Jump to content
L2Ski

religion

Recommended Posts

And what the hell is your theory on God anyway? That he set things into motion and then let them happen...but then intervened at random times? You think he let the Earth form all by itself...but then life simply couldn't have come without divine intervention? You think he then let life evolve, but intervened to give humans intelligence? Why is it that you think God simply happens to fill the gaps of current accepted scientific truth?

 

50 years from now are you going to adapt your God theory to just explain whatever it is that we dont know then?

I believe that God designed the universe, and everything in it at the beginning (all the initial conditions that were just so perfect). Then He formed the universe, and let everything begin to work. I believe that there have been limited times of direct intervention, usually as miracles (and things that are seen as random, highly improbable or extraordinary certainly qualify). I believe that science explains how, and religion explains why.

I also feel like asking "how, how, how, how, how" is pointless, because its missing the big picture. You can't see the forest for its trees.

 

 

So you just said that science should answer "how?" questions. Therefore, shouldn't "How did life begin on Earth?" and "How did the universe begin?" be answered by science?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically which is more absurd, a straw hut building itself or all the buildings/infrastructure of NYC building itself. This is essentially what you are comparing, and its not even the best comparison, God would still be infinitely more complex then the whole city of NYC compared to a straw hut.

If life was a robot, a theist would tell you that the robot was designed and built by someone else, a higher being. An atheist would tell you that the robot occurred out of random chance - somehow the metal fell into place, coiled itself to form motors, and a battery formed naturally causing it to move and replicate.

 

Yes I am actually, and I am saying it is infinitely more unlikely that a being infinitely more complex and powerful then the robot coming about by random chance or always existing

 

Given the options in the previous example I gave which is more likely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you just said that science should answer "how?" questions. Therefore, shouldn't "How did life begin on Earth?" and "How did the universe begin?" be answered by science?

Science has answered "How did life begin on Earth" - given a bunch of initial conditions, along with a spark and basic proteins were able to form, organize, and start reproducing. That's all well and good, except it leaves everything up to too much chance, its too random.

 

Science will never be able to answer "How did the universe begin" unless they can observe another appear out of nowhere, especially because the experiments they set up require initial conditions, require matter to be present, where we know that couldn't have been the case before matter.

 

Also, trying to answer those questions misses the basic point - the universe exists, why does it exist?


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you just said that science should answer "how?" questions. Therefore, shouldn't "How did life begin on Earth?" and "How did the universe begin?" be answered by science?

Science has answered "How did life begin on Earth" - given a bunch of initial conditions, along with a spark and basic proteins were able to form, organize, and start reproducing. That's all well and good, except it leaves everything up to too much chance, its too random.

 

Again, I still don't know how you can think it is "too random". Since there are billions of billions of stars and billions of billions of planets, some of those planets are bound to exist just far enough away from their star so that life can exist.

 

Of those planets that are in the right area to support life, at least one of them is bound to see life, especially after millions or billions of years of pre-biological events occuring in the "primordial soup".

 

I just don't get your meaning of "random" or "chance". There seems nothing random about it to me. If life didn't appear here on Earth, it easily could have appeared on any other Earth-like planet.

 

Science will never be able to answer "How did the universe begin" unless they can observe another appear out of nowhere, especially because the experiments they set up require initial conditions, require matter to be present, where we know that couldn't have been the case before matter.

 

This simply isn't true. Theres no telling what sorts of scientific breakthroughs will allow us to obtain new knowledge about our surroundings. If you were alive 50,000 years ago you probably would be saying "Theres no way we will ever know what that great ball of fire in the sky is!". If you were alive 500 years ago youd probably be saying "Theres no way we will ever know how humans came to exist on this planet!" Knowledge always seems unobtainable until we obtain it. If we weren't perplexed by how to answer the question, then we would be able to answer it.

 

Also, trying to answer those questions misses the basic point - the universe exists, why does it exist?

 

Do you ask these questions about everything? Why does the photon have no mass? Why does the photon behave like a particle and a wave? Why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Why is the electron's charge negative?

 

None of these natural phenomena have a motive behind them. They just happened. There are reasons for what caused these things to happen, but there isn't a philosophical justification for why these events occured. They just did. It is nature.

 

Why would there need to be an explanation for the philosophy of why the universe exists? It just exists.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I wanted to say that these debates on the forums (or should I say "debates") are ridiculous. It's nothing but two parties trying to come up with the most off-the-wall metaphor to explain why their side is correct. In the end you guys are arguing about some things that we don't know for certain.

 

Yes, religious debates tend to get very political. Which is why I like to stay in the middle and point out the ridiculous arguments on both sides as an unbiased observer. And then I usually either get labeled a Godless heathen or a Flying Spaghetti Monster worshiper for questioning faulty logic and declaring the plain straight up reality of the situation: nobody knows. I guess agnostics just don't fit in.

 

Why would there need to be an explanation for the philosophy of why the universe exists? It just exists.

 

*by random chance

 

1. lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard: a random selection

2. statistics

a. having a value which cannot be determined but only described probabilistically: a random variable

b. chosen without regard to any characteristics of the individual members of the population so that each has an equal chance of being selected: random sampling

3. informal (of a person) unknown: some random guy waiting for a bus

 

If there's no prearranged order or definite plan for how the universe were to be made, then it simply occurred randomly.

 

Again, I still don't know how you can think it is "too random". Since there are billions of billions of stars and billions of billions of planets, some of those planets are bound to exist just far enough away from their star so that life can exist.

 

Sure, but that's still random. If I flipped one million coins, one of them is almost surely bound to be heads. Even so, it still comes down solely to random chance. It's really just another word for "nature doing it", unless you're going to argue that nature is not random.

 

PS: You still never answered about whether you fully reject the idea of Santa Claus or not.

 

This simply isn't true. Theres no telling what sorts of scientific breakthroughs will allow us to obtain new knowledge about our surroundings. If you were alive 50,000 years ago you probably would be saying "Theres no way we will ever know what that great ball of fire in the sky is!". If you were alive 500 years ago youd probably be saying "Theres no way we will ever know how humans came to exist on this planet!" Knowledge always seems unobtainable until we obtain it. If we weren't perplexed by how to answer the question, then we would be able to answer it.

 

While it is true that we don't know what we'll discover until we discover it, Sees All has a strong point. We'd need to create a whole new universe from scratch in order to demonstrate how it came to be, and even if we were successful and able to replicate it, since we, intelligent beings, would be working from our already existing universe, we wouldn't know how a universe could exist without already having one first and without having intelligent beings on the team. It's really just a silly question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*by random chance

 

1. lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard: a random selection

2. statistics

a. having a value which cannot be determined but only described probabilistically: a random variable

b. chosen without regard to any characteristics of the individual members of the population so that each has an equal chance of being selected: random sampling

3. informal (of a person) unknown: some random guy waiting for a bus

 

If there's no prearranged order or definite plan for how the universe were to be made, then it simply occurred randomly.

 

By that definition, then yes the universe was a random event. But I don't think thats how people are using the term...

 

For example, you flip 5 coins, and you see that 2 of them come up heads. You then look at these and say "Look! It came out randomly? Its too random, God did it!" CGF is using the idea of "random" to somehow imply that the event is unrealistic, illogical, or improbable.

 

Sure, but that's still random. If I flipped one million coins, one of them is almost surely bound to be heads. Even so, it still comes down solely to random chance. It's really just another word for "nature doing it", unless you're going to argue that nature is not random.

Addressed above

PS: You still never answered about whether you fully reject the idea of Santa Claus or not.

I do not fully reject any idea with 100% certainty.

 

While it is true that we don't know what we'll discover until we discover it, Sees All has a strong point. We'd need to create a whole new universe from scratch in order to demonstrate how it came to be, and even if we were successful and able to replicate it, since we, intelligent beings, would be working from our already existing universe, we wouldn't know how a universe could exist without already having one first and without having intelligent beings on the team. It's really just a silly question.

 

This is like saying we won't be able to figure out where humans came from unless we can recreate all of evolution in a lab experiment just to make sure.

 

Theres no telling what kinds of cosmological evidence might be out there that helps us trace back to the universe's origins.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*by random chance

 

1. lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard: a random selection

2. statistics

a. having a value which cannot be determined but only described probabilistically: a random variable

b. chosen without regard to any characteristics of the individual members of the population so that each has an equal chance of being selected: random sampling

3. informal (of a person) unknown: some random guy waiting for a bus

 

If there's no prearranged order or definite plan for how the universe were to be made, then it simply occurred randomly.

 

By that definition, then yes the universe was a random event. But I don't think thats how people are using the term...

 

For example, you flip 5 coins, and you see that 2 of them come up heads. You then look at these and say "Look! It came out randomly? Its too random, God did it!" CGF is using the idea of "random" to somehow imply that the event is unrealistic, illogical, or improbable.

 

 

All he's trying to do is call a horse a horse - random is random, and if you believe that there is no creator or higher being then the universe cannot have been anything but random.

 

I don't know if I'd call it unrealistic or illogical, but certainly it is highly improbable.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*by random chance

 

1. lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard: a random selection

2. statistics

a. having a value which cannot be determined but only described probabilistically: a random variable

b. chosen without regard to any characteristics of the individual members of the population so that each has an equal chance of being selected: random sampling

3. informal (of a person) unknown: some random guy waiting for a bus

 

If there's no prearranged order or definite plan for how the universe were to be made, then it simply occurred randomly.

 

By that definition, then yes the universe was a random event. But I don't think thats how people are using the term...

 

For example, you flip 5 coins, and you see that 2 of them come up heads. You then look at these and say "Look! It came out randomly? Its too random, God did it!" CGF is using the idea of "random" to somehow imply that the event is unrealistic, illogical, or improbable.

 

 

All he's trying to do is call a horse a horse - random is random, and if you believe that there is no creator or higher being then the universe cannot have been anything but random.

 

I don't know if I'd call it unrealistic or illogical, but certainly it is highly improbable.

 

Random implies that every step of the process is equally random, which is far from the case. Once the earth was formed, for instance, life evolving was much more likely given certain aspects of primitive earth.

The universe as it exists today makes a lot of sense based on the laws of nature.

 

The fact is that there's no solid evidence that there was any higher power at work.


IRKAa.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Random implies that every step of the process is equally random, which is far from the case. Once the earth was formed, for instance, life evolving was much more likely given certain aspects of primitive earth.

The universe as it exists today makes a lot of sense based on the laws of nature.

 

The fact is that there's no solid evidence that there was any higher power at work.

 

Of course, but it doesn't change the fact that there were several billion years of random before the earth was formed. Not to mention, of course, that these "laws of nature" you speak of were also created randomly.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The earth's size (and gravitation field), position relative to the Sun (versus the Sun's mass), frequency of rotation on its own axis and frequency of orbit around the sun's axis are all random variables, which if slightly different would not have produced life.

I could set up several integrals to show the totals of the probability mass function for all of those variables, and I'd estimate that the total probability of a planet of the right size spinning at the right speed in the right orbit is less than one in 10^10.

Given that the planet is in the right spot, the probability that it is composed of the right materials (enough water, nitrogen, and hydrocarbons for life to occur) is probably a similar amount, one in 10^100.

Given that the planet HAS the right materials and is in the right spot, the probability of life occurring is a continuous function over time, very slowly increasing to 1. Life occurred approximately 800 million years after earth as we know it formed, I'd estimate the probability of that happening that quickly (800 million years or less) to be close to 1 in 100.

 

Now that life has occurred, it has to evolve. The only way life can evolve is through mutations, some random occurrence changing the organism and its offspring. This is known as a mutation. Heuristically speaking, the probability of a successful mutation decreases with the complexity of the organism, but increases with the total population of an organism.

Also, the relative frequency of mutation decreases the survival rate of an organism, which also gets back to the planet's position.

 

We know that the number of species worldwide is somewhere greater than 1.7 million, so if you think about it the 1.7 million is the least number of successful mutations that could have possibly occurred to get from one life form to all current life forms. I'm guessing its closer to (1.7 million) ^2 for extinct species and the chains of subspecies required to get there.

A very rough estimate is the probability of 1.7 million species after 3.8 billion years is on the order of 0 to 1 in a thousand, with my bet at 1 in 10^8.

 

Given all this, I estimate life on earth and all that jazz to be close to (1 / 10^10) * (1 / 10^100) * (1 / 10^2) * (1 / 10^8) = 1 in 10^120, which is why I say its too random.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Random implies that every step of the process is equally random, which is far from the case. Once the earth was formed, for instance, life evolving was much more likely given certain aspects of primitive earth.

The universe as it exists today makes a lot of sense based on the laws of nature.

 

The fact is that there's no solid evidence that there was any higher power at work.

 

Of course, but it doesn't change the fact that there were several billion years of random before the earth was formed. Not to mention, of course, that these "laws of nature" you speak of were also created randomly.

 

It's still somewhat a misnomer to call it "random". Procedural would be more precise.

 

That also doesn't change that there's no evidence for any kind of creator.


IRKAa.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{lots of bad math and assumptions}

 

Given all this, I estimate life on earth and all that jazz to be close to (1 / 10^10) * (1 / 10^100) * (1 / 10^2) * (1 / 10^8) = 1 in 10^120, which is why I say its too random.

 

Many problems with this. The big one is that we don't have other data points. We don't know of other planets where life has evolved. We don't have other universes to compare. Therefore, the probability of life evolving as it has on our planet is incalculable. There isn't enough information to get a true answer.

 

Furthermore, your assumption would maybe be kind of correct if you were calculating the probability of a specific species evolving, but, according to our best data the probability that, once started, life will proliferate and mutate to fill all available niches, assuming it doesn't die out completely, over time is approximately 100%.


IRKAa.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Random implies that every step of the process is equally random, which is far from the case. Once the earth was formed, for instance, life evolving was much more likely given certain aspects of primitive earth.

The universe as it exists today makes a lot of sense based on the laws of nature.

 

The fact is that there's no solid evidence that there was any higher power at work.

 

Of course, but it doesn't change the fact that there were several billion years of random before the earth was formed. Not to mention, of course, that these "laws of nature" you speak of were also created randomly.

 

It's still somewhat a misnomer to call it "random". Procedural would be more precise.

 

That also doesn't change that there's no evidence for any kind of creator.

 

I hate to argue over the little things but procedural clearly implies some sort of guidance. If, as you claim, there is no creator, nor can there be; even evolution cannot have been procedural.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Procedural does not mean it requires guidance. It means that a set number of rules (physics) were followed to create the current universe.

Gravity condenses gases together to form a sun. Solid materials condense and form planets. These planets revolve around a sun. On some planets that are in the "goldilocks belt" and have the right conditions, amino acids can form from the atoms that are available.

These amino acids would become more complex based on their interactions with other molecules. These complex structures(coacervate) would be the first "life". They will compete for resources to become bigger and reproduce by splitting. Evolution has begun.

Slowly, these coacervates become more and more complex by including various structures, such as a lipid membrane and become what we would consider cells. Again, this is done proceduraly, based on the rules of chemical reactions and physics. If a coacervate had tried to incorporate a membrane that would dissolve in the substance it floats in, that iteration would have failed.

 

Now, you say that the universe and the rules that created it had to have a creator, but I disagree. Right now, we don't know how everything was created, but the idea of a creator is more preposterous than any scientific explanation that I've heard. The basic logic of people who believe in a creator is "The universe is too complex to happen 'randomly'. There must have been a creator". A creator completely defies that statement. If there is a creator, it would have to be more complex than what it is creating. Hence, who made the creator?

 

Hey there wyrm, long time.


~M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{lots of bad math and assumptions}

 

Given all this, I estimate life on earth and all that jazz to be close to (1 / 10^10) * (1 / 10^100) * (1 / 10^2) * (1 / 10^8) = 1 in 10^120, which is why I say its too random.

 

Many problems with this. The big one is that we don't have other data points. We don't know of other planets where life has evolved. We don't have other universes to compare. Therefore, the probability of life evolving as it has on our planet is incalculable. There isn't enough information to get a true answer.

 

Furthermore, your assumption would maybe be kind of correct if you were calculating the probability of a specific species evolving, but, according to our best data the probability that, once started, life will proliferate and mutate to fill all available niches, assuming it doesn't die out completely, over time is approximately 100%.

Here's a six sided die. You get to roll it once. Oh, you rolled a 6. What was the probability you'd roll a 6?

You only rolled it once, we don't have other data points. We don't know what the other rolls would be, but we can make reasonable and logical assumptions. Six sided die? Six outcomes. Probability of rolling a six? Less than one, greater than zero, could be somewhere around 1/6.

 

Also, I'm not calculating the probability of a specific species, I'm calculating the probability of the number of all known species. The probability of a specific species (such as humans, for example) would be MUCH lower - like the probability that their genome was a very specific length (30000 instead of 30001), and contained very specific values (like ACGTTTAATTGCCC versus GCGTTTAATTGCCC) which decreases at a very rapid one in 4^(length of key DNA) or less for complex life.

 

 

A better critique would have been that my probability was just for a given planet being earth, and not for all planets in the universe.

If that was the case, you'd sum it up as a geometric distribution sum[k=1, k=n planets] {(1/10^120)*(1 - 1/10^120)^k)

That number wouldn't approach anything remotely close to a small number for anything less than n=10^40, and I don't think there can be that many planets.

 

Which is why I say its too random.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{lots of bad math and assumptions}

 

Given all this, I estimate life on earth and all that jazz to be close to (1 / 10^10) * (1 / 10^100) * (1 / 10^2) * (1 / 10^8) = 1 in 10^120, which is why I say its too random.

 

Many problems with this. The big one is that we don't have other data points. We don't know of other planets where life has evolved. We don't have other universes to compare. Therefore, the probability of life evolving as it has on our planet is incalculable. There isn't enough information to get a true answer.

 

Furthermore, your assumption would maybe be kind of correct if you were calculating the probability of a specific species evolving, but, according to our best data the probability that, once started, life will proliferate and mutate to fill all available niches, assuming it doesn't die out completely, over time is approximately 100%.

Here's a six sided die. You get to roll it once. Oh, you rolled a 6. What was the probability you'd roll a 6?

You only rolled it once, we don't have other data points. We don't know what the other rolls would be, but we can make reasonable and logical assumptions. Six sided die? Six outcomes. Probability of rolling a six? Less than one, greater than zero, could be somewhere around 1/6.

 

Also, I'm not calculating the probability of a specific species, I'm calculating the probability of the number of all known species. The probability of a specific species (such as humans, for example) would be MUCH lower - like the probability that their genome was a very specific length (30000 instead of 30001), and contained very specific values (like ACGTTTAATTGCCC versus GCGTTTAATTGCCC) which decreases at a very rapid one in 4^(length of key DNA) or less for complex life.

 

 

A better critique would have been that my probability was just for a given planet being earth, and not for all planets in the universe.

If that was the case, you'd sum it up as a geometric distribution sum[k=1, k=n planets] {(1/10^120)*(1 - 1/10^120)^k)

That number wouldn't approach anything remotely close to a small number for anything less than n=10^40, and I don't think there can be that many planets.

 

Which is why I say its too random.

 

Ugh. This is why I hate bringing statistics into this discussion, it gets too messy.

 

Even if I were to grant you that the probabilities are absurdly small, what does that gain you? You say that the probability is "too low". Why is it too low? What other data do you have to make the claim that life could not have developed the way science tells us it has?

You're making an argument from incredulity. It's just straight-up fallacious logic.

 

Hai Misplaced! How's it going?


IRKAa.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Procedural does not mean it requires guidance. It means that a set number of rules (physics) were followed to create the current universe.

Gravity condenses gases together to form a sun. Solid materials condense and form planets. These planets revolve around a sun. On some planets that are in the "goldilocks belt" and have the right conditions, amino acids can form from the atoms that are available.

These amino acids would become more complex based on their interactions with other molecules. These complex structures(coacervate) would be the first "life". They will compete for resources to become bigger and reproduce by splitting. Evolution has begun.

Slowly, these coacervates become more and more complex by including various structures, such as a lipid membrane and become what we would consider cells. Again, this is done proceduraly, based on the rules of chemical reactions and physics. If a coacervate had tried to incorporate a membrane that would dissolve in the substance it floats in, that iteration would have failed.

 

 

A set number of rules(physics) like you said, were followed to create the current universe. Where did these laws of physics come from? Randomly, according to "our best scientific guess".

 

Disregarded the second part as I wasn't claiming such a creator existed.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Y_guy

All he's trying to do is call a horse a horse - random is random, and if you believe that there is no creator or higher being then the universe cannot have been anything but random.

 

I don't know if I'd call it unrealistic or illogical, but certainly it is highly improbable.

 

Here we go again. Random is not the same damn thing as improbable. If I have 100 different pennies in my pocket, all the same except for one, what is the chance that I will pick one of the 99 pennies? It is 99%. This is random. But, the fact that it is random doesn't mean that all other events are equally probable...I just don't understand the correlation that is being made between random and improbable.

 

 

A set number of rules(physics) like you said, were followed to create the current universe. Where did these laws of physics come from? Randomly, according to "our best scientific guess".

 

Disregarded the second part as I wasn't claiming such a creator existed.

 

Again, even if they came about randomly, this doesn't mean our universe was improbable. Some think that there are billions, trillions, or an even larger number of other universes that might exist outside of ours. If this is true, then yes, the chances of any particular universe being randomly selected would be small. BUT the chances of our universe existing at all approaches 1 as the number of universes approaches infinity.

 

Also, this is assuming that some physical constants, such as speed of light and Planck's constant, can even be altered at all. Would you say "Boy, it sure is lucky that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is 3.14159........"? No. You wouldn't this is simply the only way that a circle could ever exist. Some people are also of the thought that perhaps the only way "a universe" could ever exist is if Planck's constant is 6.62 x 10^-34

 

 

 

 

 

=========================================================================

 

For sees_all

The earth's size (and gravitation field), position relative to the Sun (versus the Sun's mass), frequency of rotation on its own axis and frequency of orbit around the sun's axis are all random variables, which if slightly different would not have produced life.

I could set up several integrals to show the totals of the probability mass function for all of those variables, and I'd estimate that the total probability of a planet of the right size spinning at the right speed in the right orbit is less than one in 10^10.

Given that the planet is in the right spot, the probability that it is composed of the right materials (enough water, nitrogen, and hydrocarbons for life to occur) is probably a similar amount, one in 10^100.

Did you just call 10^100 similar to 10^10? I'm going to assume you meant 10^10 for both of these...

Given that the planet HAS the right materials and is in the right spot, the probability of life occurring is a continuous function over time, very slowly increasing to 1. Life occurred approximately 800 million years after earth as we know it formed, I'd estimate the probability of that happening that quickly (800 million years or less) to be close to 1 in 100.

 

Okay.

 

Now that life has occurred, it has to evolve. The only way life can evolve is through mutations, some random occurrence changing the organism and its offspring. This is known as a mutation. Heuristically speaking, the probability of a successful mutation decreases with the complexity of the organism, but increases with the total population of an organism.

Also, the relative frequency of mutation decreases the survival rate of an organism, which also gets back to the planet's position.

 

This is a lot of complete biological nonsense. It sounds like you got this info from a creationist book where the author just wants to disprove evolution.

 

 

We know that the number of species worldwide is somewhere greater than 1.7 million, so if you think about it the 1.7 million is the least number of successful mutations that could have possibly occurred to get from one life form to all current life forms. I'm guessing its closer to (1.7 million) ^2 for extinct species and the chains of subspecies required to get there.

A very rough estimate is the probability of 1.7 million species after 3.8 billion years is on the order of 0 to 1 in a thousand, with my bet at 1 in 10^8.

 

Again, this is complete nonsense. Evolution is not the same thing as random chance. Evolution is guaranteed to occur and it is guaranteed that the best traits will be passed on. It is not an accident that we have the species that we have: they evolved because they work. They did not evolve out of random luck!

 

Given all this, I estimate life on earth and all that jazz to be close to (1 / 10^10) * (1 / 10^100) * (1 / 10^2) * (1 / 10^8) = 1 in 10^22, which is why I say its too random.

 

In this last quote, I fixed your second number to 1/10^10 and crossed out the last number because quite frankly it just doesnt make any sense. It is complete nonsense to take a statistical estimate based on the number of species. If you think it makes sense, you really must educate yourself on biology.

 

So if we correct your crazy mistakes what we get is a chance of 1/10^22 for having a planet like Earth.

 

There are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe and each of these galaxies contain at LEAST a billion stars. For ease of estimate, lets say that each galaxy contains exactly 1 billion. That right there puts us at 10^20 stars in the universe.

 

So if we use your corrected estimate of 1/10^22 and compare this to a very slim estimate of 10^20 stars in the universe, the Earth would only have to overcome odds of 1/100 to actually make it into existence.

 

If we nevermind the fact that your probability estimates are a lot lot lower than the estimates of people who spend their lifetimes studying this stuff (most estimates I have seen place the odds at 10^-9 through 10^-10), we still see that there is a fairly decent chance of Earth existing. Also I grossly underestimated the number of stars in each galaxy. Some have upwards of 100s of billions.

 

 

 

Here's a six sided die. You get to roll it once. Oh, you rolled a 6. What was the probability you'd roll a 6?

You only rolled it once, we don't have other data points. We don't know what the other rolls would be, but we can make reasonable and logical assumptions. Six sided die? Six outcomes. Probability of rolling a six? Less than one, greater than zero, could be somewhere around 1/6.

 

Also, I'm not calculating the probability of a specific species, I'm calculating the probability of the number of all known species. The probability of a specific species (such as humans, for example) would be MUCH lower - like the probability that their genome was a very specific length (30000 instead of 30001), and contained very specific values (like ACGTTTAATTGCCC versus GCGTTTAATTGCCC) which decreases at a very rapid one in 4^(length of key DNA) or less for complex life.

 

 

A better critique would have been that my probability was just for a given planet being earth, and not for all planets in the universe.

If that was the case, you'd sum it up as a geometric distribution sum[k=1, k=n planets] {(1/10^120)*(1 - 1/10^120)^k)

That number wouldn't approach anything remotely close to a small number for anything less than n=10^40, and I don't think there can be that many planets.

 

Which is why I say its too random.

 

Again, this post is total and complete nonsense. Using the number of species in any time of probability calculation is so nonsensical that I can't even begin to address it.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that life has occurred, it has to evolve. The only way life can evolve is through mutations, some random occurrence changing the organism and its offspring. This is known as a mutation. Heuristically speaking, the probability of a successful mutation decreases with the complexity of the organism, but increases with the total population of an organism.

Also, the relative frequency of mutation decreases the survival rate of an organism, which also gets back to the planet's position.

 

This is a lot of complete biological nonsense. It sounds like you got this info from a creationist book where the author just wants to disprove evolution.

It sounds like you've never read a biology book.

 

Again, this is complete nonsense. Evolution is not the same thing as random chance. Evolution is guaranteed to occur and it is guaranteed that the best traits will be passed on. It is not an accident that we have the species that we have: they evolved because they work. They did not evolve out of random luck!

How many traits did the first organism have? Did it have blue eyes or green eyes? Was it short or tall? Oh wait, it didn't have any of those. The only way for a new species to form is through mutations, not genetic variation.

 

In this last quote, I fixed your second number to 1/10^10 and crossed out the last number because quite frankly it just doesnt make any sense. It is complete nonsense to take a statistical estimate based on the number of species. If you think it makes sense, you really must educate yourself on biology.

Remind me again, whats the definition of a mutation? Because it sounds like you have no clue, and its a rather large part to the theory of evolution.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that life has occurred, it has to evolve. The only way life can evolve is through mutations, some random occurrence changing the organism and its offspring. This is known as a mutation. Heuristically speaking, the probability of a successful mutation decreases with the complexity of the organism, but increases with the total population of an organism.

Also, the relative frequency of mutation decreases the survival rate of an organism, which also gets back to the planet's position.

 

This is a lot of complete biological nonsense. It sounds like you got this info from a creationist book where the author just wants to disprove evolution.

It sounds like you've never read a biology book.

 

I guess we again have just reached a point of disagreement. If you are honestly convinced that you understand biology and you aren't willing to accept the fact that you are clueless about a lot of things in biology, then theres nothing more we can discuss to this point.

 

How many traits did the first organism have? Did it have blue eyes or green eyes? Was it short or tall? Oh wait, it didn't have any of those. The only way for a new species to form is through mutations, not genetic variation.

 

Again I assert that you haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about. Are we talking about the first one celled organism? It still has genetic information contained in DNA. There are many traits of a single celled organizm that are coded in its DNA (example: how do I get food? how to a make waste?). Future generations of this organizm would be able to have slightly different information in their genes regarding any number of a cell's basic functions.

 

Remind me again, whats the definition of a mutation? Because it sounds like you have no clue, and its a rather large part to the theory of evolution.

 

Remind me again, what is the theory of evolution? Because it sounds like you have no clue.

 

Mutations are random. But is it random that successful mutations get passed on to future generations? No. Beneficial mutations, as well as harmful mutations, are bound to happen as the species replicates. The beneficial mutations are bound to be passed on to future generations in higher quantities. There is no luck involved. It is no accident that we have eyes. Organisms were bound to develop eyes on Earth because of the wavelength of light emitted by our Sun. You can't put a probability on this like 1 in 10^6 or whatever number you choose, because it isn't something that happened by luck. Eyes were guaranteed to develop on a life-bearing planet that recieves light with wavelength 400-800nm.

 

You make it sound like it is some strike of luck that an intelligent being with eyes, ears, aposable thumbs, etc happened to evolve. It is not luck. It is evolution. The only sort of luck involved is that we have been lucky enough not to suffer a collision with a giant asteroid that destroyed all life on Earth.

 

It just isn't luck. Stop comparing anything dealing with evolution with luck, chance, etc. Evolution is not luck. No luck. Just stop it. One of the most stereotypical creationist arguments is "But what about a tornado ripping through a junkyard and making a plane?" Its crap. This is not an argument because evolution doesn't say that humans had a low liklihood of developing. It simply is not related to luck. And no ammount of fact-denying or creation-science is going to change that.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mutations are random. But is it random that successful mutations get passed on to future generations?

OMFG is your theory that some fish gave birth to a [developmentally delayed]ed air breathing monkey fish thing!

You have no idea what you're talking about!

-.-


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mutations are random. But is it random that successful mutations get passed on to future generations?

OMFG is your theory that some fish gave birth to a [developmentally delayed]ed air breathing monkey fish thing!

You have no idea what you're talking about!

-.-

 

What on earth are you talking about? How did I imply this from what I have said?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mutations are random. But is it random that successful mutations get passed on to future generations?

OMFG is your theory that some fish gave birth to a [developmentally delayed]ed air breathing monkey fish thing!

You have no idea what you're talking about!

-.-

 

What on earth are you talking about? How did I imply this from what I have said?

 

You didn't imply anything. You explicitly said it:

The first lifeform wouldn't have had any genetic variation, which is why "survival of the fittest" doesn't explain how all of life came to be.

 

What in the hell are you talking about? All living organisms have genetic variation.

The first life form to appear on earth has absolutely no genetic variation. How can there be genetic variation in just one organism? There isn't any!

 

 

Because there is no such thing as a carcinogen.

This is another "WTF?!!?!" moment. What are you talking about and how does a carcinogen have anything to do with evolution?

How ignorant are you?

What causes genetic variation? Mutations. What is cancer? A malignant mutation. What causes cancer? Carcinogens, radiation, the same thing that causes mutations.

 

Okay bro, whatever you say. You seem to be totally messed up on what your idea of DNA replication is. There are many reasons that produce slight variation in organisms, and none of them have anything to do with cancer, carcinogens, radiation, or whatever other crazy ideas you have dreamt up. The first lifeform to exist on Earth certainly replicated to have variation in successive generations. You think the only reason people look different is cause some kind of carcinogen interfered in our reproduction?? :blink:

 

Go back to high school and pay attention in Biology class.

 

Your idea of evolution seems to be that one day, a fish gave birth to a freak mutant baby who could walk on land and breathe air. This is absolute nonsense.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand...

 

I was saying that YOU seem to be of the misconception that evolution predicts that one species randomly gives birth to freak mutants of other species and they fight to the death.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.