Level of Proof for Evolution

Reiku said:
Interesting. Until we see such a big leap, (and in my eyes, any single celled form of life that evolves into a multicelluar organism is certainly a huge leap), i am uncertain what to believe until such a time.
Click to expand...

A sponge is a creature that transitions between single celled and multicellular life. You can put a sponge in a blender, and the individual cells will live separately. Then, pour them in a container, and they will reform a living sponge.
 
I will hold some superintelligence is involved, as Fred Hoyle had, when he calculated the chance that a hydrogen atom could exist at $$10^{40,000}$$, and since this heavily outweighs all the matter in the universe at $$10^{80}$$, something unique happened in nature itself, and even the ''Quantumgenesis,'' as i call it, was so evidently provident over all circumstances of a non-deterministic universe itself.

Everything would need to follow deterministic laws, therego, if anything was to every exist.
 
spidergoat said:
A sponge is a creature that transitions between single celled and multicellular life. You can put a sponge in a blender, and the individual cells will live separately. Then, pour them in a container, and they will reform a living sponge.
Click to expand...

And the statistics behind such a mediator are? That would mean, by chance, and even by greater chance, that a single celled life required a stranger formation than had ever been contemplated. Not only that, but we are now talking about something (LIKE a eukaryote, which existed at the same time as a prokaryote without evolutionary change) and goes beyond any statistical calculation of reasonable thought.
 
The probability argument is also mistaken. Life didn't spring fully formed all at once, there was a gradation of improvement. Also, evolution isn't random. An analogy would be a combination safe. If it would be in only two states, open and closed, it would be impossible to crack. However, if the safe opened a little bit every time the combination is approached, a person could crack it relatively easily.
 
Enmos - They are not. He was a well-respected mathematician, who even created the big bang nucleosynthesis. We have no right to disrecpect his workings. Not to mention, no one has even been able to.

Spider - That is my point - life did not spring spontaneously by all forms of life at once. It needed to come from one single life, a single celled organism, which we have yet to see evolve. No mediation, has yet been able to provide a simpler explanation.
 
Reiku said:
Enmos - They are not. He was a well-respected mathematician, who even created the big bang nucleosynthesis. We have no right to disrecpect his workings. Not to mention, no one has even been able to.
Click to expand...

Reiku - It is.
 
Enmos, it isn't . His calculations have been vigorously viewed. No view holds his calculations as untrue. And yet you do?

Why?
 
Reiku said:
Enmos, it isn't . His calculations have been vigorously viewed. No view holds his calculations as untrue. And yet you do?

Why?
Click to expand...

No, I'm just saying that a lot of things happening in the world have improbable statistics.

I once got a large bumble flying into my eye when biking to school, what are the statistics of that ?
 
What are the statistics of a particular grain of sand on the beach being in that particular spot ?
 
The statistics are still true then

There is nothing fantastic, about everyday life, next to the primal events of evolution itself. We have made countless experiements to make life from the primordial goo, in the only way it could happen, and nothing has every proven fruitful.

Next to that, we now know from calculations of Fred Hoyle, things are even more complicated than had ever been exampled, and since the probability of a single hydrogen atom seems to far outweigh the probabilistic statistics behind life itself, what about the quantum interactions, and even big bang itself.

Well, here is the rub. I can honestly tell you, that out of an infinite possible states that the universe could have chosen, only one state arose out of the singularity. And this statistic, outweighs all statistics, because there is no limit. As i said as a thing of aftermath:

''I will hold some superintelligence is involved, as Fred Hoyle had, when he calculated the chance that a hydrogen atom could exist at $$10^{40,000}$$, and since this heavily outweighs all the matter in the universe at $$10^{80}[\tex], something unique happened in nature itself, and even the ''Quantumgenesis,'' as i call it, was so evidently provident over all circumstances of a non-deterministic universe itself.

Everything would need to follow deterministic laws, therego, if anything was to every exist.''

And these statistics infinitely outweigh the probably of even the life as we know found in a single eye, and outweighs the age of the universe, by an infinite amount. Anyone in there right mind should say:

''If we are by chance, those chances can only be determinable.''$$
 
Reiku said:
Enmos - They are not. He was a well-respected mathematician, who even created the big bang nucleosynthesis. We have no right to disrecpect his workings. Not to mention, no one has even been able to.

Spider - That is my point - life did not spring spontaneously by all forms of life at once. It needed to come from one single life, a single celled organism, which we have yet to see evolve. No mediation, has yet been able to provide a simpler explanation.
Click to expand...

We aren't going to see it evolve before our eyes, it takes time. But that isn't necessarily required. We won't see a big bang either. Or a living dinosaur. Furthermore, the so-called "single celled organism" was already advanced. There were things before that without cells, without a protective boundary, all the way back to the first two or more organic molecules that happened to form a self-catalyzing reaction.
 
Reiku said:
The statistics are still true then

There is nothing fantastic, about everyday life, next to the primal events of evolution itself. We have made countless experiements to make life from the primordial goo, in the only way it could happen, and nothing has every proven fruitful.

Next to that, we now know from calculations of Fred Hoyle, things are even more complicated than had ever been exampled, and since the probability of a single hydrogen atom seems to far outweigh the probabilistic statistics behind life itself, what about the quantum interactions, and even big bang itself.

Well, here is the rub. I can honestly tell you, that out of an infinite possible states that the universe could have chosen, only one state arose out of the singularity. And this statistic, outweighs all statistics, because there is no limit. As i said as a thing of aftermath:

''I will hold some superintelligence is involved, as Fred Hoyle had, when he calculated the chance that a hydrogen atom could exist at $$10^{40,000}$$, and since this heavily outweighs all the matter in the universe at $$10^{80}[\tex], something unique happened in nature itself, and even the ''Quantumgenesis,'' as i call it, was so evidently provident over all circumstances of a non-deterministic universe itself.

Everything would need to follow deterministic laws, therego, if anything was to every exist.''

And these statistics infinitely outweigh the probably of even the life as we know found in a single eye, and outweighs the age of the universe, by an infinite amount. Anyone in there right mind should say:

''If we are by chance, those chances can only be determinable.''$$
Click to expand...
$$

Evolution isn't chance. It is the opposite of chance. You are using false logic. The eye didn't appear out of a random collection of molecules, it evolved.$$
 
spidergoat said:
Evolution isn't chance. It is the opposite of chance. You are using false logic. The eye didn't appear out of a random collection of molecules, it evolved.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Of course the statistics of it randomly appearing are infinitely small.
 
spidergoat said:
We aren't going to see it evolve before our eyes, it takes time. But that isn't necessarily required. We won't see a big bang either. Or a living dinosaur. Furthermore, the so-called "single celled organism" was already advanced. There were things before that without cells, without a protective boundary, all the way back to the first two or more organic molecules that happened to form a self-catalyzing reaction.
Click to expand...

Exactly what makes life imperviously, impossible.

How much time did the universe require to example life on this planet? Not much, next to astrological time. 15 billion years is tiny.
 
spidergoat said:
Evolution isn't chance. It is the opposite of chance. You are using false logic. The eye didn't appear out of a random collection of molecules, it evolved.
Click to expand...


Without a determism, then life is by chance. With it, it is not. Get it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top