How to control the people : Keep them stupid and uninformed

[buckshot24]

``

I feel pretty sure that a mathematical probability argument could be made that would show that the life could never spontaneously arise in the universe and that it would requite divine intervention of a being whose probability of arising in the whatever was before that being created the universe was equally improbable since one must logically dismiss that spontaneous creation had to occur somewhere in a universe that exists in time. Science is bound by the notion that the simplest explanation for a phenomenon is to be preferred over one requiting more steps. That is a logic built into our genes.

But it is unconvincing to postulate that there is no chance that live exists in the universe because of self awareness. Similarly is it unconvincing that a mathematical argument against the probabilities that mutations created the human brain when the human brain is relatively easily convinced we evolved bases of a huge cache of evidence.

I'm just pushing back on your 100% claim. It appears you pulled it out of somewhere stinky.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm just pushing back on your 100% claim. It appears you pulled it out of somewhere stinky.

No problem there. I'm not wedded to what I'm guessing at. I will try to listen to anything you suggest,

I think, for example that you said tha t mutations happen too the DNA in cells, not to the cells themselves, but I don't think that is the same idea, that saying cell mutation is referring to cellular DNA mutation.

 

[buckshot24]

Imagine if you had trillions of planets circling their stars in that equation...

Then you'd just multiply the number of planets by the number of trials I came up with. It is estimated that there are 10^24 planets, assuming all of them are able to support molecular replication that would mean you'd have 1.26*10^53 trials in the entire universe (if all planets were 4 billion years old). Assume that each planet is 400 billion years old instead of 4 billion. That is still only going to get you up to 1.26*10^55 trials. So anything as unlikely as 1 in 10^60 is going to still be very unlikely to occur.

 

[buckshot24]

No problem there. I'm not wedded to what I'm guessing at. I will try to listen to anything you suggest,

I think, for example that you said tha t mutations happen too the DNA in cells, not to the cells themselves, but I don't think that is the same idea, that saying cell mutation is referring to cellular DNA mutation.

Just so we're clear, I'm not making a probability argument against evolution, just showing that 4 billion years isn't enough time to make really unlikely things likely to occur. There isn't enough "coin flips".

 

[buckshot24]

Horseshit. You won't engage with anyone because you know you'll get your ass kicked.

Why are you even here? This is a discussion forum. We talk about things. You, all you do is come in here, drop some bullshit bare assertions, and then cry persecution when someone challenges you.

Go away. We don't want or need you here, and you add nothing at all to this environment. At this point the best thing for everyone to do would be to ignore you en masse, so you can wither away in your own little bubble.

Nope, just you. I've engaged plenty of better arguers and more intelligent people than you.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Nope, just you. I've engaged plenty of better arguers and more intelligent people than you.

And, lost each argument.

 

[Jhhnn]

Then you'd just multiply the number of planets by the number of trials I came up with. It is estimated that there are 10^24 planets, assuming all of them are able to support molecular replication that would mean you'd have 1.26*10^53 trials in the entire universe (if all planets were 4 billion years old). Assume that each planet is 400 billion years old instead of 4 billion. That is still only going to get you up to 1.26*10^55 trials. So anything as unlikely as 1 in 10^60 is going to still be very unlikely to occur.

I do enjoy the way you jumped from 10^30 to 10^60, as if either figure is more than a convenient construction for you.

 

[buckshot24]

I do enjoy the way you jumped from 10^30 to 10^60, as if either figure is more than a convenient construction for you.

They are exactly that, on purpose. What do you think we're talking about?

 

[Jhhnn]

They are exactly that, on purpose. What do you think we're talking about?

I just found a nice way to say "meaningless numbers pulled out of your ass" & you confirmed it. Thanks.

 

[buckshot24]

I just found a nice way to say "meaningless numbers pulled out of your ass" & you confirmed it. Thanks.

They are examples of probabilities that would NOT be ~100% sure given a 4 billion year old planet or 10^24 planets that have been around for 400 billion years.

You just missed the point.

 

[buckshot24]

And, lost each argument.

So you agree that I'm not scared like the lady was suggesting, thanks.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So you agree that I'm not scared like the lady was suggesting, thanks.

Nice try li'l guy.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just so we're clear, I'm not making a probability argument against evolution, just showing that 4 billion years isn't enough time to make really unlikely things likely to occur. There isn't enough "coin flips".

But a scientific argument can't just say there aren't enough coin flips. You would have to define the terms of your argument and give experimental demonstrations of such things happening, propose a theory and test by repeatable experiment. I just said that you can make a reasonable argument that life would never happen in the universe but we know that it did so no matter how mathematically genuine such a so called proof would be, we know personally it is wrong. Similarly, we know that 14 or so billion years of space-time produced conscious beings who have dated the universe to that approximate age. We are here so no argument that we can't have happened can be correct. Either your math is wrong or there is a better scientific explanation for why we are here. Almost every rational and scientifically educated person believes in evolution. Those who don't usually believe in some religious text, completely scientifically worthless, to push some creation myth. You could clear things up a bit if you believe in one of those. I have no problem with that if you do, but it wouldn't be something I would want to argue about. Everybody is entitled to their opinions. I would argue science, however .

 

[buckshot24]

But a scientific argument can't just say there aren't enough coin flips. You would have to define the terms of your argument and give experimental demonstrations of such things happening, propose a theory and test by repeatable experiment. I just said that you can make a reasonable argument that life would never happen in the universe but we know that it did so no matter how mathematically genuine such a so called proof would be, we know personally it is wrong. Similarly, we know that 14 or so billion years of space-time produced conscious beings who have dated the universe to that approximate age. We are here so no argument that we can't have happened can be correct. Either your math is wrong or there is a better scientific explanation for why we are here. Almost every rational and scientifically educated person believes in evolution. Those who don't usually believe in some religious text, completely scientifically worthless, to push some creation myth. You could clear things up a bit if you believe in one of those. I have no problem with that if you do, but it wouldn't be something I would want to argue about. Everybody is entitled to their opinions. I would argue science, however .

We know no such thing.

Instead of worrying about what I believe why don't you defend your ridiculous statement instead? 4 billion years isn't a lot of time when we're talking about absurdly improbable events. In other words, stick to the science. Show me your calculations on how you came up with 100% given billions of years of earth history.

And yes you can say there aren't enough "coin flips" when you're appealing to vast numbers of "coin flips" to make the improbable probable.

 

[Jhhnn]

They are examples of probabilities that would NOT be ~100% sure given a 4 billion year old planet or 10^24 planets that have been around for 400 billion years.

You just missed the point.

I'm familiar with the whole song & dance. It's one angle on the "teach the controversy" argle-bargle. The probability of life doesn't even matter because life exists. It either arose from natural forces or some supernatural agency must be employed to explain it.

Given the evidence at hand, the former seems much more likely because the latter demands a leap of faith.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Oh, I'll go one further: creationism is a very strong argument for maltheism ("there is a God, and it's evil"). I love how not one single one of these fundie morons has even half the brain cells necessary to realize why this is the case.

 

[Moonbeam]

We know no such thing.

Instead of worrying about what I believe why don't you defend your ridiculous statement instead? 4 billion years isn't a lot of time when we're talking about absurdly improbable events. In other words, stick to the science. Show me your calculations on how you came up with 100% given billions of years of earth history.

And yes you can say there aren't enough "coin flips" when you're appealing to vast numbers of "coin flips" to make the improbable probable.

You have my position wrong. Of course we know the universe is approximately 14 billion years old according to scientific theory. We know it in the normal sense of knowing anything scientifically. We believe that science is the best logical tool to gather truth based on data rather than what some text, for example, that claims to be true by it's own words without outside validation via experimental evidence. I said we know this because is scientific knowledge based on broad corroboration, whereas one text claiming to be the absolute truth will contradict another that says the same thing. This is why non-scientific explanations for truth are called opinions. We know the universe is 14 billion years old approximately but we may be wrong. We infer it from what we know about chemistry and physics etc. Inference is a genetic ability we possess. We don't have to hit ourselves on the head with a rock to know it's not a good idea.

So you are not using the word knowledge in the usual way it is used. Your usage is arcane and may not even be good in horseshoes. I mentioned that you tend to focus on these minor issues like somebody with Asperger's can sometimes do. You are drilling in when vision comes from a wider perspective.

Perhaps you would care to express what you mean by knowing?

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Oh lawdy, @Moonbeam, you're asking a guy who can't even spell "epistemology" to explain his own?

 

[xthetenth]

Flip ten thousand quarters. Whatever the outcome of that experiment is is exceedingly unlikely. And yet it happened.

The probabilities of a lot of things that happened are exceedingly rare. That's just how things work. If you break things down finer and finer, you're increasing the number of trials, and sometimes those do come up as the less likely options. It's rather tautological actually, since if the less likely options wouldn't ever happen, their probability would be zero.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm not really interested in getting sucked down this rabbit hole with BS24; he's shown us before he has zero interest in discussing this topic honestly. I simply note his denial is crafted from a mix of flawed science and deceitful math. I'll leave this here for the rest of you if you're interested.

First, here's one of many nice summaries rebutting his denial: Misuse of probability by "creation scientists". Not only does it deconstruct his reasoning, but it cites a couple of examples of real world evolution. For example:

"Ample and well-established experimental evidence supports the scientific view. For example, in a 1974 paper by biologists Barry Hall and Daniel Hartl, a gene was identified in the bacterium E. coli that is responsible for metabolizing lactose, using a complicated three-part process. They removed this gene, and then permitted the bacteria to multiply in a stressed environment containing lactose. Within 24 hours the bacteria had evolved a capability to utilize lactose, by means of a similar but distinct three-part biochemical pathway, involving two mutated genes [Hall; Miller, 1999, pg. 145-147]."​

Note that this didn't require billions of years and a planet full of organisms. It was observed in a lab, and it took a day. Life adapts.

Second, BS24's starting assumption of 100 trillion (10^14) organisms is ridiculously wrong. The current best estimates are that there are somewhere around 10^30 to 10^35 simple microscopic organisms on Earth This does NOT include more complex lifeforms, each with billions or trillions of cells. (For example, each individual human body is estimated to have between 10^13 and 10^14 cells.)

Bottom line: assuming only 100 trillion organisms are replicating is off by a good 20 orders of magnitude, give or take a few. When one starts with accurate numbers and assesses evolutionary processes accurately, yes, complex life forms are a virtual certainty over billions of years.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm familiar with the whole song & dance. It's one angle on the "teach the controversy" argle-bargle. The probability of life doesn't even matter because life exists. It either arose from natural forces or some supernatural agency must be employed to explain it.

Given the evidence at hand, the former seems much more likely because the latter demands a leap of faith.

Both demand a leap of faith. One can have faith in some mystical explanation or one can have faith that scientific reasoning works find explanations that can produce valid predictions within a defined context. Science happens to work so well that more and more people are abandoning alternate explanations. There is a lot of ego and money to be had from alternate explanations, however, and they tend to mobilize when either are threatened.

Still, science is based on best guess scenarios that pass rigorous muster, but someday a challenge can come to some widely held scientific notion.

buckshot seems to think he has knowledge of one and wants me to prove him wrong, but it is his job to convince me since he has the novel idea. All I can do is be willing to listen. I consider the theory of evolution to be more a law than a theory so I feel little need to prove him wrong. I will debate what he offers if I think it is wrong. That it.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

He hasn't got shit and we all know it. Deep down, he knows it too, hence why every time he's challenged he tone-trolls and runs away.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not really interested in getting sucked down this rabbit hole with BS24; he's shown us before he has zero interest in discussing this topic honestly. I simply note his denial is crafted from a mix of flawed science and deceitful math. I'll leave this here for the rest of you if you're interested.

First, here's one of many nice summaries rebutting his denial: Misuse of probability by "creation scientists". Not only does it deconstruct his reasoning, but it cites a couple of examples of real world evolution. For example:

"Ample and well-established experimental evidence supports the scientific view. For example, in a 1974 paper by biologists Barry Hall and Daniel Hartl, a gene was identified in the bacterium E. coli that is responsible for metabolizing lactose, using a complicated three-part process. They removed this gene, and then permitted the bacteria to multiply in a stressed environment containing lactose. Within 24 hours the bacteria had evolved a capability to utilize lactose, by means of a similar but distinct three-part biochemical pathway, involving two mutated genes [Hall; Miller, 1999, pg. 145-147]."​

Note that this didn't require billions of years and a planet full of organisms. It was observed in a lab, and it took a day. Life adapts.

Second, BS24's starting assumption of 100 trillion (10^14) organisms is ridiculously wrong. The current best estimates are that there are somewhere around 10^30 to 10^35 simple microscopic organisms on Earth This does NOT include more complex lifeforms, each with billions or trillions of cells. (For example, each individual human body is estimated to have between 10^13 and 10^14 cells.)

Bottom line: assuming only 100 trillion organisms are replicating is off by a good 20 orders of magnitude, give or take a few. When one starts with accurate numbers and assesses evolutionary processes accurately, yes, complex life forms are a virtual certainty over billions of years.

Not to mention that the odds are constantly skewed in that direction by survival of the fittest.

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh lawdy, @Moonbeam, you're asking a guy who can't even spell "epistemology" to explain his own?

Sadly I can't spell either. I have very little ability to see words. It took me a long time to learn to write letters properly. I seem to hear words and learn to spell by memory of the sound of the letters, like Mississippi. Lots of other states I can't spell. When I was in high school the seniors used to ask me how to do the physics problems. I knew how to get the answers but would often fuck up the arithmetic. My point is that I never go for people's inability to spell as an indication they are stupid because I got a lot of that myself but can do other things OK.

 

[buckshot24]

Flip ten thousand quarters. Whatever the outcome of that experiment is is exceedingly unlikely. And yet it happened.

The probabilities of a lot of things that happened are exceedingly rare. That's just how things work. If you break things down finer and finer, you're increasing the number of trials, and sometimes those do come up as the less likely options. It's rather tautological actually, since if the less likely options wouldn't ever happen, their probability would be zero.

Yeah, if the landscape is full of useful outcomes you are correct, that isn't how living systems work.