Scientists Call Fish Fossil the 'Missing Link'

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
Posted by dguy6789:

Do not get me wrong, I technically was a Christian for a large portion of my life. I went to church regularly and prayed and all of the things they do. However, when I eventually got deeper into it and questioned what they were speaking of, they simply avoided the question or changed the subject, as they did not have an answer.

So thats why you decided there wasn't a God, because the deeper you dove people weren't there to answer your questions? That's hardly a reason. What if tomorrow your car up and quits and you can't figure out whats wrong so you take the car to the mechanic and he can't tell you why it doesn't work either. Are you walking from now on?

These are two separate things. Why should I believe what anyone is telling me if they cannot prove to me that what they are saying is correct? When I ask them why, or how, and their response is "It just is", I am inclined to be very skeptical. They(Religious people) did not state that they do not know. They simply say "because it is". They do not and will not go beyond that.

A car is a device that is the result of science. If the mechanic could not figure out the problem, I could do one of two things. I could become a car buff through research and fix it myself, or I could take it to a more qualified mechanic.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

The value of information depends on the ability for others to understand it, sure. But we're talking about systems that the ability to store, transmit and receive vast quantities of information, and your belief is that this information was able to arise by purely naturalistic means, whereas I content that useful information does not arise by chance, and that even in small steps, the information could not slowly accumulate from molecules to complex biological organisms, as evolution requires.

see, that is assuming a fact in contention, that this information is somehow qualitatively different than any other kind. it is not. it is purely random. instead of 1000 monkeys on 1000 typwriters, the magic combination of organic chemicals that lead to life on earth required billions of years with trillions of trillions of interactions per second. the number of random attempts before the 'right' formula was hit upon is mind-boggling. given the number of chances, even the extremely remote possibility has a very real chance of happening at least once.

But then this random occurence now contains non-random constants, equations and laws?

So let me get this straight, it's not far out to believe that something that required an odds calculation of one in trillions X 60 X 60 X 60 X 24 X billions, but it is far out to believe that what exists was started by a force that religious people cannot prove in scientific terms? (God)?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: ElFenix
of course, one of the most annoying tenents of any creationist argument is their expectation for how complete not only fossilization should be but how complete human exploration of such should be.we've only been looking for fossils for maybe 100 years.

Do you even know how many fossils we have found? The natural history museum has over 8 million specimens in its collection alone. The estimate for the total number of fossils in private and public collections is in the hundreds of millions!

So what we find in the fossil record is a great lack of anything to suggest that organisms have slowly evolved from a common ancester. Instead, we find all the major groups represented, some spanning hundreds of millions of years without change at all.

The small handful of debatled transitional fossils are a problem for evolutionists, not a solution.

Even Gould admitted the lack, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

Originally posted by: ElFenixand of course, the more fossils are found, the smaller the 'gaps' become. but you'll never see a creationist acknowledge this limitation.

I acknowledge the limitation of our fossil record. It is the evolutionists who say that the millions of creatures not found in it do actually exist. There is no physical evidence they exist, yet you believe they do. The fossil record is a great help to the creationist movement.

a) this thread is about a 'transitional' fossil (though, as stated several times, creatures are all transitional forms in one sense or another)

b) a lack of evidence for evolution is not evidence for creationism.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
It doesn't take a scientist to see the vast amount of change on the genetic level that would be required for the supposed evolutionary steps to have occured. Not only would vast quantities of DNA have to be altered, but the information in that DNA would have to arise first, and the systems for storing, decoding, and transmiting the information would have to exist beforehand.

I agree that just because a species is not in the fossil record, doesn't mean it didn't exist. My point is that because the fossil record doesn't show these species, your attempt at using it as evidence that supports evolution is unsubstantiated.

large physiological changes can be had with changes in just one gene, so no, vast quantities of DNA would not have to be altered. additionally, the change and the 'information' can arise at the same time. one miscopy and you've got the change and the information together.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: dnuggett
Posted by dguy6789:

Do not get me wrong, I technically was a Christian for a large portion of my life. I went to church regularly and prayed and all of the things they do. However, when I eventually got deeper into it and questioned what they were speaking of, they simply avoided the question or changed the subject, as they did not have an answer.

So thats why you decided there wasn't a God, because the deeper you dove people weren't there to answer your questions? That's hardly a reason. What if tomorrow your car up and quits and you can't figure out whats wrong so you take the car to the mechanic and he can't tell you why it doesn't work either. Are you walking from now on?

These are two separate things. Why should I believe what anyone is telling me if they cannot prove to me that what they are saying is correct? When I ask them why, or how, and their response is "It just is", I am inclined to be very skeptical.

A car is a device that is the result of science. If the mechanic could not figure out the problem, I could do one of two things. I could become a car buff through research and fix it myself, or I could take it to a more qualified mechanic.

Bingo. Maybe there was a more qualified person to answer those questions you had, you just didn't find them. So instead of continuing to look, you gave up and went to something easier to understand. No problem with that, but too many times I hear about how much easier it is to believe in the "make believe" of God. It can't be that easy can it? You gave up on it real early.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: dnuggett
Posted by dguy6789:

Do not get me wrong, I technically was a Christian for a large portion of my life. I went to church regularly and prayed and all of the things they do. However, when I eventually got deeper into it and questioned what they were speaking of, they simply avoided the question or changed the subject, as they did not have an answer.

So thats why you decided there wasn't a God, because the deeper you dove people weren't there to answer your questions? That's hardly a reason. What if tomorrow your car up and quits and you can't figure out whats wrong so you take the car to the mechanic and he can't tell you why it doesn't work either. Are you walking from now on?

These are two separate things. Why should I believe what anyone is telling me if they cannot prove to me that what they are saying is correct? When I ask them why, or how, and their response is "It just is", I am inclined to be very skeptical.

A car is a device that is the result of science. If the mechanic could not figure out the problem, I could do one of two things. I could become a car buff through research and fix it myself, or I could take it to a more qualified mechanic.

Bingo. Maybe there was a more qualified person to answer those questions you had, you just didn't find them. So instead of continuing to look, you gave up and went to something easier to understand. No problem with that, but too many times I hear about how much easier it is to believe in the "make believe" of God. It can't be that easy can it? You gave up on it real early.

Is there anyone on Earth that can tell me why Christianity is the one and only true religion and all other religions and beliefs are false, and prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? That is the attitude of probably 99.9% of all Christians I have met. Then I ask them why, and they say "It just is". It will then go in a circle.

My problem with most religous people(some may not be this way), is that they go around touting their faith as FACT, when it is only what it is, a faith. They need to learn that not everyone will agree with them. I don't have a problem with their faith, but when the go telling me it is the only true faith and it is fact, I want more than their word on it.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: dnuggett
Posted by dguy6789:

Do not get me wrong, I technically was a Christian for a large portion of my life. I went to church regularly and prayed and all of the things they do. However, when I eventually got deeper into it and questioned what they were speaking of, they simply avoided the question or changed the subject, as they did not have an answer.

So thats why you decided there wasn't a God, because the deeper you dove people weren't there to answer your questions? That's hardly a reason. What if tomorrow your car up and quits and you can't figure out whats wrong so you take the car to the mechanic and he can't tell you why it doesn't work either. Are you walking from now on?

These are two separate things. Why should I believe what anyone is telling me if they cannot prove to me that what they are saying is correct? When I ask them why, or how, and their response is "It just is", I am inclined to be very skeptical.

A car is a device that is the result of science. If the mechanic could not figure out the problem, I could do one of two things. I could become a car buff through research and fix it myself, or I could take it to a more qualified mechanic.

Bingo. Maybe there was a more qualified person to answer those questions you had, you just didn't find them. So instead of continuing to look, you gave up and went to something easier to understand. No problem with that, but too many times I hear about how much easier it is to believe in the "make believe" of God. It can't be that easy can it? You gave up on it real early.

Is there anyone on Earth that can tell me why Christianity is the one and only true religion and all other religions and beliefs are false, and prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? That is the attitude of probably 99.9% of all Christians I have met. Then I ask them why, and they say "It just is". It will then go in a circle.

My problem with most religous people(some may not be this way), is that they go around touting their faith as FACT, when it is only what it is, a faith. They need to learn that not everyone will agree with them. I don't have a problem with their faith, but when the go telling me it is the only true faith and it is fact, I want more than their word on it.

Just out of curiosity when your mom, dad, wife, girlfriend, boyfriend or whatever you have says they love you, do you have them prove to you that what they are saying is correct? Bust out an equation? Put some chemical test to it? Or when somebody says they miss somebody they lost.. is there an equation or proof that you need to see before you can believe that they miss that person?

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
see, that is assuming a fact in contention, that this information is somehow qualitatively different than any other kind. it is not. it is purely random.

JP Moreland does an excellent job discussing probability and design inferences. He comments that if you toss a dice 1,000 times and get a H,T,H,H... combination, that combination had a very, very small chance of coming out, and yet it did. Indeed, the improbable happens all the time.

The difference comes in, like you say, when you mark off what outcome is special. The lotto coming up 57, 64, 32, 45 might mean nothing, or it might mean something. It depends on whether you hold that ticket.

You contend that life, and the genetic information that drives it, is just one random chance occurence out of trillions that could have occurred. We could have just the same not ever have existed. We would just not be around to observe it.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the number of random attempts before the 'right' formula was hit upon is mind-boggling. given the number of chances, even the extremely remote possibility has a very real chance of happening at least once.

You are very right about the mind-boggling number of attempts.

Consider this:

"What is the expected probability for chance to spell the phrase??the theory of evolution??

This phrase by chance would involve the random selection and sequencing of letters and spaces in the correct order. Each letter from the alphabet plus one space (totaling 27 possible selections) has one chance in 27 of being selected. There are 20 letters plus 3 spaces in the phrase??the theory of evolution?. Therefore ?chance? will, on the average, spell the given phrase correctly only once in (27)23 outcomes!!

This computes to only one success in a mind boggling 8.3 hundred quadrillion, quadrillion attempts (8.3x1032). Suppose ?chance? uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second)! On average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years by this random method. If, as evolutionists would have us believe, the earth has been in existence for approximately 5 billion years, then ?chance? could take five times this time to spell out its own success, even at this phenomenal rate of experimentation."

You see, its not just about the fact that some outcome had to occur. Its the amazing observation that something so improbable has occurred and we are around to see it. The theistic explanation is more logical than the atheistic one.

Of course, you could believe in many universes if you want, or you could continue to say that life is not amazing at all, and that the complexity is not really that fantastic, but of course, that defies basic human reasoning, and its no wonder that the vast majority of the world will never believe that.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
a) this thread is about a 'transitional' fossil (though, as stated several times, creatures are all transitional forms in one sense or another)

That's the evolutionary belief, yes, but its also a convenient way to explain the lack of evidence that any of the current species all came from a common ancestor.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
b) a lack of evidence for evolution is not evidence for creationism.

Do you know why evolution will never go away? Because there's no other theory besides God, and that's too scary for some to stomach.

 

[dguy6789]

Just out of curiosity when your mom, dad, wife girlfriend, boyfriend or whatever you have says they love you, do you have them prove to you that what they are saying is correct? Bust out an equation? Put some chemical test to it? Or when soembody says the miss somebody they lost.. is there an equation or proof that you need to see before you can believe that they miss that person?


You put up quite a good point. However, my faith in humanity in general is not very high. I have come to the conclusion that most people are nothing but lies and deception. Each individual cares only for themselves and thinks nothing of society. When someone says something to me like, I love you, I be polite and acknowledge them. However, I do not see or believe there is any truth to it.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Just out of curiosity when your mom, dad, wife girlfriend, boyfriend or whatever you have says they love you, do you have them prove to you that what they are saying is correct? Bust out an equation? Put some chemical test to it? Or when soembody says the miss somebody they lost.. is there an equation or proof that you need to see before you can believe that they miss that person?


You put up quite a good point. However, my faith in humanity in general is not very high. I have come to the conclusion that most people are nothing but lies and deception. Each individual cares only for themselves and thinks nothing of society. When someone says something to me like, I love you, I be polite and acknowledge them. However, I do not see or believe there is any truth to it.

Would you say that you have ever been "in love"?

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Just out of curiosity when your mom, dad, wife girlfriend, boyfriend or whatever you have says they love you, do you have them prove to you that what they are saying is correct? Bust out an equation? Put some chemical test to it? Or when soembody says the miss somebody they lost.. is there an equation or proof that you need to see before you can believe that they miss that person?


You put up quite a good point. However, my faith in humanity in general is not very high. I have come to the conclusion that most people are nothing but lies and deception. Each individual cares only for themselves and thinks nothing of society. When someone says something to me like, I love you, I be polite and acknowledge them. However, I do not see or believe there is any truth to it.

Oh ok, sorry to hear that. I see why you answer the way you do, and say the things you say. I don't fault you for it. Just realize that your disbelief in God is more inherent in your own limitation and abilities than it is in the possibility of his existance.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
large physiological changes can be had with changes in just one gene, so no, vast quantities of DNA would not have to be altered.

Indeed, small copying errors in DNA can have large effects. But debilitating mutations break down the organism, they don't build it up and make it more fit.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
additionally, the change and the 'information' can arise at the same time. one miscopy and you've got the change and the information together.

I never said you couldn't reduce the amount of information. That's entirely possible, and it happens all the time in breeding experiments. But we're talking about adding information, creating new information from what was not there before.

Changing an arm into a wing is not a simple miscopy, and the claim that millions of miscopies accumulating, with each benefiting the organism enough for natural selection to propogate it, finally resulting in a new function, is absurd.

Information degragating is tied directly to the real world. If the information in your DNA is changed by mutation, it can severly harm you. Seldom, if ever, can a mutation benefit you. It is a huge stretch of the imagination to say that this slow accumulation can account for all biodiversity.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Just out of curiosity when your mom, dad, wife girlfriend, boyfriend or whatever you have says they love you, do you have them prove to you that what they are saying is correct? Bust out an equation? Put some chemical test to it? Or when soembody says the miss somebody they lost.. is there an equation or proof that you need to see before you can believe that they miss that person?


You put up quite a good point. However, my faith in humanity in general is not very high. I have come to the conclusion that most people are nothing but lies and deception. Each individual cares only for themselves and thinks nothing of society. When someone says something to me like, I love you, I be polite and acknowledge them. However, I do not see or believe there is any truth to it.

Would you say that you have ever been "in love"?

I have been attracted to someone of the opposite sex multiple times. But true love, never.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

You see, its not just about the fact that some outcome had to occur. Its the amazing observation that something so improbable has occurred and we are around to see it.

Gibberish. You're committing a fallacy best described as painting a target around the arrow. In quick terms, the universe shot an arrow blindly into the air, and through the course of evolution it has landed randomly in our present. Of course, this point is highly improbable, but the arrow HAD TO LAND SOMEWHERE. Then, you go and paint a target around where the arrow has landed, and now you're trying to convince me that I should be impressed that the arrow is stuck in the bullseye?

Come on. I realize this is the type of reasoning easily swallowed by religious folk, but don't insult the rest of us by expecting us to, also.

The theistic explanation is more logical than the atheistic one.

With this one statement I know that you haven't a clue what it means for something to be logical or not.

Of course, you could believe in many universes if you want, or you could continue to say that life is not amazing at all, and that the complexity is not really that fantastic, but of course, that defies basic human reasoning, and its no wonder that the vast majority of the world will never believe that.

Having read your posts recently, I put very little stock in what you call "basic human reasoning." Rather, it seems very much like you confuse your personal beliefs and emotions with facts and try to pass them off to us as "basic human reasoning." Unfortunately for you, the more erudite posters see right though it.

-Garth

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

I never said you couldn't reduce the amount of information. That's entirely possible, and it happens all the time in breeding experiments. But we're talking about adding information, creating new information from what was not there before.

Of course, this happens naturally as well.

Changing an arm into a wing is not a simple miscopy, and the claim that millions of miscopies accumulating, with each benefiting the organism enough for natural selection to propogate it, finally resulting in a new function, is absurd.

Information degragating is tied directly to the real world. If the information in your DNA is changed by mutation, it can severly harm you. Seldom, if ever, can a mutation benefit you. It is a huge stretch of the imagination to say that this slow accumulation can account for all biodiversity.

You should change your username to "Fallacies R Us."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


-Garth

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

The value of information depends on the ability for others to understand it, sure. But we're talking about systems that the ability to store, transmit and receive vast quantities of information, and your belief is that this information was able to arise by purely naturalistic means, whereas I content that useful information does not arise by chance, and that even in small steps, the information could not slowly accumulate from molecules to complex biological organisms, as evolution requires.

see, that is assuming a fact in contention, that this information is somehow qualitatively different than any other kind. it is not. it is purely random. instead of 1000 monkeys on 1000 typwriters, the magic combination of organic chemicals that lead to life on earth required billions of years with trillions of trillions of interactions per second. the number of random attempts before the 'right' formula was hit upon is mind-boggling. given the number of chances, even the extremely remote possibility has a very real chance of happening at least once.

But then this random occurence now contains non-random constants, equations and laws?

So let me get this straight, it's not far out to believe that something that required an odds calculation of one in trillions X 60 X 60 X 60 X 24 X billions, but it is far out to believe that what exists was started by a force that religious people cannot prove in scientific terms? (God)?

the random events have a basis in observable fact, so do the universal constants and natural laws. the existence of a some god to start all this mess has no basis in observable fact. (indeed, if some of the implications of current quantum theory are correct, these constants not only did happen, but had to happen because all possibilities do happen)

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

The value of information depends on the ability for others to understand it, sure. But we're talking about systems that the ability to store, transmit and receive vast quantities of information, and your belief is that this information was able to arise by purely naturalistic means, whereas I content that useful information does not arise by chance, and that even in small steps, the information could not slowly accumulate from molecules to complex biological organisms, as evolution requires.

see, that is assuming a fact in contention, that this information is somehow qualitatively different than any other kind. it is not. it is purely random. instead of 1000 monkeys on 1000 typwriters, the magic combination of organic chemicals that lead to life on earth required billions of years with trillions of trillions of interactions per second. the number of random attempts before the 'right' formula was hit upon is mind-boggling. given the number of chances, even the extremely remote possibility has a very real chance of happening at least once.

But then this random occurence now contains non-random constants, equations and laws?

So let me get this straight, it's not far out to believe that something that required an odds calculation of one in trillions X 60 X 60 X 60 X 24 X billions, but it is far out to believe that what exists was started by a force that religious people cannot prove in scientific terms? (God)?

the random events have a basis in observable fact, so do the universal constants and natural laws. the existence of a some god to start all this mess has no basis in observable fact. (indeed, if some of the implications of current quantum theory are correct, these constants not only did happen, but had to happen because all possibilities do happen)

I thought the observable fact of what started the Big Bang was unobservable. At least that was the contention of someone in this thread earlier. Is that not correct?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
You see, its not just about the fact that some outcome had to occur. Its the amazing observation that something so improbable has occurred and we are around to see it. The theistic explanation is more logical than the atheistic one.

Of course, you could believe in many universes if you want, or you could continue to say that life is not amazing at all, and that the complexity is not really that fantastic, but of course, that defies basic human reasoning, and its no wonder that the vast majority of the world will never believe that.

now, add in that with quantum theory's all events, however improbable, do happen, and the chances increase to 1.

all it really defies is humanity's want to be special, to hold a higher place amongst the rest of the rocks and gases in the universe. religion is pretty self-congratulatory in that regard. it only seems weird because it's new. newtonian mechanics probably seemed weird when first propounded, but now we're very comfortable talking about things in newtonian terms.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: ElFenix
a) this thread is about a 'transitional' fossil (though, as stated several times, creatures are all transitional forms in one sense or another)

That's the evolutionary belief, yes, but its also a convenient way to explain the lack of evidence that any of the current species all came from a common ancestor.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
b) a lack of evidence for evolution is not evidence for creationism.

Do you know why evolution will never go away? Because there's no other theory besides God, and that's too scary for some to stomach.

you mean besides the fact that we share plenty of dna and biological mechanisms and chemical makeup, etc, with even the least of organisms?

creationism has no basis in observed fact nor testable predictions, and therefore is not a theory. again, gaps in evidence for one thing are not evidence of another. gaps in evidence of michael jackson molesting children does not mean that don king molested children.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dnuggett


I thought the observable fact of what started the Big Bang was unobservable. At least that was the contention of someone in this thread earlier. Is that not correct?

we can observe the big bang. radiation from it is everywhere, if you have sensitive enough insturments. some of the static on a tv hooked up to rabbit ears is due to the big bang.

we can observe universal constants such as the speed of light and the charge of an electron.

(afaik) we can't observe what started the big bang. that information was destroyed by the big bang. who knows, maybe hawking's new black hole theory whereby information can be extracted from black hole eventually gets adapted and our instruments become sensitive enough, maybe there is information that can be extracted as to what caused the big bang.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dnuggett


I thought the observable fact of what started the Big Bang was unobservable. At least that was the contention of someone in this thread earlier. Is that not correct?

we can observe the big bang. radiation from it is everywhere, if you have sensitive enough insturments. some of the static on a tv hooked up to rabbit ears is due to the big bang.

we can observe universal constants such as the speed of light and the charge of an electron.

(afaik) we can't observe what started the big bang. that information was destroyed by the big bang. who knows, maybe hawking's new black hole theory whereby information can be extracted from black hole eventually gets adapted and our instruments become sensitive enough, maybe there is information that can be extracted as to what caused the big bang.

Brane theory has come up with some nifty ideas on what came before the Big Bang and that "Big Bangs" happen in all created universes. That when Branes mesh big bangs happen, but there is no conclusive proof or even a shred of evidence of this and it is still very very hypothetical (or theoretical). The math somewhat works... or so I have heard though. It is just another attempt at trying to find the Universal theory.

The atheists will say that the branes have always existed and will always exist to infinity, too, but that is just conjecture because they don't know, just like everyone else. They put their faith in that "fact". Rather quantum theory has many puzzling aspects that seem to link to a universal order to things, but also to things that seem beyond our comprehension. I think it is wonderful, don't you? It gives us something to always strive for.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: ElFenix
see, that is assuming a fact in contention, that this information is somehow qualitatively different than any other kind. it is not. it is purely random.

JP Moreland does an excellent job discussing probability and design inferences. He comments that if you toss a dice 1,000 times and get a H,T,H,H... combination, that combination had a very, very small chance of coming out, and yet it did. Indeed, the improbable happens all the time.

The difference comes in, like you say, when you mark off what outcome is special. The lotto coming up 57, 64, 32, 45 might mean nothing, or it might mean something. It depends on whether you hold that ticket.

You contend that life, and the genetic information that drives it, is just one random chance occurence out of trillions that could have occurred. We could have just the same not ever have existed. We would just not be around to observe it.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the number of random attempts before the 'right' formula was hit upon is mind-boggling. given the number of chances, even the extremely remote possibility has a very real chance of happening at least once.

You are very right about the mind-boggling number of attempts.

Consider this:

"What is the expected probability for chance to spell the phrase??the theory of evolution??

This phrase by chance would involve the random selection and sequencing of letters and spaces in the correct order. Each letter from the alphabet plus one space (totaling 27 possible selections) has one chance in 27 of being selected. There are 20 letters plus 3 spaces in the phrase??the theory of evolution?. Therefore ?chance? will, on the average, spell the given phrase correctly only once in (27)23 outcomes!!

This computes to only one success in a mind boggling 8.3 hundred quadrillion, quadrillion attempts (8.3x1032). Suppose ?chance? uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second)! On average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years by this random method. If, as evolutionists would have us believe, the earth has been in existence for approximately 5 billion years, then ?chance? could take five times this time to spell out its own success, even at this phenomenal rate of experimentation."

And yet, I could write a genetic algorithm and "evolve" this phrase in probably just a few thousand iterations. Your comparison is apples & oranges to how evolution actually works.

You see, its not just about the fact that some outcome had to occur. Its the amazing observation that something so improbable has occurred and we are around to see it. The theistic explanation is more logical than the atheistic one.

Of course, you could believe in many universes if you want, or you could continue to say that life is not amazing at all, and that the complexity is not really that fantastic, but of course, that defies basic human reasoning, and its no wonder that the vast majority of the world will never believe that.

No, actually life is absolutely amazing and fantastic. But that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to understand how it came about. Understanding that just makes it that much more amazing vs. abdicating that understanding to a creation myth.

 

[sandorski]

This thread was rather entertaining, but Santa won't be visiting a lot of you this year!

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: ElFenix
see, that is assuming a fact in contention, that this information is somehow qualitatively different than any other kind. it is not. it is purely random.

JP Moreland does an excellent job discussing probability and design inferences. He comments that if you toss a dice 1,000 times and get a H,T,H,H... combination, that combination had a very, very small chance of coming out, and yet it did. Indeed, the improbable happens all the time.

The difference comes in, like you say, when you mark off what outcome is special. The lotto coming up 57, 64, 32, 45 might mean nothing, or it might mean something. It depends on whether you hold that ticket.

You contend that life, and the genetic information that drives it, is just one random chance occurence out of trillions that could have occurred. We could have just the same not ever have existed. We would just not be around to observe it.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the number of random attempts before the 'right' formula was hit upon is mind-boggling. given the number of chances, even the extremely remote possibility has a very real chance of happening at least once.

You are very right about the mind-boggling number of attempts.

Consider this:

"What is the expected probability for chance to spell the phrase??the theory of evolution??

This phrase by chance would involve the random selection and sequencing of letters and spaces in the correct order. Each letter from the alphabet plus one space (totaling 27 possible selections) has one chance in 27 of being selected. There are 20 letters plus 3 spaces in the phrase??the theory of evolution?. Therefore ?chance? will, on the average, spell the given phrase correctly only once in (27)23 outcomes!!

This computes to only one success in a mind boggling 8.3 hundred quadrillion, quadrillion attempts (8.3x1032). Suppose ?chance? uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second)! On average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years by this random method. If, as evolutionists would have us believe, the earth has been in existence for approximately 5 billion years, then ?chance? could take five times this time to spell out its own success, even at this phenomenal rate of experimentation."

And yet, I could write a genetic algorithm and "evolve" this phrase in probably just a few thousand iterations. Your comparison is apples & oranges to how evolution actually works.

Actually, I was off by an order of magnitude or so. I just wrote a quick & dirty genetic algorithm in python that found the answer most of the time in about 50 or 60 iterations starting with an initially random population of 1000. So roughly 50,000 evaluations.

I upped the difficulty a bit by properly capitalizing and punctuating the phrase: "The Theory of Evolution." and increasing the alphabet size from 27 to 54. I had to double the size of the population to 2000 to get reliable convergence, but it does converge in about the same number of iterations.

I'm sure some tweaking of the parameters and maybe a more sophisticated objective function would make it even faster.

Here's a sample output for a run. Each row is the best member of the population for that iteration.

Iteration Phrase Score Avg. score for population
1 T jIHQkAjNIXTtEvNkgZjjL. 5 1.43
2 Tu.mZDeKOyEBY eURZDiokQO 5 1.689
3 Tu.mZDeKOyEBYzZRNoVaY nO 5 2.0165
4 Tu.mZDeKOyDHwSlvjgbeQHnx 6 2.4165
5 TaRxwhyhGEDrGTESFpFEisn. 7 2.8155
6 TaRxwhyhGEDrGTESFpFEisn. 7 3.2385
7 TJeJHhyhGyaffIwvBD KoaF 8 3.596
8 TJeJHhyhGyaffIwvBD diDGU 8 3.976
9 TJeJHhyhGyaffIwvBD diDg. 9 4.343
10 TYlzNheplyHnhmBvosatBoJu 9 4.677
11 DgeSNheplyHnhmBvosatBoJu 9 5.0595
12 TYlzNheplyHnhmBvosatBog. 10 5.3555
13 ThBzNheplyHnhmBvosatBog. 11 5.7525
14 ThBYTDe AyUogkeHPluSisn. 12 6.1175
15 TiBYTKKoNy kfkeHPluSisn. 12 6.461
16 ThBYTDe AyUogkeHPluSisn. 12 6.822
17 IheSTpKoNy Ct IvNYuEisn. 13 7.164
18 TSe WhMuly Km IvgluSisn. 14 7.5845
19 TheSTOeNry nfVtfgluSisn. 15 8.006
20 TJeYThfoNy kfy vomPtisn. 15 8.426
21 Phe Thluly Km IvgluSisn. 15 8.738
22 TheSTOeNry Km IvgluSisn. 16 9.1085
23 TheSTOeNry Km IvoYuEisn. 16 9.457
24 TheSTOeNry Km IvgluSisn. 16 9.8425
25 TheSTOeNry Km IvoYuEisn. 16 10.2275
26 TJe WhfoNy kfy voluSiog. 16 10.518
27 hheSTvKoOy ofHEvYluSisn. 16 10.825
28 TheRTheKOy ofHEvYluhron. 18 11.156
29 TheRTheKOy ofHEvYluhron. 18 11.478
30 The WhKoNy kY EvoluSiog. 18 11.7815
31 TheSTOeNry ofTESolmtBon. 18 12.019
32 TJe TOeNry ofVEvomutisn. 19 12.2895
33 TJe TOeNry ofVEvomution. 20 12.5675
34 The TOeNry ofVEvomutisn. 20 12.816
35 TJe TOeNry ofVEvomution. 20 13.055
36 TJe TOeNry ofVEvomution. 20 13.3145
37 TJe TOeNry ofVEvomution. 20 13.4845
38 Tge Theory ofVELolPtisn. 20 13.6975
39 The Theory ofVELolPtisn. 21 14.034
40 The Theory of EvgluSisn. 22 14.2755
41 The Theory of EvgluSisn. 22 14.4635
42 The Theory of EvgluSisn. 22 14.7395
43 The Theory of EvgluSisn. 22 15.0105
44 The Theory ofVEvRlutXon. 22 15.188
45 The Theory ofVEvRlutXon. 22 15.3455
46 The Theory ofVELolPtion. 22 15.6205
47 The Theory ofVEvRlutisn. 22 15.8695
48 The Theory of Evolutisn. 24 16.141
49 The Theory of Evolutisn. 24 16.425
50 The Theory of Evolutisn. 24 16.653
51 The Theory of Evolutisn. 24 16.867
52 The Theory of Evolutisn. 24 17.1475
53 The Theory ofFEvolution. 24 17.3915
54 The Theory of Evolution. 25 17.5795

If anyone wants the code IM me. Or maybe I'll post it over in software with the "add code" option to preserve formatting.