Evolution Explained

[riley2112]

Shit Riley you just learned how to quote, don't leave now! Stick around, there are others like yourself here as well.

Edit to add:

Also, if you start getting burnt out or overwhelmed just visit one of the recreational threads.

Thanks  ,I believe I will be here for some time.. and that quoting thing had me for awhile..lol

[jaimehlers]

Now, in regards to your post, no, scientists did not 'calculate' those odds.  People who had a vested interest in trying to disprove evolution as an explanation did.

Have any scientists calculated those odds? I'd like to see those odds if they have.

I'm almost certain this is (very, very loosely) based on an experiment where a scientist went from the premise that an E.coli bacterium was separated into its constituent atoms and then calculated the odds of those atoms spontaneously reforming back into the same E.coli bacterium.  It tends to get used as 'proof' why life has to have been created intentionally.  Unfortunately, I don't remember the specifics of it other than that.

[Tinyal]

Have any scientists calculated those odds? I'd like to see those odds if they have.

Although my knowledge of statistics vary's from poor to downright non-existent, I recall reading (somewhere) that such odds cannot be calculated, that is - it's impossible to calculate reliable odds on something that's already happened:  The odds of life occuring on this planet is 1:1, guaranteed.

Any reliable number could only have been calculated before the fact - afterwards, it's impossible, no matter how skilled the math.

At least, that's the way I recall it <could be wrong>.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Although my knowledge of statistics vary's from poor to downright non-existent, I recall reading (somewhere) that such odds cannot be calculated, that is - it's impossible to calculate reliable odds on something that's already happened:  The odds of life occuring on this planet is 1:1, guaranteed.

Any reliable number could only have been calculated before the fact - afterwards, it's impossible, no matter how skilled the math.

That doesn't make sense to me. The odds of drawing a particular hand in poker are pretty well established. You don't know what you are going to get until after you have drawn your cards. The odds were still there before you drew. What are the odds of getting the same hand again?

[jaimehlers]

His point is that once you've drawn the hand, it stops being a matter of probability.

[Emergence]

Have any scientists calculated those odds? I'd like to see those odds if they have.

While i am not a big fan of linking to "Talk Origins" in this case i think the relating article might shed some light on the matter of "the odds of life" from a science pov:

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations; Musgrave; Talk Origins; 1998

Note that the article is already more than 13 years old - a veeery long time in science ... - but i think it illustrates the issues with a calculation of the probability of life's origins very well.

If you are interested in something a tad more recent: "Does the Rapid Appearance of Life on Earth Suggest that Life is Common in the Universe?"; Lineweaver and Davis; Astrobiology ; 2002.; link to PDF

4.3. Summary

• Our existence on Earth does not mean that the probability of biogenesis on a terrestrial planet, q, is large, because if q were infinitesimally small and there were only one life-harboring planet in the Universe we would, of necessity, find ourselves on that planet. However, such a scenario would imply either that Earth has a unique chemistry or that terrestrial biogenesis has taken a long time to occur. Neither is supported by the evidence we have. Since little can be said about the probability q, of terrestrial biogenesis from our existence, we assume maximum ignorance: 0<= q <= 1. We then use the observation of rapid terrestrial biogenesis to constrain q (Fig. 4).

• We convert the constraints on q into constraints on the f_l term of the Drake Equation (the fraction of suitable planets which have life). For terrestrial planets older than ~ 1 Gyr we find that f_l is most probably close to unity and > 13% at the 95% confidence level.

• If terrestrial planets are common and they have approximately the same probability of biogenesis as the Earth, our inference of high q (or high q_N) indicates that a substantial fraction of terrestrial planets have life and thus life is common in the Universe.

However, there are assumptions and selection effects that complicate this result:

• Although we correct the analysis for the fact that biogenesis is a prerequisite for our existence, our result depends on the plausible assumption that rapid biogenesis is not such a prerequisite.

• Although we have evidence that the fraction of planets which are ‘terrestrial’ in a broad astronomical sense (rocky planet in the continuously habitable zone) is large, this may be different from the fraction of planets which are ‘terrestrial’ in a more detailed chemical sense. Although we can make reasonable estimates of what the crusts and atmospheres are made of, without detailed knowledge of the steps of chemical evolution, we can not be sure that astronomically terrestrial planets have the same q as Earth. That is, the fraction of planets belonging to the Earth’s q-group is uncertain. Thus, although we have been able to quantify the f_l term of the Drake Equation using rapid biogenesis, our knowledge of the f_e
term is still only qualitative and inhibits our ability to draw stronger conclusions about how common life is in the Universe.

(edited for reposting here)

Unfortunately i don't remember of anything more recent aimed at that specific question.

The numbers Riley posted are from Fred Hoyle^Wiki and Chandra Wickramasinghe^Wiki and are based on the assumption that 2000 enzymes of a cell all have come randomly together in one place in order to form a cell in some primordial soup. This is based on wrong assumptions like that a primordial cell would have to be the same as todays cells in order to start replicating, or that the formation haste to be random and not 'guided' by laws as any other chemical reaction and more such fallacies. Hoyle was the guy with the "Boing 747" argument against the formation of life on earth and a proponent of the panspermia hypothesis, btw.

[Alzael]

yes I am a Rush fan.  If I am going to visit your site from time to time.( If i am allowed to) I have read many studies , many arguments, and a lot of different opinions, none have I found so compelling as to make me believe in evolution or creation .

You may wish to start looking at the evidence then. As opposed to using things such as "And to believe other wise seems foolish to me. " and "As for the Big Bang , ect. ect. What caused it .. and yes I assume a "first cause" there had to be one , no matter how far back. Something had to have happen somewhere , somehow, by  something. " as well as "That is my point. I can not conceive the universe simply appearing out of nothing".

As soon as you've started using this kind of thing then you've guaranteed that you'll never really find any true evidence of anything. Everything that you have said so far exists to eliminate potential options to only those that appeal to you. Such as the assumption of a first cause. Right there you have immediately restricted yourself in what you will accept as evidence, and merely because you make an assumption that there must have been this first cause. An assumption made without any evidence or reason. Likewise you ignore other evidence solely because it "seems foolish" to you, as opposed to having any rational reason to dismiss it.

This is why you do not have compelling evidence, because by your own admission you only accept the evidence that you want to accept. Not the evidence that actually exists.

I read to have the information to keep my mind open.

However you are not keeping your mind open. As I pointed out to you, you have effectively closed it quite tightly. An open mind would not do or say the things that you do.

You have also, I note, passed over the posts of several others who have pointed out the flaws in your reasonings and in what you are saying. If you wanted to learn it would behoove you to actually address the points that are being made against you, as opposed to ignoring them.

It's very typcial for theists who come in here to talk about how they are open-minded and trying to go on about how much they read science books and attempt to learn. Very few, however, actually demonstrate this interest when they actually begin to talk, and any desire to learn about anything is really only a thin veneer they've created to help them attempt to justify a god belief that they know deep down makes no sense.

If you are honestly interested in opening your mind and learning then you have to forget about what seems right to you, or the assumptions that you seem to wish to make about how the world works and focus on how the world actually works and be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads (not just where it seems right). Until you can at least do that you cannot claim with any degree of honesty to have an open mind or to be interested in learning anything.

[riley2112]

lbaker318, please let JeffPT know how old your are before he proceeds.

Profile by Screwtape:

13 yo
Blue eyes
Blonde hair
Raised in or within 2 states of Tennessee
Helps dad cook meth in the basement
Still plays with Barbies

[/quote] dude ,, I don't care how smart you think you are , that is just wrong , and you know it.

[Azdgari]

Wrong, perhaps, but with indistinguishable results.

What does that tell you?

[riley2112]

Wrong, perhaps, but with indistinguishable results.

What does that tell you?

(www.thefreedictionary.com)
in·dis·tin·guish·a·ble (nd-stnggw-sh-bl)
adj.
1. Not distinguishable, especially:
a. Impossible to differentiate or tell apart: indistinguishable twins; markings that make a moth indistinguishable from its background.
b. Impossible to discern; imperceptible: a sound that was indistinguishable to the human ear.
2. Difficult to understand or make out; vague: indistinguishable speech.

lol.. It tells me nothing. Are you sure you know what you are trying to say? Just wondering..lol

[Azdgari]

I'm glad you were able to find out what "indistinguishable" means.  I wasn't confident about that, when I wrote my post.

What I mean is that your behaviour is indistinguishable from what one would reasonably expect from the person Screwtape has described.

I thought I'd spelled it out simply enough.  I was wrong about that.

[jaimehlers]

Actually, I couldn't tell what you were trying to get at there either, Alzael.  It wasn't at all clear that you were comparing the behavior of the two of them.

[Azdgari]

My bad, then.  Apparently I was so unclear that not only was I misunderstood by multiple people, but I was also mistaken for Alzael!

[riley2112]

I'm glad you were able to find out what "indistinguishable" means.  I wasn't confident about that, when I wrote my post.

What I mean is that your behaviour is indistinguishable from what one would reasonably expect from the person Screwtape has described.

I thought I'd spelled it out simply enough.  I was wrong about that.

So what you were trying to do with the limited talent that you have for it, was to insult me.. lol.. again,, that is so wrong, and you should try to reframe from it. Just saying.

[jaimehlers]

Alzael was posting earlier and I wasn't paying close attention to names.  Sorry for that.

That aside, I don't really think it helped to try to compare riley's behavior with lbaker.  Whatever else you might think, riley at least isn't trying to tell us "God did it and you should just accept that", and he does seem interested in actually talking rather than just preaching.

[Azdgari]

You know what?  You and Riley are right.  He hasn't earned that kind of insult, and I was way out of line for making it.

I'm sorry, Riley.

[riley2112]

You know what?  You and Riley are right.  He hasn't earned that kind of insult, and I was way out of line for making it.

I'm sorry, Riley.

thank you , , and besides , you did not mean it , the devil made you do it,, lmao,, just joking folks.. just joking.. but all jokes aside , thank you .

[screwtape]

dude ,, I don't care how smart you think you are , that is just wrong , and you know it.

uh, who the flip are you, again?  Are you sure you want to pick a fight with someone (me) so early on in your membership here?  And for such a petty and pointless reason?

[riley2112]

dude ,, I don't care how smart you think you are , that is just wrong , and you know it.

uh, who the flip are you, again?  Are you sure you want to pick a fight with someone (me) so early on in your membership here?  And for such a petty and pointless reason?

picking a fight is not what I was doing, pointing out that you was rude to someone just because they did not agree with your thinking,(which by the way I am not saying I totally disagree with) is what I was doing , if that troubles you .. I really don't care. Your remarks , was unfounded and uncalled for. Please understand that I am not just some drive by Christian that will disappear. As a matter of fact, I never said I was a christian, I just said I had reason to believe in a cause to motion. I have been spanked a few time already and you are right I am new here. I do not mind being spanked when I am not following rules that have been laid out for all to follow. But someone trying to call me out on pointing out their own child like remarks.. I don't think so. As for who the flip I am, I am an honest , open minded person that does not like people being picked on, makes no difference if I have been here one day or years. I am sure I will have to deal with you from time to time (unless of course you guys ban me, and you may) so I guess you will just have to deal with me. By the way ,, nice to meet you

[screwtape]

picking a fight is not what I was doing,

When you are a noob and the self-appointed etiquette sheriff, scolding others about their behavior for things they did three months ago, to imbeciles who have not showed up in three months, then you are indeed picking a fight.

pointing out that you was rude to someone

"were", not "was".  I did not say anything rude.  Is it rude to think someone is 13 years old?  Is it rude to think someone might have blue eyes and blond hair?  That she lives in Tennessee?  Plays with Barbies?  I can see where her father might be peeved, me saying he's a meth-head.  But then, that would be her father and not her.

just because they did not agree with your thinking,

It was not about agreement with my thinking.  It was about her utter lack of understanding.  She had less than a child's understanding of the topic at hand[1].  That is the big problem when rational people argue with creationists.  95% of the conversation is spent trying to correct the lies creationists have been told about evolution, usually unsuccessfully.

if that troubles you .. I really don't care.

ah, okay then.  So it should not bother you that I really don't care what you have to say regarding my allegedly naughty behavior. 

Your remarks , was unfounded and uncalled for.

They were well founded based on the childish things the poster had said and by saying them she had practically begged for my remarks, thus calling for them.  It is in much the same way dunking your head in a toilet would be totally called for.

Please understand that I am not just some drive by Christian that will disappear. As a matter of fact, I never said I was a christian, I just said I had reason to believe in a cause to motion.

this has nothing to do with anything.  Pointless filler.

But someone trying to call me out on pointing out their own child like remarks..

"childish", not "child like".  If you have a problem with a post then report it.   Let the moderators handle it.  You have no authority that I recognize.

As for who the flip I am, I am an honest , open minded person that does not like people being picked on, makes no difference if I have been here one day or years.

Well Don Quixote, you just keep tilting at those windmills.

By the way ,, nice to meet you

Go play in traffic.

1.	thus the assessment of being 13

[Mr. Blackwell]

His point is that once you've drawn the hand, it stops being a matter of probability.

Right, like if I'm playing straight poker the odds of getting a royal flush are approx. 649,739 : 1
But this does not guarantee that if I played 649,738 hands of poker without drawing a royal flush that my next hand would produce one.

Also, just because something happened once, it doesn't increase the odds of it happening again. So, no matter how unlikely or likely our development was, it is not more likely that life has or will develop anywhere else. At best, it may be just as likely but that is still no guarantee of success.

...the universe itself is not in motion relative to itself (how could it be?).

I would still like an explanation to this comment.

[Azdgari]

"In motion relative to itself" is a meaningless phrase.

[jaimehlers]

jaybwell:  Three things.  First, I meant that the probability of drawing a royal flush becomes unity (100%) as soon as it actually happens, no matter what the calculated odds happen to be.  That's what I meant by it not being a matter of probability then.

Second, probability is not straightforward math, which I'm sure you already know, but there's a point to this.  How many people do you think would need to be in a room before the probability of any two of them having the same birthday reached 50%?  The answer is twenty-three, not even 10% of the total possible birthdays.  It seems small until you realize that you're comparing a fixed set with a shrinking one, and thus increasing the odds of finding a match - any match - by quite a bit as you increase the sample size you're polling.  So probability is not intuitive, a person cannot expect to figure it out just because it looks like simple numbers and math.

Third, you know the odds of drawing a royal flush, because you know what cards are in the deck.  But do you think you could possibly say what those odds were with any certainty if you didn't know what cards were in the deck?  We're in that position when it comes to calculating the odds of life developing on its own, because we have no real knowledge of what's actually required.  We have some guesses based on the extrapolated conditions of the primordial Earth, but we have no evidence, and we can't meaningfully calculate the odds of life occurring on Earth after the fact because we don't know what factors are important and which aren't.

[riley2112]

I know I am a newbie here , and I may have upset some of you in my short time of being here. However, I am doing a paper and I would like to be able to do it with the opinion and thought of those that believe and those that don't. Being that I am a believer , I am afraid that I may , without intending to , be a little bias. But if I can talk to and use the opinion of non believers I may be able to write a fair paper without pushing one side or the other. I believe I can get enough information off of the post that are already posted, However I would not want to use things from your site or you opinions without your approval. So , I guess what I am asking is if you all have a problem with me doing this, please understand I will give credit to what I use and if you would rather me not use any of your post or opinions , of course I won't. Also if you would like to review the piece before I turn it in I would have no problem with that. I am asking out of respect that I have for your personal beliefs, I don't have to agree with them to respect them, please let me know how you feel about this as the paper is due in two weeks and I would like to get started on it as soon as I can.

                                                                                 Much Respect
                                                                                  Riley

[velkyn]

I know I am a newbie here , and I may have upset some of you in my short time of being here. However, I am doing a paper and I would like to be able to do it with the opinion and thought of those that believe and those that don't. Being that I am a believer , I am afraid that I may , without intending to , be a little bias. But if I can talk to and use the opinion of non believers I may be able to write a fair paper without pushing one side or the other. I believe I can get enough information off of the post that are already posted, However I would not want to use things from your site or you opinions without your approval. So , I guess what I am asking is if you all have a problem with me doing this, please understand I will give credit to what I use and if you would rather me not use any of your post or opinions , of course I won't. Also if you would like to review the piece before I turn it in I would have no problem with that. I am asking out of respect that I have for your personal beliefs, I don't have to agree with them to respect them, please let me know how you feel about this as the paper is due in two weeks and I would like to get started on it as soon as I can.

                                                                                 Much Respect
                                                                                  Riley

a "paper" on what?  And for whom?  yes, you could lie here, and it wouldnt' suprise me at all.   But I may give you the benefit of the doubt.  However, if you are a theist that believes in a punishment for those who lie, and it does seem you are indeed a Christian despite your claims that you "never said" you were, it would be amusing if you do lie and are found out. 

[riley2112]

Thank you , as for me being a Christian, I never said I was, however I never said I wasn't. But does that really make a difference? As for what the paper is for , It is a researched argument paper for my English class. What college is not important. let's just say I am a poor boy. I am hoping that after I am done with this paper , one of two things will happen. Either I will still believe in a creator or I won't. I have heard so many Christians say that you have to have faith and that you should not pay attention to any other information other than what the bible says. I am under the belief that if having a creator is really true , then even after heavy investigation that the truth will still be the truth or it was never the truth in the first place. And if at any time you think me a liar. call me on it ,, I am sure you will ,,

OK that is one ,, I can only use the post of the people that OK this.. and again thank you velkyn.

                                                                                                                    much respect
                                                                                                                         Riley

[jaimehlers]

riley:  You've hit on an important point there.  Something that is true will stand up to investigation and questioning without being contradicted by those things.  If it is contradicted, then the contradictions must be resolved, no matter where resolving them leads.

[riley2112]

riley:  You've hit on an important point there.  Something that is true will stand up to investigation and questioning without being contradicted by those things.  If it is contradicted, then the contradictions must be resolved, no matter where resolving them leads.

That is my thoughts. So goes the search. So will you agree to allow me to use some of your post.

[velkyn]

Thank you , as for me being a Christian, I never said I was, however I never said I wasn't. But does that really make a difference? As for what the paper is for , It is a researched argument paper for my English class. What college is not important. let's just say I am a poor boy. I am hoping that after I am done with this paper , one of two things will happen. Either I will still believe in a creator or I won't. I have heard so many Christians say that you have to have faith and that you should not pay attention to any other information other than what the bible says. I am under the belief that if having a creator is really true , then even after heavy investigation that the truth will still be the truth or it was never the truth in the first place. And if at any time you think me a liar. call me on it ,, I am sure you will ,,

OK that is one ,, I can only use the post of the people that OK this.. and again thank you velkyn.

                                                                                                                    much respect
                                                                                                                         Riley

Yes, it does make a difference for to me it demonstrates just how honest you are.  For example, in the past, I’ve seen people on here doing their damndest to play act an atheist or some other kind of theist, but when it came down to what they posted, they were a Christian through and through.  Many theists run away from the words “Christian” and “religion” since they have been so thoroughly shat on by their fellows, that the words have negative connotations that they do not want to be associated with.  They claim that they have a “relationship” not a “religion” (same thing) or that they aren’t one of “those” Christians or even better, those people aren’t TrueChristians^tm. 

Perhaps you can tell us what you do believe, in that you want to use us a source for your paper.  As for college and being poor, believe me, I’ve been there and done that.  Went to a state university for my geology degree, seemed to take for freakin' ever to pay off those student loans. 

I’m curious, are you using any other religions in your paper, to compare what religions claim about themselves and each other?  Most if not all declare that they have the “truth” but none of them has any more evidence than the next.  Again, most if not all, have flawed books that supposedly came from divine omnipotent omniscient and usually omnibenevolent beings.   All claim that their respective gods have created the universe and none of them can demonstrate this.   All of their “truths” are just wishful thinking, that they have some secret knowledge of the universe and are the “chosen people” of some magical being.

And oh yes, I’ll call you on any baseless claims you might make.   If you want to ask me more indepth questions, you are more than welcome to PM me or just ask here.  I'll even give you my real name if you'd like to have a real live atheist quote