ARK Encounter opens today!

[Cerpin Taxt]

Proof for: why history is impossible.

The likelihood for any given person to be born, unique pairing of egg & sperm, each out of gazillions possible, each belonging to unique people out of gazillions possible.

Each action they ever choose to take, such as completely unlikely person Hitler choosing to apply for art school. Combined with another unlikely person in art school bureaucrat, choosing to reject him so he can move onto other things in life. This is only one event out of bazillions which must occur to reach just one event in history. Multiplied together they clearly form a number so staggeringly impossible that not even god can create a form large enough to write down nevermind will into reality.

QED.

This is what I said earlier. The arguments from improbability are impotent, because there's no "correct" outcome of evolution. Good grief, do you have any idea what the probability is of the exact locations of all the air molecules in your room right now?

No way they could be there, right buckwheat?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Gotta be a succinct fallacy term for that.

Argument from incredulity.

 

[agent00f]

Gotta be a succinct fallacy term for that.

Well, there's this: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Co-moron

 

[Subyman]

Argument from incredulity.

A little too broad, but I like it for part of buckshots argument. Specifically a fallacy of saying the probability would make it impossible for something to happen even though the actor had no end goal of that outcome. Buckshot misunderstanding stats and probability again, par for the course.

We can call it Assumed Goal Fallacy or something.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Proof for: why history is impossible.

The likelihood for any given person to be born, unique pairing of egg & sperm, each out of gazillions possible, each belonging to unique people out of gazillions possible.

Each action they ever choose to take, such as completely unlikely person Hitler choosing to apply for art school. Combined with another unlikely person in art school bureaucrat, choosing to reject him so he can move onto other things in life. This is only one event out of bazillions which must occur to reach just one event in history. Multiplied together they clearly form a number so staggeringly impossible that not even god can create a form large enough to write down nevermind will into reality.

QED.

You might be surprised.

All I'm going to say is that the universe and all of it's wonderful happenings... are made out of algorithms. We, and the universe, are no accident. The universe is on it's phase-locked loop to destiny. And it was created that way.

 

[buckshot24]

There's an actual carbon dated fossil record of these very long evolutionary paths....

I'll stop you right there. Carbon dating can't go back far enough. 100k years max. Don't pretend to know what you're talking about when you can't even get that right.

 

[Subyman]

You might be surprised.

All I'm going to say is that the universe and all of it's wonderful happenings... are made out of algorithms. We, and the universe, are no accident. The universe is on it's phase-locked loop to destiny. And it was created that way.

And a lot of those algorithms outside of high school math are comprised of probabilities.

 

[agent00f]

You might be surprised.

All I'm going to say is that the universe and all of it's wonderful happenings... are made out of algorithms. We, and the universe, are no accident. The universe is on it's phase-locked loop to destiny. And it was created that way.

In order for a theory based in reality to be correct, some observable examples are necessary to demonstrate its proposed underlying mechanisms.

Of the known observable examples of reality, none appear to support some notion of "destiny".

Of course you are free to demonstrate otherwise, which if successful will result in untold fame & fortune given this implies a working crystal ball, so best of luck.

 

[agent00f]

I'll stop you right there. Carbon dating can't go back far enough. 100k years max. Don't pretend to know what you're talking about when you can't even get that right.

I really don't think that's an argument someone in your position should be emphasizing.

 

[Subyman]

Yeah I thought the world was 6k years old, but carbon goes back 100k?

 

[buckshot24]

You still don't even know what you are even talking about. Bastardizing biology and googling up things is what you do best to try to support your creationism. I have repeatedly asked you what the denominator means.

The denominator cancels out and is completely irrelevant. In other words it means nothing. What would a single coin flip's odds mean if there were 6 billion other coins flipping? 50/50 the amount of coins doesn't mean a thing.

I show you exactly what your math is calculating, and you don't even address it.

I did, I said that is one way to do it but that isn't what I was doing. I told you how I calculated it. You can't accept my words on what was being said so why do you keep asking?

You still don't even understand what is meant by "nucleotide site."

Yes I do. This is why I ignored you in the past. You keep making these false allegations about me and refuse to be corrected because of reasons.

But this brings me back to something I purposely avoided in the beginning. What polymorphism in human population requires a simultaneous mutation in three different sites in one generation? What exactly is the biology behind this? Why should I even bother to try to explain these mutation rates that you don't understand, when you haven't even explained why three mutations are important?

First of all I do understand it, you keep putting forth things I haven't said or intended. If there is any confusion please let me explain it and shut up and listen. Asking more questions and assuming less would do you a world of good. Hostility and emotions are getting the best of you.

But this shows me that you did understand my math but dishonestly attacked me based on your strawman. tsk tsk my dear friend.

A specific 2 point mutation is only going to happen 100 times in 10^20 organisms. A 3 point mutation will happen every 1 billion x 10^20 organisms. In this time there was a rat like creature that supposedly turned into mammoths, kangaroos, blue whales and bats.

I'm also not saying that a 3 point mutation must happen for any change to occur or that this is a "rate". I'm saying that in order for blind processes to "find" these solutions you need a heck of a lot more animals than has ever existed on earth.

Do I know of any specific changes that would be this difficult? No I don't.

Take responsibility? How? By claiming you didn't say something when you did?

By not explaining myself well enough. Although you think I have explained myself perfectly and you seem to know what I'm saying better than I do!

Better yet, when are you going to finally talk about all these novel genes that you claim don't exist?

When did I claim they don't exist?

Long M, VanKuren NW, Chen S, Vibranovski MD. New gene evolution: little did we know. Annu Rev Genet. 2013;47:307-33.

Parts are great and all but they all need to fit in somewhere to perform a function. You can't explain the building of a car by explaining how a radiator cap is made.

 

[buckshot24]

Yeah I thought the world was 6k years old, but carbon goes back 100k?

It can't go back any further than that. You know that.

 

[buckshot24]

I really don't think that's an argument someone in your position should be emphasizing.

I don't have a problem with you not knowing what you are talking about. That is your problem.

 

[Subyman]

It can't go back any further than that. You know that.

But the bible says the earth is only 6k years old right? How can carbon dating go back further than the beginning?

 

[brycejones]

Poor r buckshat

 

[buckshot24]

You missed the point and sank your teeth into the big number.
I just spat out a number, the actual value is not relevant.
Lets say it's .000001 then, it does't matter here what the actual number is. All that matters is if it happens at all or not at all.

The big number was just too ridiculous to ignore. I don't care how long you change parts by randomly generated replication errors, you can't make brand new functioning designs.

I totally agree that things can change over time and eventually you have a pretty different organism but as soon as you need a new design element you're going to hit a dead end. Small changes do not lead to big changes. Small movements of a baby do not lead to big movements like going to the moon. The only way to make that happen is through intelligent design.

It's not strange that 2 different creatures evolved ecolocation in pretty much the same way. It's pretty obvious that once they have evolved it, it helped their survival rates, so the ones who couldn't do sonar died and never mated. Other species which may have evolved echolocation independently likely died off or evolved differently.

You have this x-man caricature of mutations. Having these two systems evolve completely independently and in pretty much the same way simply isn't credible.

 

[Paratus]

I'll stop you right there. Carbon dating can't go back far enough. 100k years max. Don't pretend to know what you're talking about when you can't even get that right.

Good thing we also have:

• Uranium-Lead Dating
• Samarium-Neodymium Dating
• Potassium-Argon Dating
• Rubidium-Strontium Dating
• Uranium-Thorium Dating

There's more but you should get the idea.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Now you've already been schooled on evolution and I already explained how the earth and solar system formed from about 300,000 years after the Big Bang until now in that other thread. So no reason to rehash that.

If you want, check out this video for some more background on stellar element synthesis.
https://youtu.be/6yLGeviU8FM

 

[IronWing]

If you want, check out this video for some more background on stellar element synthesis.
https://youtu.be/6yLGeviU8FM

It was pretty good element synthesis. I wouldn't go so far as to call it stellar but it wasn't too shabby.

 

[agent00f]

Here's what I find so odd about science denialists. When they're trying to read a science paper, and clearly don't understand the complex/nuanced terminology, how do they not know this?

Do they at least have more complete comprehension when reading the newspaper or such, so that they can tell this experience is really different?

Yet, they treat their self-assessed expertise on both like the same kind of thing, as if there's no distinction between their opinion about local-man and evolutionary theory.

I don't have a problem with you not knowing what you are talking about. That is your problem.

You're not really getting it. Someone who's never been an expert on anything simply can't fake it in front of people who are in something. Expertise for example implies substance, while you're trying your hardest flaunting pedantry.

It might work with Billy Bob and the boys blabbering down the corner, but frankly this is a different kind of league. It's like the special olympian real proud of themselves for racing on the same field against actual athletes, maybe funny at first but get old pretty quick.

 

[VirtualLarry]

You have this x-man caricature of mutations. Having these two systems evolve completely independently and in pretty much the same way simply isn't credible.

Evolutionary Biologists would do well to learn from computer programmers, specifically, the conceptual occam's razor of "design pattern languages" and OOP principles.

I don't find it strange at all to find similar organs and functions across broad swathes of organisms, often from "diverse evolutionary paths", because I believe that they were designed that way, more or less. At least, they started with a biological pattern language, so to speak, which rather defines how genes are expressed, etc.

I have only a lay-person's understanding of biology (nothing much beyond HS science classes). However, I am an experienced programmer, and did a lot of early work with pattern design stuff, and I feel like I have a very intuitive grasp of the subject, and to me, looking at organisms, and how they are "encoded", strikes me as a shining example of a pattern design language at work. Of course, some one had to invent that language to start with, before any of these organisms could exist...

 

[buckshot24]

But the bible says the earth is only 6k years old right? How can carbon dating go back further than the beginning?

It doesn't say that. And even if it did it wouldn't matter how far back a dating method can theoretically go back to what the age of the earth is. My car's speedometer goes to 160 MPH, it can't go that fast.

 

[brycejones]

Jesus wept

 

[Subyman]

It doesn't say that. And even if it did it wouldn't matter how far back a dating method can theoretically go back to what the age of the earth is. My car's speedometer goes to 160 MPH, it can't go that fast.

Ah good to see you don't believe in that biblical age of the earth malarkey. I'll remember that.

 

[agent00f]

Evolutionary Biologists would do well to learn from computer programmers, specifically, the conceptual occam's razor of "design pattern languages" and OOP principles.

I don't find it strange at all to find similar organs and functions across broad swathes of organisms, often from "diverse evolutionary paths", because I believe that they were designed that way, more or less. At least, they started with a biological pattern language, so to speak, which rather defines how genes are expressed, etc.

I have only a lay-person's understanding of biology (nothing much beyond HS science classes). However, I am an experienced programmer, and did a lot of early work with pattern design stuff, and I feel like I have a very intuitive grasp of the subject, and to me, looking at organisms, and how they are "encoded", strikes me as a shining example of a pattern design language at work. Of course, some one had to invent that language to start with, before any of these organisms could exist...

If you'll notice, many of those patterns are derived from natural phenomena, so the "coincidence" doesn't run in the direction you ascribe to it.

There are however interesting similarities between dna biochem and computing systems, just not at the "oo/programming" level described. For example, base pair encoding/replication is not unlike a simple mechanical computer.

It's in line with how the evolutionary process chooses for efficiency, not unlike how an engineer might also optimize a system, neither of which along with OOP has much to do with occam's razor.

This isn't particularly novel, and frankly should be pretty obvious to any technically minded biologist.

 

[buckshot24]

Ah good to see you don't believe in that biblical age of the earth malarkey. I'll remember that.

I didn't say anything about that. Your reasoning is simply wrong. The date of something has nothing to do with the maximums of any dating method.

Btw, I know you're trolling me.