did anything he just said up there lead to "in the beginning..." appearing "scientific"? Oh, now it is convenient that we still have yet to see a basic definition of the scientific method.

So far:

Random draws with no input takes longer to realize order than draws with some input. Hmmmm.... I see again why "natural selection" was wrapped up in the generic term 'chance"--now it can be completely absent as a means of creating order because it is just another random draw. He has craftily conditioned the reader to see these processes as a gazillion-to-one longshot.

[/ QUOTE ]
That quoted passage is incredibly misleading. I don't see how anyone can say otherwise.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
So chance requires twenty-eight trillion times the age of the earth to write merely the phrase: “The Theory of Evolution,” drawing from a set of small letters and capitals as described, drawing at the speed of light, a billion draws per second!...

[/ QUOTE ]

But how many sentences with the same number of characters as "The Theory of Evolution" do exists? The chance of one of them occuring is of course much higher and well within the scope of the earth''s existence.

It would be the same as saying after having dealt a hand of poker, that it is an exceptional event that this particular unique hand was drawn! Well it was.... /images/graemlins/smile.gif Same for evolution and life as we know it! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He is exactly playing on this type of naivete.


[/ QUOTE ]

He's addressing the issue of chance as ultimate. Evolutionists treat it that way so it's not surprising laymen think that's what they mean. He's showing the problems involved if chance is ultimate. That's honesty, not deception.

You haven't picked your ultimate principle of interpretation yet. I've got the clock on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop using a continually regurgitated platitude like "chance is ultimate" and debate the MECHANISM not the label if you think there is a flaw.

If you disagree, then explain how random mutation does not occur or how selection does not occur, etc. You are ducking the rationale and merely relying on your conclusion regarding which theory is "ultimate" and if this is acceptable to your taste.

I will not respond to any posts of yours that do not debate the MECAHISMS of evolution, but merely rely on silly concepts like the "irrationality of chance" (a human label which has no bearing on the true state of the universe).

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That quoted passage is incredibly misleading. I don't see how anyone can say otherwise.


[/ QUOTE ]

How were you misled?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I will not respond to any posts of yours that do not debate the MECAHISMS of evolution, but merely rely on silly concepts like the "irrationality of chance" (a human label which has no bearing on the true state of the universe)


[/ QUOTE ]

Then I guess we're done.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That quoted passage is incredibly misleading. I don't see how anyone can say otherwise.


[/ QUOTE ]

How were you misled?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think I was. The intent is, however, to equate evolution with random chance. That is misleading.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You already highlight the distortion through your retorts above. You define any action by God as ultimate and without chance, and any product of natural selection as purely chance with no other input.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I define God as ultimate. That's pretty much included in the idea of Absolute Personality. Where's the distortion? I don't define the product of natural selection as chance. Evolutionists do. Unless you pick order above chance as ultimate, which isn't an issue addressed by Coppedge's probability discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your distortion (as well as Coppedge's) is in saying that the universe is order or chance. Evolution is not order or chance. It is order AND chance. By making this false either/or scenario, the whole analysis is flawed. Again, you and he completely rule out natural selection as a means of producing order and instead want to just label it as chance (from which you wrongfully assume order cannot come out of).

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I will not respond to any posts of yours that do not debate the MECAHISMS of evolution, but merely rely on silly concepts like the "irrationality of chance" (a human label which has no bearing on the true state of the universe)


[/ QUOTE ]

Then I guess we're done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we are. Apparently you have nothing to say about evolution if you have to talk about the actual processes and can't merely resort to labels.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The intent is, however, to equate evolution with random chance. That is misleading


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't misleading. He's making that equation then examining it from a probability standpoint. It isn't unreasonable to put it in those terms. It's a philosophical question about what chance means. That was his answer, and he was very clear about it.

[HLMencken]

The very first sentence from his chapter on natural selection (Ch 5):

WITHOUT NATURAL SELECTION, evolution is dead. This process has become almost a deity to the more ardent followers of evolution, though of course they are entirely unaware of this

This is nothing more than a smear to start this chapter. And it is silly. Is gravity a "deity" for astronomers? Is refraction a "deity" for optical engineers? Is lift a "deity" for aero engineers? Is electrical attraction a "deity" to electrical engineers? Is thermal expansion a "deity" for thermal physicists?

All these questions are silly. The only folks who need a "deity" to label a process are the ID crowd! Natural selection is a mechanism/process. Nothing more. No evolutionist almost worships it--they use it to explain natural phenomena--just like an astrophysicist uses gravity.

The fact that the good Dr. already paints this terribly distorted picture in the very first sentence is further evidence of just how lacking he is as an objective scientist (or intelligent human). It is the good Dr.'s shortcoming, not evolutionists, that he can't address a proposed process without invoking religious overtones.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Again, you and he completely rule out natural selection as a means of producing order and instead want to just label it as chance


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're misreading him but I know you're misreading me. I accept that natural selection exists. Big deal. The issue is whether chance is ultimate or not. That's what Coppedge was addressing and what you refuse to face.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Apparently you have nothing to say about evolution if you have to talk about the actual processes and can't merely resort to labels.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said it before and I'll repeat it. If evolutionists would leave God and chance out of it the hostility would all but disappear. Why doesn't Dawkins just shut up about it?

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Again, you and he completely rule out natural selection as a means of producing order and instead want to just label it as chance


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're misreading him but I know you're misreading me. I accept that natural selection exists. Big deal. The issue is whether chance is ultimate or not. That's what Coppedge was addressing and what you refuse to face.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't need to face it. It is irrelevant. Let the facts decide and then label the conclusion. Don't label the conclusion and then fit the facts.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Apparently you have nothing to say about evolution if you have to talk about the actual processes and can't merely resort to labels.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said it before and I'll repeat it. If evolutionists would leave God and chance out of it the hostility would all but disappear. Why doesn't Dawkins just shut up about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

We aren't talking about Dawkins. I don't even know who Dawkins is.

You wanted me to read Coppedge. I am doing so.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This is nothing more than a smear to start this chapter


[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot this sentence. I'm sure it was just an oversight.

[ QUOTE ]

A writer, after waxing eloquent about some beautiful adaptation, will often end his dissertation in some such way as in this example: “We shall forever marvel at the astonishing truth that beings as intricate as ourselves can be produced by the long operation of natural selection.”2


[/ QUOTE ]

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Let the facts decide


[/ QUOTE ]

Let the facts decide what?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't even know who Dawkins is.


[/ QUOTE ]

Though I find this inexplicable I will accept it. How about Sagan?

[HLMencken]

More on selection:

Just consider that last sentence. The new material on which evolution is to proceed comes mainly by accidents and mistakes. Does it not seem strange that the vast array of amazingly efficient and complex living things would have developed from random negative sources?

No, Dr. It seems no stranger than a non-physical being which created me, sent his "son" to die for me, whoi came back to life, and I can choose this being, or he will cast me into a fiery pit in another dimension.

If we are using "seems strange" as a standard, the good Dr.'s Bible is in a world of hurt.

And since when does a scientist use this as a criteria? Quantum physics is strange. Relativity is strange. etc. Oh, I know when a scientist uses this criteria--when he is trying to prey on the ignorance of laymen!

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]


You forgot this sentence. I'm sure it was just an oversight.

[ QUOTE ]

A writer, after waxing eloquent about some beautiful adaptation, will often end his dissertation in some such way as in this example: “We shall forever marvel at the astonishing truth that beings as intricate as ourselves can be produced by the long operation of natural selection.”2


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

But you just conceded that natuaral selection does happen. In your words. Big deal.

[HLMencken]

More...

André de Cayeux uses this devastating metaphor against mutations: “The explanation for a sonata is not in a series of wrong notes.” He elaborates as follows:

We know that the great majority of mutations are bad. We can even see this exemplified in our own flesh, or at least the flesh of other men. Most congenital defects are of this origin. So to explain evolution and the progress of life throughout time by a process where defects and imperfections are dominant seems paradoxical. Resorting to selection attenuates the paradox, but does it erase it?

What kind of argument was that? He merely labeled mutation as negative (by what objective standard?) and thus questioned whether such a mechanism seems appropriate (by what objective standard?).

I love how he labeled this a "devastating metaphor"--by merely calling selection "strange" and "devastating" and "negative" and "bad" he is building an argument against it without even debating the process. This is the NotReady approach--label, label, label, until you pile on enough labels that you convince yourself that you built an argument.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

In your words. Big deal.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm missing your point.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In your words. Big deal.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm missing your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to disagree with your source.

[HLMencken]

more...

Mutations may be caused by certain chemicals, heat, ultraviolet light, cosmic rays, or other radiation. A mutation in such a complicated system caused by ionizing radiation, for example, is comparable to the result of shooting a rifle bullet into the works of a computer, or into the instrument panel of a jet airliner

No, it isn't like that at all, Dr.

Unless airliners or computers have genetic codes they pass on to create the next generation of airliners and computers.

Which they don't.

[HLMencken]

Occasionally, however, a rare mutation occurs which may seem to give an improvement. Perhaps, for example, a strain of wheat exists which has weak stalks which blow down in a strong wind. A mutation engineered by the scientist from one of the grains of this wheat then produces a type that has strong stalks. The “improvement” may represent a false impression. It may involve other weaknesses and be unable to survive in the wild.

Or it may not.

[HLMencken]

In fact, evolutionists are in difficulty when asked to name any mutations that have actually occurred in nature which have involved any real improvement. Most have produced weaknesses and deformities–anemia, mental retardation, clubfootedness, inclinations to hernia, and other negative changes. Some others involve merely a return to a former better condition.

What is "better" and what is "improvement"? And incidentally, scientists engineer mutations every day which make organisms "better" by some subjective standard, why must all of nature's mutations be negative?---oh, they aren't, I see you left wiggle room with your "most", Dr. Well in that case your point is moot, because the fact that most mutations "fail" doesn't mean that some don't "succeed".

Much ado about nothing, Doc.

[HLMencken]

OH HERE'S A GEM! TYING ALL HIS FALSE PREMISES TOGETHER!

“Chance provides the raw material on which natural selection operates,” said Adler. We have already begun to discover, however, that chance is incapable and decrepit as to producing any ordered result, or usable raw material.

No, sir, you have yet to show that chance (as defined by mutation + natural selection) is incapable of producing order.

You have merely asserted it.

How convenient.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What kind of argument was that?


[/ QUOTE ]

The kind a paleontologist would make? True, he was French. Nobody's perfect.

Feel free to trash anything Coppedge says as you've been doing. One gets the distinct feeling you're avoiding the issue of probability as applied to evolution. I'm not going to respond to other issues concerning Coppedge anymore - I got into this about the probability issue.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You seem to disagree with your source.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean Coppedge didn't believe natural selection occurs?

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to trash anything Coppedge says as you've been doing. One gets the distinct feeling you're avoiding the issue of probability as applied to evolution. I'm not going to respond to other issues concerning Coppedge anymore - I got into this about the probability issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't even got to that chapter yet... his probability of natural selection starts in Ch. 6--apparently after an intro and 5 chapters worth of a lot of assertions, innuendo, and flat out junk. But I'm sure Ch. 6 and on is all golden.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What kind of argument was that?


[/ QUOTE ]

The kind a paleontologist would make?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, maybe that's why we should try to get someone in this book on molecular biology with a biology degree.

[Marko Schmarko]

NotReady,

Maybe I'm missing something, but why in God's name do we have to decide whether chance or order is ultimate?

And what does "ultimate" in this case even mean?

And why must they be mutually exclusive?

If you believe natural selection to be real, how could you possibly reject the inextricable relationship of the two?

[Marko Schmarko]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Boy, talk about misappropriating science to your own purposes. The article talks about something possibly varying by .000000045% over billions of years and you want to use that to validate an argument that says the speed of light has varied by a factor of 1,000,000. Don't they teach you about the dangers of extrapolation is creationism class?

[/ QUOTE ]

Misappropriating science? I didn't even make a point or provide analysis. I knew I had heard from some non creationist source that the speed of light may vary so I simply provided a link. I forgive you for the error though, its not your fault you were not taught the think critically.

Want to know what I believe about creationism? Its that if there is a God, then God would not have created the universe in a way that makes it obvious that he did it. What scientest tell us about the creation of the univerese is completely consistent with how I beleive God would have done it.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]
He was so clearly talking about the OP's friend, it's almost silly to even respond to this.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And what does "ultimate" in this case even mean?
And why must they be mutually exclusive?


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems very simple to me. The universe was designed or it wasn't. What other alternative is there? If it wasn't then it is either the result of chance or eternal, impersonal principle. I don't distinguish these two in so far as meaning, purpose and morality are concerned because I don't see how absolute impersonality can have meaning and purpose or impose moral law. That chance and order must be mutually exclusive seems obivious relative to the ultimate cause of existence.

[ QUOTE ]

If you believe natural selection to be real, how could you possibly reject the inextricable relationship of the two?


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a sense in which I accept an idea of chance - primarily in that it simply means "we don't know" - as with a coin flip. But I reject the idea that anything is outside of God's ultimate control - He knows whether it's going to be heads or tails and controls the result. So in that sense perhaps, or even probably, natural selection is a designed process which God means to achieve His goals for creation. No problem, as I've said before. And if all scientists meant when they said chance was "we don't know", also no problem. But so many spokespersons for evolution go on and tell us that God isn't necessary, that chance is sufficient, some response is required. They are no longer speaking within the realm of science.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The universe was designed or it wasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are the implications if the universe was designed. Does that mean it was designed by God? No.

What are the implications if the universe wasn't designed? Does that mean there is no God? No.

In fact, if we accept the premise that the universe was designed, all that tells us is... that the universe was designed. And vice versa. You need at least two basic premises in order for a different proposition to follow logically.

If you're going to maintain that universal design implies x, y, and z, while a lack of universal design implies a, b, and c, you're going to need to back that up. Because it doesn't just magically make sense.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Apparently you have nothing to say about evolution if you have to talk about the actual processes and can't merely resort to labels.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said it before and I'll repeat it. If evolutionists would leave God and chance out of it the hostility would all but disappear. Why doesn't Dawkins just shut up about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I could not let this go past... Science is totally unconcerned with god... quite rightly so... It is theists that come back with the god concept trying to muddle science!

Typical creationist double talk again!

[AJFenix]

Why does science disregard Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster?! Shut up Dawkins!

[MDoranD]

NotReady + HLMencken,

I would be interested to hear more of your thoughts on what my friend wrote in his response email specifically.

Or, if you'd like, let me know how I should respond to his email, and I will.

I appreciate your feedback.

MDoranD

[JMP300z]

Sorry to bring up Dawkins again, but in one of his works I was skimming he wrote a computer program that did the whole monkey shakespeare thing and showed it is actually not that absurd if you, like another poster, have a method for locking in the right and continuing to randomly do the wrong letters. He did not even consider the point that was made by another poster that the genetic code, protiens, etc are not perfect by any means and contain AA's or DNA codes that are mutated or not used.

The whole chance thing is overrated. Things werent always as 'unexplainably complex' as they are now. They became more and more complex slowly over long periods of time.

-JP

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Is gravity a "deity" for astronomers? Is refraction a "deity" for optical engineers? Is lift a "deity" for aero engineers? Is electrical attraction a "deity" to electrical engineers? Is thermal expansion a "deity" for thermal physicists?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They are sound science, unlike natural selection.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is gravity a "deity" for astronomers? Is refraction a "deity" for optical engineers? Is lift a "deity" for aero engineers? Is electrical attraction a "deity" to electrical engineers? Is thermal expansion a "deity" for thermal physicists?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They are sound science, unlike natural selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

One hundred million sperm, and you got to the egg first?

yeah I know ...yaddayadda...ad hominem...yaddayadda

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

he wrote a computer program


[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like design to me.

[ QUOTE ]

They became more and more complex slowly over long periods of time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is the Achilles' heel of evolution by chance if studies like Coppedge makes are valid because there just is nowhere near enough time.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is gravity a "deity" for astronomers? Is refraction a "deity" for optical engineers? Is lift a "deity" for aero engineers? Is electrical attraction a "deity" to electrical engineers? Is thermal expansion a "deity" for thermal physicists?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They are sound science, unlike natural selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

One hundred million sperm, and you got to the egg first?

yeah I know ...yaddayadda...ad hominem...yaddayadda

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. It was a valuable contribution.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

would be interested to hear more of your thoughts on what my friend wrote in his response email specifically.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the book he mentions but it sounds like it makes the same case as Coppedge.

One question you posed concerning the size of the universe and why God made it so big has always puzzled me. If God wanted to demonstrate His power, ingenuity and creativity why wouldn't He create a big universe? And if He wanted His creatures to have an infinity of time to explore His universe and enjoy it's complexity and beauty, how could He make it small?

The Bible says that it is God's Word and it also says that nature reveals something about God. I believe that genuine science glorifies God whether it intends to or not. Understanding nature is part of an understanding of God. True science is one method of understanding nature and in some sense gives us a glimpse of the Creator.

"
O Lord my God! when I in awesome wonder
Consider all the worlds Thy hands have made,
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed:

Then sings my soul, my Savior God, to Thee:
How great Thou art, how great Thou art! "

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

he wrote a computer program


[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like design to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

But of course, Dawkins is God.

The passage im referring to is p46 of The Blind Watchmaker. He makes note that the key limiting factor is "given enough time" and that if you were to randomly assemble it (he uses his 11 mo old daughter bashing on a keyboard to try to generate "methinks it is like a weasel"), ithe odds would be 1/27 to the 28th power (1 in 10,000 million million million million million million). "The pharase we seek would be a long time coming, to say nothing of the complete works of Shakespeare...So much for single step selection of random variation"

He then uses cumulative selection. Same randomly generated sequence of 28 letters, but all the program does is duplicate the random letters each time introducing a chance of random error as a mutation. The phrases most like the target are selected for simulating natural selection. After 40 generations he was within 1 letter of the target phrase, finished in 43 generations. The next trial did it in 64, the next in 41.

The point being the difference between cumulative selection and random selection. Evolution is not random. There are forces guiding it. These forces are easily reasoned out without introducing a creator. These forces are described throughout the rest of the book.

He goes on to make the point that there is a big difference between his program and life: an ultimate goal. Life has none. The cumulative selection that guides us is blind. If it seems like we are going to some goal, it is only by the multiplied effects of Short time survival selection.

-JP

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The phrases most like the target are selected for simulating natural selection


[/ QUOTE ]

But Dawkins defined the target. He also provided the 28 letters and no new information was generated by the system.

There are many answers to the 1986 weasel program. The best one is simply it's a program designed by a designer. It shows the opposite of what it claims. It confirms the 200 year old argument of Paley and the 2500 year old argument of the Bible. Design doesn't pop up out of nowhere for no reason.

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution is not random. There are forces guiding it.


[/ QUOTE ]

What are those forces, where did they come from and are they the product of chance? The analogy would be that evolutionary forces are like Dawkins' computer program, which was the product of design.

[ QUOTE ]

an ultimate goal. Life has none. The cumulative selection that guides us is blind.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is these kinds of statements that light the creationist fire. How does he know life has no goal? How? To say this and pretend it has something to do with science is arrogance of the highest order. It is a sheer dogmatic religious assertion which people like Dawkins want taught in public schools at public expense under the guise of science.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The phrases most like the target are selected for simulating natural selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

The advantage of cumulative selection exactly illustrates how the discriminator between successful and unsuccessful random variations must have at least the information content of the outputted sum of adaptations.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

The advantage of cumulative selection exactly illustrates how the discriminator between successful and unsuccessful random variations must have at least the information content of the outputted sum of adaptations.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://myspace-428.vo.llnwd.net/00560/82/48/560438428_l.jpg

[Sharkey]

More trolling, and now with pictures. It figures, considering how bankrupt your arguments are.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
More trolling, and now with pictures. It figures, considering how bankrupt your arguments are.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a baseless ad hominem attack.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
It is these kinds of statements that light the creationist fire. How does he know life has no goal? How? To say this and pretend it has something to do with science is arrogance of the highest order. It is a sheer dogmatic religious assertion which people like Dawkins want taught in public schools at public expense under the guise of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know it DOES have goal? How? It is sheer arrogance of the highest order... religious assertion... blah blah blah.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How do you know it DOES have goal?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't KNOW it with 100% objectively provable certainty and I admit it. I believe the Bible is God's Word but I can't prove it and I admit it. But Dawkins knows and can't prove, but won't admit,thus he's just a windbag.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How do you know it DOES have goal?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't KNOW it with 100% objectively provable certainty and I admit it. I believe the Bible is God's Word but I can't prove it and I admit it. But Dawkins knows and can't prove, but won't admit,thus he's just a windbag.

[/ QUOTE ]

And your incessant argument that the universe CANNOT be ruled by "ultimate chance" is not you being a windbag?

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The phrases most like the target are selected for simulating natural selection


[/ QUOTE ]

But Dawkins defined the target. He also provided the 28 letters and no new information was generated by the system.

There are many answers to the 1986 weasel program. The best one is simply it's a program designed by a designer. It shows the opposite of what it claims. It confirms the 200 year old argument of Paley and the 2500 year old argument of the Bible. Design doesn't pop up out of nowhere for no reason.

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution is not random. There are forces guiding it.


[/ QUOTE ]

What are those forces, where did they come from and are they the product of chance? The analogy would be that evolutionary forces are like Dawkins' computer program, which was the product of design.

[ QUOTE ]

an ultimate goal. Life has none. The cumulative selection that guides us is blind.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is these kinds of statements that light the creationist fire. How does he know life has no goal? How? To say this and pretend it has something to do with science is arrogance of the highest order. It is a sheer dogmatic religious assertion which people like Dawkins want taught in public schools at public expense under the guise of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are missing my point. The "forces" that guide evolution is not god. Writing a computer program that simulates the survival and selection is not the equivalent of god.

The point was that cumulative selection can produce life the way it is within the required timeframe. The forces i am referring to is basic survival and replication. The most fit to survive and replicate will continue to do so.

Either way, whenever talking about this, I feel like im banging my head against a brick wall (as im sure you probably do too). Both sides keep repeating eachother neither wanting to budge.

I see evolution, I begin to understand it, I am in awe/amazed etc and I see no reason to insert a god into the picture when it only raises more questions for me (not to mention especially when adding in all the dogma of major religions).

-JP

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More trolling, and now with pictures. It figures, considering how bankrupt your arguments are.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a baseless ad hominem attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you’d like to return to the topic then by addressing my indication of a fatal flaw in your funny little theory:

The advantage of cumulative selection exactly illustrates how the discriminator between successful and unsuccessful random variations must have at least the information content of the outputted sum of adaptations.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
The advantage of cumulative selection exactly illustrates how the discriminator between successful and unsuccessful random variations must have at least the information content of the outputted sum of adaptations.

[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.geocities.com/kidluckee/misc/churchsign_idiot.jpg

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And your incessant argument that the universe CANNOT be ruled by "ultimate chance" is not you being a windbag?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never said that.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The point was that cumulative selection can produce life the way it is within the required timeframe


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's the issue, especially the timeframe. I don't see how his program proves the time involved is adequate. It doesn't answer calculations like those made by Coppedge.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is these kinds of statements that light the creationist fire. How does he know life has no goal? How? To say this and pretend it has something to do with science is arrogance of the highest order. It is a sheer dogmatic religious assertion which people like Dawkins want taught in public schools at public expense under the guise of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know it DOES have goal? How? It is sheer arrogance of the highest order... religious assertion... blah blah blah.

[/ QUOTE ]


What theists object to is a straw man. Science only says a goal is not needed to explain what is. This, because it takes away one more justification for god, is translated by theists as there is no goal.


Devious people!

[MidGe]

Respectable and true scientists, in their scientific endeavours, do not give a fig about god or unicorns for that matter. They explain or try to explain things rationally without invocation to the supernatural. The devious behaviour comes for those christians who have huge insecurity in their faith, and since there is no rationale for their beliefs try to justify them on the basis of science. LOL. They pervert the result of scientific enquiry to cover their own inadequacies of faith.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a shakespearean play cannot be produced randomly in this universe what makes you think life can?


[/ QUOTE ]

What an awesome proof that shakespearean plays do not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oddly enough, this reply sparked an idea.

The probability of producing a Shakespearean play by randomly banging on a keyboard (the whole monkey idea) is essentially zero, even over an extraordinarily long time line. The fact that we observe works of Shakespeare means that they very likely were not produced randomly. I think we can take as a given that Shakespeare's works were not random -- they were written by Shakespeare, a conscious being.

So, if we take the event of a Shakespearian play being created as being a non-random event, then the event of Shakespeare existing is non-random as well. Put another way, if Shakespeare exiting is a random event, then any event that *depends* on shakespeare existing must be random as well. Extrapolate this back to the assembly of the first heritable molecules, since of course Shakespeare could not create his works if life never came into being.

Doesn't this point to the idea that the existence of life is *not* random? Or, can something that is truly non-random come from something that is truly random? Maybe the latter sentence is true... I don't know at this point but intuitively it seems false.

Note that I'm not saying non-random equals God must have created it. I'm just saying that there is some "force" driving the assembly of the basic molecules required for life (kind of like evolution on the atomic scale).

[/ QUOTE ]

Some interesting points. Continuing your logic though, the proposed “force” couldn’t be random (i.e. non-purposeful) in origin either.

[Marko Schmarko]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And what does "ultimate" in this case even mean?
And why must they be mutually exclusive?


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems very simple to me. The universe was designed or it wasn't. What other alternative is there?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But by no means does this even imply that the world must only be either ordered or chaotic, respectively.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it wasn't then it is either the result of chance or eternal, impersonal principle. I don't distinguish these two in so far as meaning, purpose and morality are concerned because I don't see how absolute impersonality can have meaning and purpose or impose moral law.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
What does morality have to do with anything?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That chance and order must be mutually exclusive seems obivious relative to the ultimate cause of existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
By existence, do you mean human life? Or the existence of the cosmos?

Because if you mean life, I think that there can be a great deal of order within chance. Evolution is a stochastic (thanks, Mencken) process, and thus, its products are hardly random, as your use of the word "chance" would imply.

This is where yours and Colledge's use of the word "chance" becomes absurdly misleading and both of you create these equally misleading false dichotomies with chance and order and insist that since we see order there can't be chance. Excuse me if I'm misrepresenting your thoughts, although you seem to largely espouse Colledge's views.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

If you believe natural selection to be real, how could you possibly reject the inextricable relationship of the two?


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a sense in which I accept an idea of chance - primarily in that it simply means "we don't know" - as with a coin flip. But I reject the idea that anything is outside of God's ultimate control - He knows whether it's going to be heads or tails and controls the result. So in that sense perhaps, or even probably, natural selection is a designed process which God means to achieve His goals for creation. No problem, as I've said before. And if all scientists meant when they said chance was "we don't know", also no problem. But so many spokespersons for evolution go on and tell us that God isn't necessary, that chance is sufficient, some response is required. They are no longer speaking within the realm of science.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that virtually all of modern scientists would disagree with this claim.

"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."
-Stephen Hawking

Note: You're really not making any sort of scientific argument here, so maybe my appeal to science is inappropriate. But, instead of this last paragraph, you could have very easily typed "I believe in God."

Oh, and I think you can better understand the scientists' thoughts as being "a God is not necessary so long as a God is not necessary to lay out the laws of physics." Unfortunately for us heathens, that is an impossible question to answer.

[Marko Schmarko]

[ QUOTE ]
Or, can something that is truly non-random come from something that is truly random?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is exactly where you go wrong.
Answer: Yes. If those random events produce something that can act with purpose, or if there are constraints on randomness.

I think where almost all of this conversation has gone horrible wrong is that many assume that systems that have random underpinnings must have random products.

In a sense, Shakespeare is "random" in the sense that natural selection is. I doubt he wrote any of his plays without a bit of trial and error. Shakespeare's mind is what determines error, as death determines error in NS.

Picture a random number generator with a filter that would only output prime numbers.

Is this a random process?

edit for clarity.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But by no means does this even imply that the world must only be either ordered or chaotic, respectively.


[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is what is ultimate. Chance and order can't both be ultimate.

[ QUOTE ]

What does morality have to do with anything?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not surprised you would ask that.

[ QUOTE ]

its products are hardly random, as your use of the word "chance" would imply.


[/ QUOTE ]

This begs the question, which again, is which is ultimate?

[ QUOTE ]

insist that since we see order there can't be chance.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't insist that and I don't think Coppedge does either. What I insist on is if chance is ultimate, order is an illusion, and Coppedge seems to make a good case that if chance is ultimate the earth isn't old enough to produce what we see.

[ QUOTE ]

I think that virtually all of modern scientists would disagree with this claim.

"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."
-Stephen Hawking


[/ QUOTE ]

In a sense this proves my claim. If God really plays dice in the sense that He has no control over the outcome, He isn't God. Hawking is just eliminating any meaningful definition of God while pretending to include Him - it's an ernormous, dogmatic, unsupported, metaphysical claim of religious faith disguised as science.

[ QUOTE ]

Oh, and I think you can better understand the scientists' thoughts as being "a God is not necessary so long as a God is not necessary to lay out the laws of physics." Unfortunately for us heathens, that is an impossible question to answer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually this question is very easy to answer. If God doesn't exist there are no laws of physics.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually this question is very easy to answer. If God doesn't exist there are no laws of physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Laws of physics are observable whether there is a god or not, preacher.

[Marko Schmarko]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But by no means does this even imply that the world must only be either ordered or chaotic, respectively.


[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is what is ultimate. Chance and order can't both be ultimate.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Can someone besides NotReady please explain this argument to me? It still reeks of a false dichotomy. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding it.

"Chance" and "order" are two entirely different concepts. By no means are they opposites of one another. One is a description of means and the other ends, and they're still not mutually exclusive. Please choose different words, or explain why one must be "ultimate".

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

What does morality have to do with anything?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not surprised you would ask that.


[/ QUOTE ]
Is that honestly your answer? For someone who claims to be a man of God, you sure are an arrogant prick.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

its products are hardly random, as your use of the word "chance" would imply.


[/ QUOTE ]

This begs the question, which again, is which is ultimate?


[/ QUOTE ]
NO IT DOESN'T. And please be advised. (http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=693)
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

insist that since we see order there can't be chance.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't insist that and I don't think Coppedge does either. What I insist on is if chance is ultimate, order is an illusion, and Coppedge seems to make a good case that if chance is ultimate the earth isn't old enough to produce what we see.



[/ QUOTE ]
Excuse me. When I said "we see" I should have said "there is." You're still wrong. Inadequate things dying causes order in the living. Have you ever read anything about natural selection? Or do you just blindly argue against it quoting intellectually inept pseudo-scientists to back up your claims?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I think that virtually all of modern scientists would disagree with this claim.

"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."
-Stephen Hawking


[/ QUOTE ]

In a sense this proves my claim. If God really plays dice in the sense that He has no control over the outcome, He isn't God. Hawking is just eliminating any meaningful definition of God while pretending to include Him - it's an ernormous, dogmatic, unsupported, metaphysical claim of religious faith disguised as science.


[/ QUOTE ]
He's rejecting the Christian vision of God, but this hardly eliminates "any meaningful definition" thereof.

If you disagree, please explain.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Oh, and I think you can better understand the scientists' thoughts as being "a God is not necessary so long as a God is not necessary to lay out the laws of physics." Unfortunately for us heathens, that is an impossible question to answer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually this question is very easy to answer. If God doesn't exist there are no laws of physics.

[/ QUOTE ]
LO FREAKIN' L

To quote a dubious, if familiar, source:
[ QUOTE ]
[This is] an ernormous, dogmatic, unsupported, metaphysical claim of religious faith disguised as science.

[/ QUOTE ]

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NO IT DOESN'T.


[/ QUOTE ]

YES IT DOES. Look a little further.

[ QUOTE ]

you sure are an arrogant prick.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bye.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Picture a random number generator with a filter that would only output prime numbers.

Is this a random process?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it’s intelligent design.

A better analogy for evolution by natural selection would be a random number generator with a filter that is another random number generator. Yet this device is required to output only the primes.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or, can something that is truly non-random come from something that is truly random?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is exactly where you go wrong.
Answer: Yes. If those random events produce something that can act with purpose, or if there are constraints on randomness.

I think where almost all of this conversation has gone horrible wrong is that many assume that systems that have random underpinnings must have random products.

In a sense, Shakespeare is "random" in the sense that natural selection is. I doubt he wrote any of his plays without a bit of trial and error. Shakespeare's mind is what determines error, as death determines error in NS.

Picture a random number generator with a filter that would only output prime numbers.

Is this a random process?

edit for clarity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a very good analogy, Sharkey's just teasing you.

chez

[Matt R.]

I hesitate to get involved with this thread again given the direction it has taken, but there are two definitions of random that I feel may be at odds here. There is the common definition of random, "Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements." And there is the mathematical/statistical definition, "Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution." These are both from dictionary.com.

Also, (from the same page) notice that "at random" is defined as, "Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck."

This is a pretty important distinction and I think a lot of the "No, I'm right. Look Closer. L O FREAKIN' L" arguments are stemming from thinking of random as different phenomena.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
I hesitate to get involved with this thread again given the direction it has taken, but there are two definitions of random that I feel may be at odds here. There is the common definition of random, "Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements." And there is the mathematical/statistical definition, "Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution." These are both from dictionary.com.

Also, (from the same page) notice that "at random" is defined as, "Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck."

This is a pretty important distinction and I think a lot of the "No, I'm right. Look Closer. L O FREAKIN' L" arguments are stemming from thinking of random as different phenomena.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have been making this distinction .... REPEATEDLY. But this distinction is INTENTIONALLY ignored by NotReady, as well as intentionally obfuiscated by Colledge's work in question. It is this very distinction which is purposefully blurred in order to cast doubt on natural selection and used by ID sites all over the internet.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, (from the same page) notice that "at random" is defined as, "Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck."


[/ QUOTE ]

But the laws of probability can be applied to that unsystematic choice which is what Coppedge does re evolution.

I think the argument over the meaning of chance allows them to attack me and Coppedge personally and also avoid the very difficult problem probability raises for atheistic evolution. When you can't prove your case, insult your opponent. You can at least fool the dumb people out there.

[Matt R.]

OK, I haven't read the entire thread or Coppedge's book. But from skimming I gather that NotReady and Coppedge (I honestly only glanced at the book) are not arguing against natural selection. They both agree that NS is a stochastic process -- it has important elements of randomness but its results are selected upon. Thus it is *not* random by the common definition. For clarity purposes, I will use the term stochastic to refer to things that contain random elements but the results of the process do not produce something purely random -- i.e. not all outcomes are equally probable. When I say random I mean having no specific pattern or purpose. The mutations in NS are random, the process of NS is stochastic.

Sharkey quoted a post I made back on page 2 of the thread, and Marco commented on it. What I meant in that post was that for a stochastic process such as NS to emerge from pure randomness seemed extremely unlikely, if not impossible. What I was getting at is that the event of assembling a molecule that confers heritability from non-heritable chemical constituents is not random at all. It would seem that this event would have to be stochastic as well -- some mechanism is driving this process, and under the right conditions (such as here on Earth long ago) it is extremely likely for this to occur, almost inevitable. Which is why I made the comment "evolution on an atomic scale".

I think NotReady is making the leap saying that the origin of life itself and natural selection indicates design and thus a God. He's not arguing against the mechanism of natural selection, or at least I don't think he is. I of course could be wrong though. His assertion is a statement of belief and faith, so I won't comment on it.

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is gravity a "deity" for astronomers? Is refraction a "deity" for optical engineers? Is lift a "deity" for aero engineers? Is electrical attraction a "deity" to electrical engineers? Is thermal expansion a "deity" for thermal physicists?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They are sound science, unlike natural selection.

[/ QUOTE ]
What?! In the "crabs with human faces" thread you conceded that natural selection occurs in nature (in your response to my a-c list). Have you changed your mind about this in the last few days? I hope this is some kind of joke.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On to Ch 2...

I love this leap of faith:

Chance Is Moronic

So chance requires twenty-eight trillion times the age of the earth to write merely the phrase: “The Theory of Evolution,” drawing from a set of small letters and capitals as described, drawing at the speed of light, a billion draws per second!...
Again, a child can do this, using sight and intelligence, in a few minutes at most. Mind makes the difference in the two methods. Chance really “doesn’t have a chance” when compared with the intelligent purpose of even a child.
“In the beginning, God . . . ” begins to appear more scientific, as we see how limited are the abilities of mindless chance.

How did anything he just said up there lead to "in the beginning..." appearing "scientific"? Oh, now it is convenient that we still have yet to see a basic definition of the scientific method.

So far:

Random draws with no input takes longer to realize order than draws with some input. Hmmmm.... I see again why "natural selection" was wrapped up in the generic term 'chance"--now it can be completely absent as a means of creating order because it is just another random draw. He has craftily conditioned the reader to see these processes as a gazillion-to-one longshot.

[/ QUOTE ]
That quoted passage is incredibly misleading. I don't see how anyone can say otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easy to see believe it's not misleading if your meaning and purpose of life would be obliterated if it was.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

When I say random I mean having no specific pattern or purpose. The mutations in NS are random, the process of NS is stochastic.


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me this is a distinction without a difference when applying the laws of probability to events. I flip a coin. Heads results. Is that a random or stochastic result? What difference does it make when applying the laws of probability? It's 50/50 whatever word you want to use.

If evolution and natural selection are similar to the coin flip then it should be possible to apply the laws of probability. That's what Coppedge does. That's what I was originally responding to when asked if such calculations have been made. The rest of this thread has mostly been obfuscation and the much blowing of smoke.

[Matt R.]

It is random and stochastic. Stochastic simply means a process which contains a random variable. A sample space which has all events equally probable is stochastic as well. I was just distinguishing "random" and "stochastic" in my other post to make it clear where the disagreement seemed to be coming from. In reality everything that is random is also stochastic.

Basically, I was saying "random" means all events in the sample space are equally likely. "Stochastic" means there is some mechanism which selects for certain outcomes over others. Stochastic processes in reality include "purely random" events as well, I was just trying to make the distinction to make my argument clearer by tinkering with the definition (sorry if it was confusing).

Essentially I was saying you can't go from no mechanism of selection (pre-life, or at least pre-RNA/DNA) to a mechanism of selection (evolution/natural selection) purely randomly. The mechanism of selection, heritability, could not come into existence from "pure" randomness. Or, if it could, it seems extremely unlikely. I was making the assertion that there is a mechanism that also selects for the *creation* or assembly of these heritable molecules.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How do you know it DOES have goal?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't KNOW it with 100% objectively provable certainty and I admit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a giant leap backwards from usual xian assertions. How can you 'have a relationship' with Jesus and be 'saved' if you don't 'know' whether you actually have a relationship (as opposed to a nebulous feeling of meaning and invisible friend-ness that you chalk up to God) and don't 'know' whether you were actually saved. You strongly believe that you were saved?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Essentially I was saying you can't go from no mechanism of selection (pre-life, or at least pre-RNA/DNA) to a mechanism of selection (evolution/natural selection) purely randomly


[/ QUOTE ]

There's a point I've overlooked here that I should make. Coppedge mostly deals with abiogenesis - how could a living organism capable of reproduction assemble itself by chance from some primordial soup. Obviously natural selection isn't even a condsideration.

It's been a while since I read the book, and I never got past the parts dealing with the origin of life. I'm not sure if he ever went into the question of natural selection as a random process.

I really wanted this thread to focus on Coppedge's use of the laws of probability to the biology he understood. Even though the book is outdated and there are probably some flaws the idea of using probability in this field is very powerful. The question is whether it can be done in a way that's relevant - something only biologists can answer in a meaningful way.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You strongly believe that you were saved?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I tried to make it clear I was using know in the sense of being capable of certain, objective proof. I believe in Christ, sometimes perhaps at the 100% level, and this belief is in part based on objective evidence. But faith is a gift of God and so has a subjective element as well.

So using the word know in one sense I don't know 100%, but in another sense I do. This is really an epistemological question - does any human really know anything 100%?

I was answering a question that I thought concerned objective, demonstrable proof, not my own personal, subjective faith.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is gravity a "deity" for astronomers? Is refraction a "deity" for optical engineers? Is lift a "deity" for aero engineers? Is electrical attraction a "deity" to electrical engineers? Is thermal expansion a "deity" for thermal physicists?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They are sound science, unlike natural selection.

[/ QUOTE ]
What?! In the "crabs with human faces" thread you conceded that natural selection occurs in nature (in your response to my a-c list). Have you changed your mind about this in the last few days? I hope this is some kind of joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Natural selection does occur. It’s the “science” that relies on it that’s questionable.

[KeysrSoze]

Go hide under a bridge.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Go hide under a bridge.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a trollish thing to post. Nothing worthwhile to add, apparently. I suggest you take The Hominid Challenge and address the following:

The advantage of cumulative selection exactly illustrates how the discriminator between successful and unsuccessful random variations must have at least the information content of the outputted sum of adaptations.

[Marko Schmarko]

Sharkey,
The outcome is functional life.
It's inherent in the process.

NotReady,
Natural selection does play a roll in abiogenesis.
Compounds that don't reproduce will be less prominent than those that do.
"Obviously" is a dangerous word.

Cordially,
mark

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't give this a pass--nor would I expect you to give a pass to a physicist who portrays himself as a priest if he's not.


[/ QUOTE ]

You must be kidding, there are numerous deomonstrations of the fallacies in Coppedges reasoning and the assumptions that must be made to support his math. You must not have looked very hard.
It would depend on what the "priest" had to say and the subject. The math involved doesn't require a PH.D. and the biology is that from the date of the book, about 1973, and Coppedge, as far as I can tell, did good research and based his conclusions on the science current at the time. Attacking credentials is nothing but an excuse for dodging the issue. Labelling what I believe "science" and what you believe "pseudo-science" is just dishonest debate. If Coppedge is so wrong he should be easy to blow out of the water.

BTW, I didn't learn of Coppedge from the net. I bought the book when it first came out. Yeah, I'm ancient. But I've been looking for someone to show he's wrong ever since without success. Please don't cite the talk.origins response. I've read it and I don't think it does much to answer Coppedge.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The outcome is functional life.
It's inherent in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then apparently you can see the circular causality I’m referring to.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for the lead role in a cage?


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely no one here is willing to deal with the issue. A telling void.

[Marko Schmarko]

[ QUOTE ]
Then apparently you can see the circular causality I’m referring to.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't. Please explain.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then apparently you can see the circular causality I’m referring to.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't. Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

The result is presumed at the start. If the information content of the output, i.e. functional life, is inherent in the process of natural selection, how did it get there? Is the selection mechanism that produced the current state of the species the product of another selection mechanism?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for the lead role in a cage?


[/ QUOTE ] Absolutely no one here is willing to deal with the issue. A telling void.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm I wonder what my quote has to do with the discussion.

If the issue you refer to is Coppedge's attempted but failed misuse of probability it has not been ignored. His calculations either rely on inaccurate assumptions, outdated science or are obscured by qualitative judgements.

He fails to understand (or intentiaonally ignores, as you do) that random processes can drive ordered processes. There is no need for an "ultimate" choice between the two, they are both part of the process.

Here are several examples of his fallacious math:

One of the most valiant attempts at this sort of statistic is to be found in the creationist book Evolution: Possible or Impossible by James F. Coppedge (Zondervan, 1973). Unlike most other tries, Coppedge at least attempts to get at the root of the problem by examining the odds of the first theoretically possible organism arising by chance. But he fails largely because of certain bogus assumptions, which are only partly to be blamed on the fact that his work is twenty-five years out of date. As an example of being out of date, he declares that "there is no method known" whereby reproduction can occur without the "intricate DNA-RNA-enzymes-ribosome process" (p. 67) but this has since been refuted (see Addenda C).

• As an example of simply using faulty logic, Coppedge says that "the average number of amino acids in proteins of the smallest known living thing is 400, at the very least" (p. 57). This commits two mistakes: first, when discussing the first possible life, we should only be concerned with the minimum, the smallest possible protein that can exist in a replicating system, not the average; second, the "smallest known living thing" is already billions of years more advanced than the first life, which is almost certainly extinct. Coppedge claims that "there is no real reason at present to believe that any living thing has ever existed that is simpler than the...smallest living entity known" (p. 112). But this is the exact opposite of the truth. There are many reasons to think otherwise. It has been estimated that over 99% of every known species that ever lived has gone extinct, and the simplest of organisms would surely have been devoured or starved out by their more advanced descendants long ago. Scientists have catalogued numerous other good reasons to think that DNA is a late development, and that all surviving phylogeny is descended from a common ancestor, which we clearly have not yet found among the living. Thus, we cannot use present life as a basis for calculating the odds of the random formation of the first life, and this is even more so when it comes to bacterium, which we already know is highly evolved, cf. "Evolution of Bacterial Genomes" by Trevors, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek International Journal of General and Molecular Microbiology 71:3, pp. 265-270 (March, 1997).

Coppedge makes some specific calculations, and both kinds of problems plague his results. For example, he calculates the odds against the origin of life as 1 in 10^8318, which is, he says, "out of all the protein molecules that ever existed on Earth, the odds against there being even one set with only left-handed components sufficient for the smallest theoretical living entity" (p. 76). But his "smallest theoretical living entity" is something derived from the 1969 work of a certain Dr. Harold J. Morowitz ("Biological Self-Replicating Systems," Progress in Theoretical Biology, F. Snell, ed., pp. 35 ff.), which is what Morowitz believed to be the smallest DNA-based genome that can sustain itself, consisting of 239 proteins, with an average of 400 amino acids per protein. His conclusions were largely arbitrary and have since been refuted experimentally (see Addenda C).

• Likewise, the problem of uniform one-handedness has many possible explanations. It is not necessarily a matter of pure chance. Since uniform handedness is important to biological function, it will be selected for, and thus even if we are relying entirely on chance for the first organism (which will be much smaller than Coppedge thinks, and so the odds will be vastly better than he estimates), we no longer have to explain uniform handedness after that. Furthermore, it is possible that the first living polymers grew on the surface of clays or crystals, which would create a natural tendency for all links in the chain to have the same handedness--and these circumstances have other ordering effects: as Yockey states on p. 18 of his article cited above, studies show that sequences of amino acids formed on clays or crystals are demonstrably non-random. But most importantly, as even Coppedge knew, "an all-one-handed chain is...more stable" (p. 249) and consequently short one-handed chains will last longer than mixed chains, and thus will more likely link with more chains and grow, remaining even more stable as the chain gets larger. In other words, only one-handed chains are likely to naturally grow very long, and thus it is no longer a question of random chance, but natural tendency and, again, natural selection (for even more on this whole issue, see [2]). Thus, this entire statistic is no longer relevant. It is further flawed by the fact that in this example he assumes that only one arrangement of proteins and amino acids will work (Morowitz did not claim this), and that the twenty amino acid types that are eventually standardized in Earth biology are the only ones that can produce life, and that all twenty are required, but there is no reason to assume either [cf. n. 1a]. His calculations even assume that an increase in the number of possible amino acid types will decrease the odds of forming a reliable replicating genome, when it should be obvious that the opposite must be the case: if more materials are available, the more chances there will be of hitting on something that works. Thus, even his math, like Foster's, is not up to the actual task here.

On page 102 Coppedge calculates the odds against proinsulin forming by chance as 1 in 10^106. But this is the same old mistake of assuming that proinsulin formed spontaneously. There is no reason to think that it did. Like the others, he ignores the role of natural selection. So this statistic is not relevant to the origin of life or the evolution of any animal. He then goes on to calculate the odds against "getting [even a single] usable protein" as 1 in 10^240 in one try (p. 104), or 1 in 10^161 "in all the history of the Earth" (p. 109). This statistic is based on several bogus assumptions. He bases his math again on the premise that such a protein must have an average length of 400 amino acids, rather than the minimum possible length (which no one knows), even though for the first life it is the minimum, not the present average, which must be considered. He also assumes that the rate of meaningful word formation in random English letter generation is the same as the rate of meaningful replicating protein code formation, though there is absolutely no rationale for this. Why would protein replication have anything to do with the English language? Indeed, there are only around 100,000 meaningful words in English, despite 26 letters, yet with only four letters, or twenty amino acids, there are billions of meaningful "words" in protein replication. What Coppedge also fails to appreciate is that anything that reproduces itself is "useful" for the purpose of natural selection--even if it has no observable effect on an organism. Thus, his statistics, again, are useless.

Based on these bogus results, Coppedge eventually concludes that "the odds against one minimum set of proteins happening in the entire history of the Earth are 10^119701 to 1" (p. 111). This is based on all the previous flawed assumptions: the "minimum" 239-protein genome of Morowitz, the 400 amino acids per protein, the assumption that only one combination will work, that only (and all) twenty amino acid varieties are required, and that only 1 in 10^240 randomly-made proteins are "usable," yet all these assumptions are invalid or have since been refuted (as discussed several times above), and thus his final result is to be tossed in the garbage. Coppedge later tries giving the best odds (p. 113), by assuming instead that only ten kinds of amino acids are needed, with only 12 amino acids as a minimum protein size, and ten proteins as a minimum replicator size, and various other assumptions about chemical quantities and combination rates, to get a chance against this creature forming by chance of 1 in 10^35 in the history of the Earth. Of course, this is actually within the realm of cosmic possibility [see 1], and so does not disprove the natural origin of life. But it is still not a valid result, since it assumes that only one arrangement would work (or very nearly that--he allows one meager amino acid substitution per protein), and that it can be done with only ten of the thousands of amino acid types. Indeed, even he knows that at least twenty work, and if an organism can be made with any ten out of twenty possible types, this changes the odds greatly, yet he does not account for even this. So this statistic is useless, too.

Coppedge makes one final calculation: the odds against randomly forming a single gene in one shot are, he figures, 1 in 10^236, based on the assumption that a gene requires a chain of at least 1200 amino acids (compare this with Salisbury's assumption of 1000 per gene). But to calculate the number of possible combinations which would produce a viable "gene" he once again uses the rate of meaning for random English letter-combinations, a thoroughly invalid analogy, and he dismisses the possibility that genes were not the basis of the first life but rather the result of several independent organisms chaining together (just as happened in the change from single-celled to multi-celled organisms, and as possibly happened in the adoption of a cellular nucleus, and the mitochondrium, etc.). Since these assumptions invalidate his results, and since current science suggests much simpler possibilities (see Addenda C), his conclusion can be safely rejected again.

[Marko Schmarko]

[ QUOTE ]

The result is presumed at the start.

[/ QUOTE ]
The result is hardly presumed. As I've stated before, compounds/structures that replicate themselves are more likely to be more prominent. This self-replication is what we call life. Nothing is presumed.
[ QUOTE ]

If the information content of the output, i.e. functional life, is inherent in the process of natural selection, how did it get there?

[/ QUOTE ]
How did what get there? The 'information content' (however inappropriate the phrase may be in the case of natural selection) is represented as an array of molecular constructs that are self-replicating. Being able to a) sustain oneself and b) replicate oneself makes one more adaptive. This adaptiveness leads to flourishing and persisting.

I suppose this all comes out of the laws of physics. Their origin is an entirely different argument (one that we may even come close to agreeing on).
[ QUOTE ]
Is the selection mechanism that produced the current state of the species the product of another selection mechanism?

[/ QUOTE ]
Which species? Ours? No. Same selection mechanism: the living persist, the dying do not.

[Marko Schmarko]

Gosh Darn. Coppedge got owned.

Well written, Copernicus.

[Sharkey]

You’ve done a lot of dancing without addressing the main issue, and I think we both understand how “information content” is being used in this context.

The proposed process has the input of random variation and the output of an extremely organized system. This represents a tremendous jump in complexity which a “selection process” is required to contribute. Evolutionists pretend to explain everything away with non-falsifiable storybook tales about daring adventure, survival and reproduction, yet really never balance their equations at all.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Gosh Darn. Coppedge got owned.

Well written, Copernicus.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry ...the attribution got cut off...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html

It also has a link to Musgraves talk.origins article, which the threads esteemed creationsist finds unconvincing. Of course facts are easy to dismiss when you prefer to accept the obfuscation of Coppedge.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Hmmm I wonder what my quote has to do with the discussion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering the same thing. I just assumed it was a lame attempt at an insult.

On to Infidels:

[ QUOTE ]

but this has since been refuted (see Addenda C).


[/ QUOTE ]

Addenda C is not a refutation, it's a speculation. All of the articles cited by C were published after Coppedge's book and there's no allegation the speculation was available to Coppedge at the time, so it can hardly be called a mistake and certainly there was no intentional misleading by Coppedge, which can't really be said for infidels.org.

[ QUOTE ]

This commits two mistakes: first, when discussing the first possible life, we should only be concerned with the minimum, the smallest possible protein that can exist in a replicating system, not the average


[/ QUOTE ]

Coppedge didn't make a mistake, he made an assumption that can be contested. Calling it a mistake is typical infidels technique.

[ QUOTE ]

Thus, we cannot use present life as a basis for calculating the odds of the random formation of the first life, and this is even more so when it comes to bacterium, which we already know is highly evolved


[/ QUOTE ]

This also is not a mistake by Coppedge. It may form the basis for a legitimate debate, which I think I've been clear is part of the reason I don't use Coppedge, and I've also made clear I brought this up to discuss this kind of issue. Citing an article from infidels falls a little short of discussion.

[ QUOTE ]

Since uniform handedness is important to biological function, it will be selected for, and thus even if we are relying entirely on chance for the first organism (which will be much smaller than Coppedge thinks, and so the odds will be vastly better than he estimates), we no longer have to explain uniform handedness after that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Coppedge was talking about the first organism so I don't get the point of this statement.

[ QUOTE ]

Thus, this entire statistic is no longer relevant.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, it is relevant, and Coppedge considered a bias in the handedness factor.

[ QUOTE ]

There is no reason to think that it did. Like the others, he ignores the role of natural selection.


[/ QUOTE ]

Like above, infidels ignores that natural selection refers to organisms, not preorganic chemistry.

[ QUOTE ]

Why would protein replication have anything to do with the English language?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the most ridiculous statements in the article. Coppedge was simply using an example as an analogy.

[ QUOTE ]

What Coppedge also fails to appreciate is that anything that reproduces itself is "useful" for the purpose of natural sel! ection-- even if it has no observable effect on an organism.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that all of a sudden reproduction and organisms are requried for natural selection.

[ QUOTE ]

His calculations even assume that an increase in the number of possible amino acid types will decrease the odds of forming a reliable replicating genome, when it should be obvious that the opposite must be the case: if more materials are available, the more chances there will be of hitting on something that works. Thus, even his math, like Foster's, is not up to the actual task here.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a math error. That's like saying it's more likely to be dealt AA the more cards are in the deck. It might be more likely, but it might also be less likely. It depends on whether the target hand is AA, whether AA is required, and whether the extra cards contain any A's. There may be an issue concerning Coppedge's assumptions, but that's not a math error.


I will grant you that Coppedge made some assumptions about biology. I stated in one of my earlier posts that this is a valid issue with his book. It's crystal clear that he was honest in his effort, that his assumptions were reasonable based on the science available at the time, and that he made many concessions to chance which were probably overly generous. The infidels article is an attempted hatchet job that aside from raising without answering the problem of assumptions, does nothing to legitimately discuss the issue. As I've said before, Coppedge and others have raised an important question concerning the basic assertions of atheistic evolution and they remain mostly unanswered. It's probable that neither side will be able to make a perfect case for or against, but it's certainly an issue worth discussing, and dismissive, dishonest articles like the infidels effort do nothing to advance the discussion.

[Marko Schmarko]

You're smarter than your stubbornness will allow you to demonstrate.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Hmmm I wonder what my quote has to do with the discussion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering the same thing. I just assumed it was a lame attempt at an insult.

On to Infidels:

[ QUOTE ]

but this has since been refuted (see Addenda C).


[/ QUOTE ]

Addenda C is not a refutation, it's a speculation. All of the articles cited by C were published after Coppedge's book and there's no allegation the speculation was available to Coppedge at the time, so it can hardly be called a mistake and certainly there was no intentional misleading by Coppedge, which can't really be said for infidels.org.

The article specifically states that Addenda C contains examples of subsequent discoveries and is not at all misleading.

[ QUOTE ]

This commits two mistakes: first, when discussing the first possible life, we should only be concerned with the minimum, the smallest possible protein that can exist in a replicating system, not the average


[/ QUOTE ]

Coppedge didn't make a mistake, he made an assumption that can be contested. Calling it a mistake is typical infidels technique.

[ QUOTE ]


Wrong. An assumption that is patently at odds with what you are trying to demostrate is an error not a debatable assumption. His math is trying to state something about the improbability of the simplest form of life, but superimposes conditions that apply only to far more complex forms.
Thus, we cannot use present life as a basis for calculating the odds of the random formation of the first life, and this is even more so when it comes to bacterium, which we already know is highly evolved


[/ QUOTE ]

This also is not a mistake by Coppedge. It may form the basis for a legitimate debate, which I think I've been clear is part of the reason I don't use Coppedge, and I've also made clear I brought this up to discuss this kind of issue. Citing an article from infidels falls a little short of discussion.

[ QUOTE ]


same fallacious argument as your last, compounded by dismissing specific refutations by demeaning the source, with no couterargement. I can just as easily dismiss the basis of all of your arguments by accepting the claim that the bible is history twisted by the romans to further their control of the masses...far more likely than it being the "word of god"

Since uniform handedness is important to biological function, it will be selected for, and thus even if we are relying entirely on chance for the first organism (which will be much smaller than Coppedge thinks, and so the odds will be vastly better than he estimates), we no longer have to explain uniform handedness after that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Coppedge was talking about the first organism so I don't get the point of this statement.

you seem to get the point later. Coppedge uses handedness to inflate his probabilities by again assuming totally random processes that in fact are likely to arise directly as a result of the processes of abiogeesis

[ QUOTE ]

Thus, this entire statistic is no longer relevant.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agreee...a statistic based on a faulty assumption (random chance vs natural selection) is not irrelevant...it says much about the intellectual prowess or integrity of the presenter. Neither puts his work in a favorable light
Of course, it is relevant, and Coppedge considered a bias in the handedness factor.

[ QUOTE ]

There is no reason to think that it did. Like the others, he ignores the role of natural selection.


[/ QUOTE ]

Like above, infidels ignores that natural selection refers to organisms, not preorganic chemistry.

[ QUOTE ]


Coppedge's calculations deal with far more than abiogenesis of the simplest structures deemed necessary for life. The refutations that incorporate natural selection are directed toward calculations of more complex compouds.


Why would protein replication have anything to do with the English language?


[/ QUOTE ]


This is one of the most ridiculous statements in the article. Coppedge was simply using an example as an analogy.

[ QUOTE ]


no, in this section Coppedge doesnt merely use English as an analogy, he basis the assumptions in his calculation on the rate of meaning in a 26 letter code and the infidels article demonstrates why that assumption is erroneous
What Coppedge also fails to appreciate is that anything that reproduces itself is "useful" for the purpose of natural sel! ection-- even if it has no observable effect on an organism.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that all of a sudden reproduction and organisms are requried for natural selection.

[ QUOTE ]


All of a sudden???? youll have to expalain this further, since natural selection is a theory of organisms that is based on the reproductive process

His calculations even assume that an increase in the number of possible amino acid types will decrease the odds of forming a reliable replicating genome, when it should be obvious that the opposite must be the case: if more materials are available, the more chances there will be of hitting on something that works. Thus, even his math, like Foster's, is not up to the actual task here.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a math error. That's like saying it's more likely to be dealt AA the more cards are in the deck. It might be more likely, but it might also be less likely. It depends on whether the target hand is AA, whether AA is required, and whether the extra cards contain any A's. There may be an issue concerning Coppedge's assumptions, but that's not a math error.

he doesnt say its a math error, he says its a logical error (that more material makes the appearance of viable genomes less likely). Your analogy makes the same error that Coppedge makes. It picks a specific viable "genome", AA, and says that its likelihood decreases with more "material", ie cards. This ignores the likelihood of additional viable genomes. Eg if you have a 60 card deck with the two additional ranks being rooks (R) and bishops (B) that are ranked above Aces, their presence will indeed make AA less likely, but RR, BB, RB sooted etc. add to the viable genome population. His reference to the "math not being up to the task" is not saying Coppedge made a math error, it is saying that the underying model itself is faulty by ignoring additional viable genomes


I will grant you that Coppedge made some assumptions about biology. I stated in one of my earlier posts that this is a valid issue with his book. It's crystal clear that he was honest in his effort, that his assumptions were reasonable based on the science available at the time, and that he made many concessions to chance which were probably overly generous. The infidels article is an attempted hatchet job that aside from raising without answering the problem of assumptions, does nothing to legitimately discuss the issue. As I've said before, Coppedge and others have raised an important question concerning the basic assertions of atheistic evolution and they remain mostly unanswered. It's probable that neither side will be able to make a perfect case for or against, but it's certainly an issue worth discussing, and dismissive, dishonest articles like the infidels effort do nothing to advance the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

you infer "crystal clear" honorable motives to Coppedge's errors, and dishonesty to refutations of Coppedge. Hogwash. You do not and cannot know the intent of either. This is only one of several detailed refutations of Coppedge and the predecessors he borrows from. Dismissing them all (as you want to with talk.origins) without demonstrating where those refutations are wrong is intellectually dishonest. You certainly have made no dent in this article. I have yet to see any argument raised by any theist/creationist that either hasn't been answered or doesnt fall back on faith as its basis.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

you infer "crystal clear" honorable motives to Coppedge's errors, and dishonesty to refutations of Coppedge.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an inference. It's an assertion that there is no evidence of any intentional deceit by Coppedge and a demonstration that such deceit is engaged in by infidels.

[ QUOTE ]

without demonstrating where those refutations are wrong is intellectually dishonest.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're kidding, right?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

you infer "crystal clear" honorable motives to Coppedge's errors, and dishonesty to refutations of Coppedge.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an inference. It's an assertion that there is no evidence of any intentional deceit by Coppedge and a demonstration that such deceit is engaged in by infidels.

if its not an inference than you make the assertion without basis. same problem. Youve made no such demonstration of deceit, much less making any valid argument against the article

[ QUOTE ]

without demonstrating where those refutations are wrong is intellectually dishonest.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're kidding, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

a very intellectualy honest [/sarcasm] but typical, response.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Youve made no such demonstration of deceit


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I did.

[ QUOTE ]

a very intellectualy honest [/sarcasm] but typical, response.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a response to a non-response.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Youve made no such demonstration of deceit


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I did.

[ QUOTE ]

a very intellectualy honest [/sarcasm] but typical, response.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a response to a non-response.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are being a child. I refuted your criticisms section by section. Saying "yes i did" doesnt negate that. I doubt that even your fellow theists will argue that mine was a "non-resonse" (other than Sharkey, whom has yet to argue logically in what Ive read).

As someone said above, you are (or at least seem to be) more intelligent than your last two posts.

[AJFenix]

Why is the brainwash factor so strong with these Christians? Why are they so convinced that what they were and are being told is the absolute and unfaulty truth? People are smarter than to be blinded in this fashion, and what this thread shows is really pretty depressing.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the brainwash factor so strong with these Christians? Why are they so convinced that what they were and are being told is the absolute and unfaulty truth? People are smarter than to be blinded in this fashion, and what this thread shows is really pretty depressing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel sorry for the posters who bother arguing with them. It's pointless. You're asking the Christians to deny their faith, and the believiers in ID will argue to the death no matter how much evidence you pile in front of them that they might be wrong.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is the brainwash factor so strong with these Christians? Why are they so convinced that what they were and are being told is the absolute and unfaulty truth? People are smarter than to be blinded in this fashion, and what this thread shows is really pretty depressing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel sorry for the posters who bother arguing with them. It's pointless. You're asking the Christians to deny their faith, and the believiers in ID will argue to the death no matter how much evidence you pile in front of them that they might be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that its pointless. While it is true that you will never get them to waiver in their faith, it is important to demonstrate how masses of people can be deceived so thoroughly that they no longer function as thinking, logical people

It is a disturbingly fine line from tithing and transubstantiation to laundered money and 70 (or whatever the number is) virgins. We should never forget that.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You are being a child. I refuted your criticisms section by section.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've got to stop doing this so late at night. I didn't see your responses, I guess because you put them in a different form than I'm used to. When I'm fully awake I'll take another look.

[NotReady]

Well, now, wait a minute. I see what happened. All the responses must have been included by you as an edit. I got the part about inferences, etc, but nothing that came before that was in the email. So my response was actually ok since I never received your edits.

[Hopey]

Hi responses were included in the text he was quoting, but his responses were all in bold.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Hi responses were included in the text he was quoting, but his responses were all in bold.


[/ QUOTE ]

They weren't in the email I got. He must have put them in through an edit.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The article specifically states that Addenda C contains examples of subsequent discoveries and is not at all misleading.


[/ QUOTE ]


The speculation from C concerning non-enzymatic RNA self-replication:


"
However, this only shows that this sort of thing is possible. It is not yet known whether the tetrahymena was the basis of earth's protobiology, but something like it could have been.

and again:

this chemical, the tetrahymena rhybozime, isn't necessarily the basis of earth life, but it proves that extremely simple replicators are possible"


I think that's the definition of speculation.


[ QUOTE ]


Wrong. An assumption that is patently at odds with what you are trying to demostrate is an error not a debatable assumption. His math is trying to state something about the improbability of the simplest form of life, but superimposes conditions that apply only to far more complex forms.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're wrong. Coppedge was talking about the average number of amino acids in the smallest known living thing. It's speculation to say that an organism that had only amino acids of the smallest kind would work because that's not how it occurs in nature. You're certainly free to make different assumptions than Coppedge, but he was using an actual example.

[ QUOTE ]

you seem to get the point later. Coppedge uses handedness to inflate his probabilities by again assuming totally random processes that in fact are likely to arise directly as a result of the processes of abiogeesis


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, Coppedge discusses and calculates a scenario where handedness is given a whopping 6/7 preference. And what are the processes of abiogenesis?

[ QUOTE ]


I agreee...a statistic based on a faulty assumption (random chance vs natural selection) is not irrelevant...it says much about the intellectual prowess or integrity of the presenter. Neither puts his work in a favorable light


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't really get it that natural selection has nothing to do with the random chance of abiogenesis, even with a handedness preference?

[ QUOTE ]


Coppedge's calculations deal with far more than abiogenesis of the simplest structures deemed necessary for life. The refutations that incorporate natural selection are directed toward calculations of more complex compouds.


[/ QUOTE ]

The part of the book they are addressing is from a chapter entitled: "Probability and the First Proteins".

[ QUOTE ]

no, in this section Coppedge doesnt merely use English as an analogy, he basis the assumptions in his calculation on the rate of meaning in a 26 letter code and the infidels article demonstrates why that assumption is erroneous


[/ QUOTE ]

You're going to have to point that out to me, I can't find it. What I find is this:

"One way to get a tentative idea is by comparison with other systems which have a number of parts that work only when in specific orders. The best ANALOGY (emphasis mine) is our alphabet with its 26 letters." p. 103

[ QUOTE ]

he doesnt say its a math error,

Wrong again - see end of paragraph.

"Thus, even his math, like Foster's, is not up to the actual task here."


[/ QUOTE ]

Also, I think I meant the statement you made earlier about Coppedge's fallacious math - no one has shown any math errors in his work.

[ QUOTE ]

he says its a logical error (that more material makes the appearance of viable genomes less likely). Your analogy makes the same error that Coppedge makes. It picks a specific viable "genome", AA, and says that its likelihood decreases with more "material", ie cards. This ignores the likelihood of additional viable genomes.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't ignore it. I said the genome of interest is AA.

[ QUOTE ]

Eg if you have a 60 card deck with the two additional ranks being rooks (R) and bishops (B) that are ranked above Aces, their presence will indeed make AA less likely, but RR, BB, RB sooted etc. add to the viable genome population.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's your assumption.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
You're smarter than your stubbornness will allow you to demonstrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't bet on it.

[Jshuttlesworth]

[ QUOTE ]

If a shakespearean play cannot be produced randomly in this universe what makes you think life can?

[/ QUOTE ]

this question is not worth asking. Do you see why?

Hint: It is certainly a fact that we would only know about life IF it infact DID obtain (and thankfully it DID!)

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah and if each one of those planets had 100 billion monkeys randomly typing 60 characters a second without stopping for 15 billions years the probability of a shakespearean play being produced is essentially 0. Infinite Monkey Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem)

If a shakespearean play cannot be produced randomly in this universe what makes you think life can?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is EXACTLY what is wrong with ID arguments and anti-evolution probabilistic approaches such as Coppedge et al.

There is a glaring difference--do you see it?

I've already described repeatedly how folks like Coppedge with his "probabilistic molecular biology" intentionally obfuscate the concept of random mutation into some overarching chance with no driving function.

Let's look at your monkey example. Yeah, it is very improbable that a monkey can write a single sentence given that any character has equal probability. But what if it "learns" through selection that "t-h-e" makes a common word, and "c-z-p" makes no words in the English language, etc. Now, not every character has equal probability and patterns emerge and the whole probability argument needs to be reworked. Selection changes things, but folks like Coppedge, NotReady, et al, continually & intentionally ignore this most critical aspect.

What if 1000 monkeys all start out with 4 characters, and only 50 of these make a word, then 1000 more monkeys start out with this word, and 62 lead to another word that is grammatically correct, then 1000 monkeys start from there... low and behold these monkeys just might write a sentence after all, no? This is how selection works, not 1 million monkeys working in isolation and whose results have no impact on the peopulation as a whole. Failure to see this distinction of course leads to great errors in probability estimates.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Selection changes things, but folks like Coppedge, NotReady, et al, continually & intentionally ignore this most critical aspect.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd for two reasons. Natural selection applies to organisms. Coppedge did calculations giving left-handedness a 6/7 preference, which is a ridiculously high number, and still came up with a number that is beyond astronomical.

[Marko Schmarko]

many have argued that natural selection applies to molecules, as well. I did, in fact, earlier in this thread.

O-zone, for instance, is not prevalent on earth because it's unstable. Oxygen, however, is quite prevalent. Thus, more stable molecules are more likely to be more prevalent, and that logic can be extrapolated all the way to life.

I think.
- mark

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it is very improbable that a monkey can write a single sentence given that any character has equal probability. But what if it "learns" through selection that "t-h-e" makes a common word, and "c-z-p" makes no words in the English language, etc. Now, not every character has equal probability and patterns emerge and the whole probability argument needs to be reworked.

[/ QUOTE ]

That objection has already been disposed of.

Where does the equivalent of the pre-existing information about the English language reside in the case of evolution? Nowhere.

Is there a blueprint of the eventual organism for natural selection to check against? Obviously not.

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
many have argued that natural selection applies to molecules, as well. I did, in fact, earlier in this thread.

O-zone, for instance, is not prevalent on earth because it's unstable. Oxygen, however, is quite prevalent. Thus, more stable molecules are more likely to be more prevalent, and that logic can be extrapolated all the way to life.

I think.
- mark

[/ QUOTE ]

Natural selection most definitely applies to molecules, there are many examples within the function of living cells and also within cell/cell interactions.

I am actually breaking from cramming for a micro test right now and just got through a packet on how viral products (mRNA's, proteins etc) can competite w/ the host cell. Viral mRNA has a higher affinity for host Ribosomes, as well as transcribing proteins that inhibit host cell nuclear mRNA transport and binding. They also inhibit splicing/modification mechanisms.

The rules of supply and demand, natural selection/survival etc whatever you want to call it most definitely apply to molecular interactions via binding affinitys and enzymatic reactions.

-JP

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The rules of supply and demand, natural selection/survival etc whatever you want to call it


[/ QUOTE ]

If a quarter is slightly biased so that heads comes up more than tails, would you call that natural selection?

[Marko Schmarko]

No.

But, luckily, that's a false analogy.

Phew.

Edit: Look closer.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Picture a random number generator with a filter that would only output prime numbers.

Is this a random process?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it’s intelligent design.

A better analogy for evolution by natural selection would be a random number generator with a filter that is another random number generator. Yet this device is required to output only the primes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this is pretty much correct. Just because evolution is driven by natural selection and other selective pressures doesn't mean that these pressures aren't driven by some other forces, which are in turn driven by some other forces which were put in place by God. And of course, science has no opinion on this one way or the other, and is only concerned with the succession of forces as it can be observed.

Of course the problem is, is it really turtles all the way down?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Picture a random number generator with a filter that would only output prime numbers.

Is this a random process?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it’s intelligent design.

A better analogy for evolution by natural selection would be a random number generator with a filter that is another random number generator. Yet this device is required to output only the primes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this is pretty much correct. Just because evolution is driven by natural selection and other selective pressures doesn't mean that these pressures aren't driven by some other forces, which are in turn driven by some other forces which were put in place by God. And of course, science has no opinion on this one way or the other, and is only concerned with the succession of forces as it can be observed.

Of course the problem is, is it really turtles all the way down?

[/ QUOTE ]
Only in the sense of how comes there's a temporal universe in the first place. This is not an objection to evolution but just the old first cause problem.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Picture a random number generator with a filter that would only output prime numbers.

Is this a random process?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it’s intelligent design.

A better analogy for evolution by natural selection would be a random number generator with a filter that is another random number generator. Yet this device is required to output only the primes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this is pretty much correct. Just because evolution is driven by natural selection and other selective pressures doesn't mean that these pressures aren't driven by some other forces, which are in turn driven by some other forces which were put in place by God. And of course, science has no opinion on this one way or the other, and is only concerned with the succession of forces as it can be observed.

Of course the problem is, is it really turtles all the way down?

[/ QUOTE ]
Only in the sense of how comes there's a temporal universe in the first place. This is not an objection to evolution but just the old first cause problem.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree totally. It seems to me like a lot of this debate comes down to that. Are we arguing that the process of natural selection ocurring is random and also very unlikely? Because if we are just arguing that the development of life, GIVEN the process of natural selection, is unlikely, it seems like a foolish argument. If we are, however, arguing that natural selection itself was very unlikely to have developed randomly, I think you might have a point. Of course, I don't know of any science that would assert, or even care, that that was the case.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Picture a random number generator with a filter that would only output prime numbers.

Is this a random process?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it’s intelligent design.

A better analogy for evolution by natural selection would be a random number generator with a filter that is another random number generator. Yet this device is required to output only the primes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this is pretty much correct. Just because evolution is driven by natural selection and other selective pressures doesn't mean that these pressures aren't driven by some other forces, which are in turn driven by some other forces which were put in place by God. And of course, science has no opinion on this one way or the other, and is only concerned with the succession of forces as it can be observed.

Of course the problem is, is it really turtles all the way down?

[/ QUOTE ]
Only in the sense of how comes there's a temporal universe in the first place. This is not an objection to evolution but just the old first cause problem.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree totally. It seems to me like a lot of this debate comes down to that. Are we arguing that the process of natural selection ocurring is random and also very unlikely? Because if we are just arguing that the development of life, GIVEN the process of natural selection, is unlikely, it seems like a foolish argument. If we are, however, arguing that natural selection itself was very unlikely to have developed randomly, I think you might have a point. Of course, I don't know of any science that would assert, or even care, that that was the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly some people are making that foolish argument. there's also some false divide being presented that seems to think that nattural selection only applies to living organisms.

As the late great Douglas Adam's put it:
stuff happens
stuff that causes other stuff to happen, causes other stuff to happen
stuff that in happening causes itself to happen again, happens again

That only leaves the mystery of why stuff happens in the first place and that leads to the simple divide of those who acknowledge they don't know and those who believe 'god did it' is an answer.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
That only leaves the mystery of why stuff happens in the first place and that leads to the simple divide of those who acknowledge they don't know and those who believe 'god did it' is an answer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Those that are curious and still looking for an answer, and those that have given up looking. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[godBoy]

The arguments presented I find very compelling. Most reject them on the premise that it involves God, most don't give these arguments the weight they are due and just use 'good humour'- if you can call it that - to dispose of them. It's this desire to be ignorant to truth that I find so repelling about many of the conclusions found here.
I'd come to a personal conclusion, given the arguments and testing them thoroughly against Science. yes science.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd come to a personal conclusion, given the arguments and testing them thoroughly against Science. yes science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, godboy, you have no choice... you can't very well test them against faith!