R
ricmat
Guest
I missed that statement on their site. Can you provide a link?
- Status
N
NoMoreGames
Guest
R
ricmat
Guest
Here’s what that site said, verbatim:
You interpreted the above to mean:
That’s quite a jump. For someone hoping to read unbiased material, perhaps you have already read too much that is biased.
P
PoliSciProf
Guest
The readers of this thread might be interested in The Sparrow, a novel by Mary Doria Russell. In brief, alien life is discovered. Jesuits mount an expedition to the new planet. It is a good read and raises some very provocative issues.
amazon.com/Sparrow-Mary-Doria-Russell/dp/0449912558
amazon.com/Sparrow-Mary-Doria-Russell/dp/0449912558
N
NoMoreGames
Guest
Is it such a jump? Let’s break it down
Let’s discuss a powerful reason why Darwin’s theory is wrong.
Even after all these years, the proper fossil records have yet to be found.
Since we do not yet have all the pieces, a supreme being must exist.
That’s pretty much exactly how I shortened it. If I’m interpreting it wrong, please tell me.
As far as not having a complete fossil record, that is to be expected. Look up the recent findings on Ardipithecus. Anthropologists knew it had to exist, but never expected to find one due to the very specific requirements for fossilization. Just because there are gaps doesn’t mean the whole theory must be wrong (granted, Darwin was wrong on some things, but the modern theory of evolution is not exactly as he proposed).
This thread is not about weather or not God exists (which is not necessarily connected to evolution), but about life.
PoliSciProf, thank you very much for the suggestion. Another added onto my long list of summer books
R
ricmat
Guest
Let’s look at the evidence. How terrible!!!
Do you know why they say that? Or do you just know that what they say is wrong.
It seems to me that you are coming to that conclusion all by yourself.
I think you saw far more than existed there because you are so biased.
I have never heard claims that the whole theory must be wrong. But when things are wrong, it should be admitted, shouldn’t it?
Uhhh…so why did you bring up the subject?
N
NoMoreGames
Guest
Showing the gaps in the line of evidence is not looking at the evidence. It’s looking at the gaps. That is not inherently a bad thing. One would have to be blocking out that entire passage to not see how they are trying to say that the gaps in the fossil record support the existence of God.
Do you mean why they say there is a gap in the fossil record? Because there is. I’ll assume you understand how rare fossils are. Just because there are no fossils of it doesn’t mean it never existed. Just that it wasn’t fossilized.
Hardly. Did you read the last few lines?
The current fossils show a gap (that is, the rapid appearance), which is best explained by a transcendent intelligence. Once again, if I am not taking this the right way, please explain what it means, rather than just saying my interpretation is wrong.
Perhaps. What exactly do you think it is suggesting?
You’ve never heard someone say that they don’t believe in evolution, but rather in creation?
I didn’t. We were discussing evolution of life, which would probably happen in some form if life existed elsewhere. I’m just reminding readers (mostly myself
) to stay on track.
R
ricmat
Guest
When the theory says that there should be gradual changes, the gaps should be very narrow. The Cambrian explosion was not a time of gradual changes.
Some background information might be helpful here. You seem to think that the purpose of ID is to totally overthrow the TOE. That is not correct.
From discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
Click here for video
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer’s article “Not By Chance” from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS’s "Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).
2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
Click here for video
It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.” (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article “Meanings of Evolution” by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.
**
- What is the difference between a scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution and the theory of intelligent design?**
Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution include unresolved debates amongst scientists over issues such as the peppered moth, the myth of human gill slits, Haeackel’s embryos, and the Miller-Urey experiment. Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution address problems for which adequate solutions have not been presented.
The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Intelligent design theory then is an alternative solution to answer problems with Darwinian evolution.
Of course I have. But what we have here are specific criticisms of particular aspects of the TOE. If those criticisms are correct, then that particular part of TOE should be thrown out. It’s not an all or nothing thing.
N
NoMoreGames
Guest
You might be missing the fact that the theory of intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It cannot be tested using the scientific method principally because the hypotheses cannot be negated. If you hold the initial hypothesis to be true, it can never be proven wrong. Scientific theories, however, can be and are quite often.
The only sources I could find that said intelligent design was science were from organizations that supported intelligent design (one of which your quoted). That is a prime example of what I meant be being careful about bias in what you read. That doesn’t mean it is inherently not science, so I looked for more sources. Many sites by prominent scientific journals clearly stated that it was not science. Trust who you want (originations with an agenda who try to make their beliefs fit into known facts vs scientists who frequently admit their mistakes and revise their theories).
I’m not saying the intelligent design is not true, nor that God doesn’t exist, just that it shouldn’t be passed off as science, but instead presented as what it is, a belief.
The only sources I could find that said intelligent design was science were from organizations that supported intelligent design (one of which your quoted). That is a prime example of what I meant be being careful about bias in what you read. That doesn’t mean it is inherently not science, so I looked for more sources. Many sites by prominent scientific journals clearly stated that it was not science. Trust who you want (originations with an agenda who try to make their beliefs fit into known facts vs scientists who frequently admit their mistakes and revise their theories).
I’m not saying the intelligent design is not true, nor that God doesn’t exist, just that it shouldn’t be passed off as science, but instead presented as what it is, a belief.
R
ricmat
Guest
How puzzling. The only sources I could find that said that Darwinism was absolutely true (as much as a fact as gravity is) are organizations that support Darwinism.
You are conflating a bunch of different things here. The existence of God is not related to ID. The existence of God is a philosophical leap, and that leap is sometimes based on scientific evidence (for some, not for others).
As to whether or not ID is science, please read SITC and tell me where the science is wrong.
You might also learn more about what ID really is, and isn’t.
N
NoMoreGames
Guest
I suppose I mean organizations that existed solely for the support of intelligent design were the only places I could find it. But in either situation, it shows my point one must always be careful with bias.
And perhaps Darwinism is not the correct term to use. The modern theory is different in many ways from his original proposition.
Could you explain the book’s main points, unless you are ok with putting the discussion on a long break until I have to time to read it in it’s entirety.
Could you explain how science can prove God exists?
Everything I know of the theory of intelligent design is from the sources I found, put out by the people that support it, so if there is something I’m missing, please explain it to me, rather than just tell me I’m missing it.
I am a person of both faith and science, so I’m not the non believer you probably take me for, but my science side can only see the flaws in the presented theory of design.
R
ricmat
Guest
Thanks for the clarification.
Neo-Darwinism? I’ve seen that term tossed out.
Perhaps later. We just had company stop by for a couple of days, and then it’s Easter. My wife is giving me hand motions to get off the computer for a while…
I don’t believe that science can prove it. I do believe that assuming belief in God, that the study of everything can lead to a greater appreciation of God’s glory and majesty (and beauty, and love, and…etc.)
Perhaps I can get back to this on another day. But let me say briefly that new ideas in science are always “wrong,” right up to the point where they are “right.”
I’ve got so many threads going now that I don’t recall who I thought was a believer or a non-believer
As a person of faith, ID is not “necessary” for me to believe. As a person of science (engineering), it just plain makes the most sense to me.
Got to go right now!
N
Nozzferrahhtoo
Guest
Ricmat,
No if you were the only person to buy a lottery ticket in Ireland you would not be a sure winner. The lottery there works by each player choosing 6 numbers out of a possible 49. Then on a Saturday 6 numbers are drawn at random and if you have those 6 numbers you win. This is entirely independent of how many players there are. Your chances do not change if there is 1 played or 200 million players.
That said, snide comments like “I think you need to read up on probabilities in general“ are meaningless and add nothing to a conversation. I know enough about probabilities to tell you that if you do not know the starting variables then any “probability” you assign to an outcome is pure guess work. Or do you have some miraculous way of working out the probability of taking an ace from a deck of cards if you did not know how many cards and how many aces there were on which you can justify your sarcastic stance? If you do then Í would be agog to hear it.
No if you were the only person to buy a lottery ticket in Ireland you would not be a sure winner. The lottery there works by each player choosing 6 numbers out of a possible 49. Then on a Saturday 6 numbers are drawn at random and if you have those 6 numbers you win. This is entirely independent of how many players there are. Your chances do not change if there is 1 played or 200 million players.
That said, snide comments like “I think you need to read up on probabilities in general“ are meaningless and add nothing to a conversation. I know enough about probabilities to tell you that if you do not know the starting variables then any “probability” you assign to an outcome is pure guess work. Or do you have some miraculous way of working out the probability of taking an ace from a deck of cards if you did not know how many cards and how many aces there were on which you can justify your sarcastic stance? If you do then Í would be agog to hear it.
R
ricmat
Guest
OK, you’re correct for the Irish lottery. I was thinking more of a “raffle ticket” (throw all the tickets in a hat, and pull one out).
Your main point was that until you know the outcome and the details of how the outcome became the outcome, it is impossible to calculate the probability in advance.
That is not true. Of course probabilities can be calculated in advance. Insurance companies do it all the time. If they waited until the smoke cleared before “discovering” the probability, they’d be out of business. Ditto for casinos.
I’m sorry it sounded snide. Please accept my apology.
Well, if you have a standard deck of cards, I can tell you that the probability of pulling out 5 aces is zero. And if you have 10^80 standard cards, I can tell you that pulling 500 aces in a row is pretty close to zero, even if you started on day one of the big bang and you’ve been pulling cards once per second ever since. And if you have a billion cards with one unique card mixed in, I can tell you, in advance, without knowing the outcome, that your probability of drawing that card is one in a billion. I’ve seen arguments from others here that say “If per chance I actually pulled the unique card, that means that the probability of it happening was actually 100%.” That is a false argument (I’m not sure that’s what you’re saying, but I have seen that argument before).
In terms of the origin of life, we do know many things. We know that there are only 10^80 particles in the universe. And we know the number of seconds since the big bang (I think it is 10^16 but I don’t have it at my fingertips.) And we know that maximum possible rate at which particles/atoms/molecules can react with each other, which is related to planck’s constant and the speed of light. So that puts limits on the probabilistic resources available.
Yes, I know that only certain things will combine with other certain things. But they have to encounter each other first. And unless you say that it’s being guided or directed somehow, those interactions are chance occurrences.
I don’t remember if this is the thread where I recommended reading Signature in the Cell, but that book contains many references to calculations like the above. I’ll make the same challenge I made on another thread - read the book and tell me where it’s wrong, I’ll listen. If you know it’s wrong before you even read it, well, have a nice day.
L
lemondiesel
Guest
This statement coming from a Catholic lol
am i the only one who finds those two bold statements confusing? as for the underline, once again, belief in God. if one chooses not to then how do you answer them?
insurance companies base there information of past experiences. If men from the ages of 18-26 never got into accidents, our insurance wouldn’t be so high. They know the probability of us getting into accidents are high, because of past experiences…
How is that a false argument? You still have the 1 in a billion chance of pulling it (1/10^9), and guess what, you pulled it……how in any way is that a false statement? the only false statement would say that the probability of it happen was 100%
To the OP, by Life i am assuming you mean life common to us. If you think about it however, we have found bacteria living on the moon, and bacteria in rocks that fall from Mars in Antarctica ice sheets. Life seems to be adaptable to any situations and surroundings. Excluding or including humans, every organism on this planet has adapted to the certain environment and would experience trouble if moved from that environment (mammals seem to be capable of adapting easier than others). If you want to talk about probability, our milky way galaxy has ~100 billion stars alone, and 10^20-22 stars in our universe (what we know of). Now, if you say well we are that lucky 1/10^22, that comes back to your probability of pulling that one card, how it a false statement then?
As stated again, we have found bacteria on our OWN moon (left by the first astronauts) and continued to survive. Mars rocks with bacteria. Moons off of Jupiter have water oceans, why cant new life form there? Every finding within our own solar system increases the probability of life existing, allowing us to look closer to us rather than the deep parts of space.
It seems life is not a “planetary” thing, maybe Life is universal, only looking for stable environments to settle…
T
Thing
Guest
Bacteria on the Earths’ moon; called Streptococcus mitis; but, the bacteria was carried to the moon from earth with the Apollo astronauts.
Bacteria on Mars; Exploratour: Life on Mars? When we ask “Where might we find extraterrestrial life”, the first place many scientists turn to, because of its similarity to the Earth, is Mars. Mars may have been like the Earth in its past. Although no signs of life on Mars have been found, scientists will continue to search because they are aware of the potential for life in extreme environments. - From NASA
They add:
…a meteorite named ALH84001 that came from Mars. It was found in the Allen Hills in Antarctica in 1984 after having landed there 12,000 years ago. While many scientists were excited at first, much of the proof offered fell apart. NASA said that after two years of study “a number of lines of evidence have gone away”.
Several different chemicals and molecular structures were exciting because they looked similar to byproducts of life on Earth. However, these chemicals and structures can also be created without life. Some are even present in deep space on comets, and scientists do not think that they came from Martian life anymore.
Bacteria on Mars; Exploratour: Life on Mars? When we ask “Where might we find extraterrestrial life”, the first place many scientists turn to, because of its similarity to the Earth, is Mars. Mars may have been like the Earth in its past. Although no signs of life on Mars have been found, scientists will continue to search because they are aware of the potential for life in extreme environments. - From NASA
They add:
…a meteorite named ALH84001 that came from Mars. It was found in the Allen Hills in Antarctica in 1984 after having landed there 12,000 years ago. While many scientists were excited at first, much of the proof offered fell apart. NASA said that after two years of study “a number of lines of evidence have gone away”.
Several different chemicals and molecular structures were exciting because they looked similar to byproducts of life on Earth. However, these chemicals and structures can also be created without life. Some are even present in deep space on comets, and scientists do not think that they came from Martian life anymore.
R
ricmat
Guest
My 2 statements were:
- The existence of God is a philosophical leap, and that leap is sometimes based on scientific evidence (for some, not for others).
Let’s look at the statements in reverse order. I don’t believe that science can prove the existence of God. That should not be confusing so far. I believe that "assuming that someone does believe in God (for whatever reason, science, faith, personal revelation, whatever), that the study of science or anything else can lead that person, who already believes in God, to a greater appreciation of God’s glory and majesty, etc.
Moving back to point 1. Scientific evidence alone cannot prove that God does or does not exist, so other factors (philosophical) become the important factor in “making the leap.” But scientific evidence, although not “proving” in a 100% sense can lead one to the edge of the philosophical leap. This happens to some people, but not others.
I’ve tried to explain it better above. If you still think it’s confusing, then…
…perhaps you’re hopeless 
Yes, that’s exactly the point I was making. Before it happened, the chance that it would happen was one in a billion, NOT 100%. Because you pulled it does not make the probability 100% that you HAD to pull it. Thank you for agreeing with me.
L
lemondiesel
Guest
ScienceDaily (Apr. 7, 2010) — Deep under the Mediterranean Sea, small animals have been discovered that live their entire lives without oxygen and surrounded by ‘poisonous’ sulphides. Researchers writing in the open access journal BMC Biology report the existence of multicellular organisms (new members of the group Loricifera), showing that they are alive, metabolically active, and apparently reproducing in spite of a complete absence of oxygen.
Roberto Danovaro, from the Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy, worked with a team of researchers to retrieve sediment samples from a deep hypersaline anoxic basin (DHABs) of the Mediterranean Sea and studied them for signs of life. “These extreme environments,” said Danovaro, “have been thought to be exclusively inhabited by viruses, Bacteria and Archaea. The bodies of multicellular animals have previously been discovered, but were thought to have sunk there from upper, oxygenated, waters. Our results indicate that the animals we recovered were alive. Some, in fact, also contained eggs.”
Electronmicroscopy shows that instead of aerobic mitochondria, these animals possess organelles resembling the hydrogenosomes found previously in unicellular organisms (protozoans) that inhabit anaerobic environments.
The implications of this finding may reach far beyond the darker parts of the Mediterranean Sea floor, according to Lisa Levin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. In one of two commentaries accompanying this piece of research, she said, “The finding by Danovaro et al. offers the tantalizing promise of metazoan life in other anoxic settings, for example in the subsurface ocean beneath hydrothermal vents or subduction zones or in other anoxic basins.”
In the second commentary Marek Mentel and William Martin, from Comenius and Dusseldorf Universities look at the incidence of anaerobic mitochondria and hydrogenosomes in other organisms and focus on the evolutionary significance of the new findings. “The discovery of metazoan life in a permanently anoxic and sulfidic environment provides a glimpse of what a good part of Earth’s past ecology might have been like in ‘Canfield oceans’, before the rise of deep marine oxygen levels and the appearance of the first large animals in the fossil record roughly 550-600 million years ago.”
Roberto Danovaro, from the Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy, worked with a team of researchers to retrieve sediment samples from a deep hypersaline anoxic basin (DHABs) of the Mediterranean Sea and studied them for signs of life. “These extreme environments,” said Danovaro, “have been thought to be exclusively inhabited by viruses, Bacteria and Archaea. The bodies of multicellular animals have previously been discovered, but were thought to have sunk there from upper, oxygenated, waters. Our results indicate that the animals we recovered were alive. Some, in fact, also contained eggs.”
Electronmicroscopy shows that instead of aerobic mitochondria, these animals possess organelles resembling the hydrogenosomes found previously in unicellular organisms (protozoans) that inhabit anaerobic environments.
The implications of this finding may reach far beyond the darker parts of the Mediterranean Sea floor, according to Lisa Levin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. In one of two commentaries accompanying this piece of research, she said, “The finding by Danovaro et al. offers the tantalizing promise of metazoan life in other anoxic settings, for example in the subsurface ocean beneath hydrothermal vents or subduction zones or in other anoxic basins.”
In the second commentary Marek Mentel and William Martin, from Comenius and Dusseldorf Universities look at the incidence of anaerobic mitochondria and hydrogenosomes in other organisms and focus on the evolutionary significance of the new findings. “The discovery of metazoan life in a permanently anoxic and sulfidic environment provides a glimpse of what a good part of Earth’s past ecology might have been like in ‘Canfield oceans’, before the rise of deep marine oxygen levels and the appearance of the first large animals in the fossil record roughly 550-600 million years ago.”
N
Nozzferrahhtoo
Guest
Ricmat,
Insurance companies are a bad analogy because in fact they do have the data required to make estimates of probability. They have statistics on the number of houses, the number of fires which occur, and can therefore work out the probability of X number of fires occurring in a 12 month period. The same for Casinos. They DO have all the required information to make probabilistic estimates. What values do you think they lack?
We, again, have no such data. We do not know how often life arises. So again we lack the starting values required to make a probabilistic estimate.
Also, I have said this twice but you did not ask me to elaborate on it. Your position is suffering horribly from what is called “The two card game fallacy”. I shall elaborate on this now.
If you deal the 52 cards in a deck out in a row, the result is not remarkable. It simply happens as it happens. However if you were to suddenly assume that the result is remarkable, the first thing you will notice is that there is almost no chance of it having occurred. Do the math on this. The chances of even getting the first 5 cards that you did are 1 in 311875200. The cheap calculator built into my phone can not actually get past the probability of the first 15 cards before saying the number is out of memory range. Suffice to say however that if you spent the rest of your life, and the next 1000 generations of your descendants took up the mantel after you died, it is likely the same 52 cards would never be dealt by them again in that exact order.
People who estimate the probability of life occurring are making the SAME error. Exactly the same. They are assuming, wholesale, without any basis, that the cards dealt to make life as WE know it are the only way the cards can be dealt. We… simply… do… not… know… this… to… be… so. Anyone who says we do is lying through an orifice I will leave unnamed.
Take even the most basic and common assumptions we have made about life as an example. We thought life requires oxygen to occur? Uh-uh, false. Even that is not true. We have recently discovered life operating independently of oxygen:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100407094450.htm
So the books you cite can make up probability figures out of nowhere all they like but as I said they have 2 glaring problems that make their position wholly false:
- They have to assume the starting variable for life on earth in order to do it.
- They have to assume that life as we know it is the only one possible.
You talk of pulling an ace out of a standard deck, but this again misses my point. Again you need to know what a “standard deck” is and what it contains to make these claims. For all you know a “standard deck” is ALL aces. If you did not have these starting variables, your probabilities would be guess work. You DO know how many aces are in a deck. You do NOT know how many aces were in the deck that started life on earth off. Until we know how life occurred, we can not know the probability of that event having occurred, even BEFORE we assign it remarkability in retrospect in the “Two Card Game Fallacy”
R
ricmat
Guest
OK.
You seem to think that the book I recommended has to do with the probability of any kind of life arising. Or that it is somehow out to prove that it couldn’t have happened any other way.
In addition, you previously said that my sources (the book) are lying to me, even though you have not read the book to know what they are saying.
Remarkable.
The author is not trying to prove the possibility or impossibility of any type of life arising. If you read the book, you would know that. Instead you say they lie.
What they show is the probability of complex carbon based RNA / DNA arising from simple elements and compounds. And they’re not out to show it could not arise from other sources, they are commenting only on life as we know it. If you read the book, you would know that.
The book references for it’s calculations and assumptions peer reviewed papers and articles. If you read the book, you would know that.
You haven’t read the book, but you know they lie.
Remarkable.
Please, read the book, and tell me where they lie if you can.
- Status