News:

Look, I haven't mentioned Zeus, Buddah, or some religion.

Main Menu

"A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan

Started by Gerry Rzeppa, December 17, 2014, 11:01:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Niya

I don't see how this is moving us forward Gerry, so I will just say if you want to understand and learn about evolution, you need to look at it from a fresh perspective. What you are rounding up as objections are irrelevant at best. What does it matter if if evolution is aesthetically balanced or not or mathematically possible or not? what matters is if its true or not, if it is (for which there is hard evidence you don't want to look at), its objective truth. And it would be unwise to reject truth on personal preferences.
Not that anyone cares what I say, but the Restaurant is on the other end of the universe." –Marvin
-----
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Gerry Rzeppa

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 30, 2014, 03:30:12 AMIt was going to happen somewhere, and it happened here, and we are the beneficiaries because we are here. 

What makes you think "it was going to happen somewhere"? Your argument reminds me of this one:

"...if we shuffle a deck of cards and then examine the particular ordering of the cards that happens to result, we would be justified in concluding that the probability of this particular ordering of the cards having occurred is approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 68th power. This certainly qualifies as minuscule. Still, we would not be justified in concluding that the shuffles could not have possibly resulted in this particular ordering because its a priori probability is so very tiny. Some ordering had to result from the shuffling, and this one did." (What?s wrong with Creationist Probability ? Mathematics Professor John Allen Paulos of Temple University)

Sounds reasonable, on the surface, but it's misleading. Paulos is confounding the probability that an arbitrary sequence will result after shuffling (which is a certainty) with the probability that a particular sequence will result (which has 1 chance in 10^68 of occurring). It's surprising that a professor of mathematics would make such a misleading statement. I wonder if he had a hidden agenda.

Gerry Rzeppa

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 30, 2014, 07:11:34 AMAs for the math, Bruce already answered that one. People's intuition are limited but you have to understand on some abstract level just how large the universe is at minimum, and how long it's been around.

Here's the thing I find suspicious. I look on the web and I find thousands of pages that calculate the probability of evolution based on certain clearly stated assumptions; all of them conclude it is virtually zero. I also find thousands of pages that claim those former pages are wrong. The curious thing is that I've never seen these latter pages answer in kind -- I've never seen them state their assumptions, show their calculations, and exhibit their concluding figure.

In short, these latter pages are big on telling us where the other guy went wrong, but not so big on telling us what's right. Surely, with all the resources that have been poured into evolutionary studies since Darwin, some non-creationist must have calculated a general probability for the thing. So what is it? What is the probability that human life evolved on this planet, and how do you arrive at that figure?

Gerry Rzeppa

Quote from: Niya on December 30, 2014, 07:22:30 AMWhat does it matter if evolution is... mathematically possible or not? what matters is if its true or not... it would be unwise to reject truth on personal preferences.

Can something be both a true account and a mathematically impossible account at the same time? I don't think so, and I don't think that's a mere personal preference.

Dobermonster

How the fuck does somebody think it's possible to definitively calculate the probability of abiogenesis when we know so little about abiogenesis? At some point you'd have to just start guessing at figures.

xSilverPhinx

Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis, Gerry. Niya already told you that.

Anyways I have a plane to catch. Intuition says that something that heavy shouldn't fly but science says it can. And it does.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Gerry Rzeppa

Quote from: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 09:27:58 AM
How the fuck does somebody think it's possible to definitively calculate the probability of abiogenesis when we know so little about abiogenesis? At some point you'd have to just start guessing at figures.

Perhaps. But the exercise may still be enlightening. For example, in 1961 Frank Drake proposed a formula for estimating the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation).

More recently, Sara Seger proposed an equation to estimate the probability of identifying an inhabited world within the next decade:

(http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/events/2013/postkepler/Exoplanets_in_the_Post_Kepler_Era/Program_files/Seager.pdf)

Now of course both of these scientists are involved with the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and thus believe, however they may carefully phrase it, that intelligent design can be detected from afar. But that's not the point. The point is that they are willing (and even anxious) to consider how mathematically probable their theories are. Where is the evolutionary equivalent of the Drake and Seager equations?


Dobermonster

#217
We would be the point? We know it happened. If you want to play around with numbers, go ahead.

And don't put your own words into the mouths of scientists. That's deceptive and intellectually dishonest to assert that scientists looking for other life are in search of "intelligent design" as *you* mean it.

ETA: And also dishonest to try to press an intellectual exercise into service as "proof" that something is impossible when you know very well that that is beyond ridiculous. Just how far are you willing to go to preserve your beliefs?

Crow

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 06:02:13 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 29, 2014, 11:21:35 AMHow is that not aesthetically pleasing, Gerry? All these predictions and confirmations.

Mathematically impossible trumps aesthetically pleasing.

That old bit of nonsense. You get that from the website that contains no math? Which has logical falicies and uses systems that are unique to maths to disregard whole areas of science that have nothing to do with it. I'm not going to waste my time arguing against it as there are many who have ripped it a new asshole over and over again and if you are looking for a proper retort to it there are many out there. But then again one fits into your narrow world view and the others don't so I wouldn't be surprised if you had no idea that it is considered to be trash not just by the scientific community but mathematicians as well.
Retired member.

Gerry Rzeppa

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 30, 2014, 10:41:28 AMAnyways I have a plane to catch. Intuition says that something that heavy shouldn't fly but science says it can. And it does.

You imply that I've argued that intuition is the only or best way to gather information. I've said no such thing. Intuition is one of the faculties that we have for discovering things. It is best used in conjunction with all of our other faculties. In fact, we are usually closest to the truth when all our faculties agree.

It should also be noted intuition is based on both inherited and environmental factors and, like mathematical ability and linguistic skill, varies greatly from person to person. A child who has never held a helium-filled balloon in his hand might be surprised when the Good Year blimp takes off; an experienced hot-air balloon enthusiast will not be. If you evolutionists had more evolutionary balloons for the rest of us to play with, our intuitions might prove to be less of a stumbling block. Since none was offered, I made up my own little balloon earlier in this thread (my "Random Mutation and Natural Selection Simulation" program). But it didn't help because it was obviously (a) designed by an intelligent being, (b) coded by an intelligent being, (c) tuned by an intelligent being, and (d) didn't appear to be the kind of solution that any competent engineer (like God) would ever implement -- too inefficient, too fragile, too sensitive, etc.

What I've objected to in this tread is the reversal of ubiquitous and time-tested mature human intuitions without sufficient explanation to "develop" those intuitions to the point where they would cease to be a stumbling block. Why, for example, should Mother Nature's way of creating things (including we ourselves) be the exact opposite of the way we create things? And how could creatures such as we, who consistently create with the concept-design-construction paradigm, ever emerge from a Mother whose nearly irresistible ways are so directly contrary?



Dobermonster

The evidence for evolution is vast, vast, vast. *Nothing* in biology makes sense without it. If you haven't found enough to satisfy you then you haven't looked. If you haven't looked, you're not actually interested in learning, and if you're not interested in learning then what is point of having the discussion?

Gerry Rzeppa

Quote from: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 11:48:43 AM*Nothing* in biology makes sense without [evolution].

Nonsense. See http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp

Quote from: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 11:48:43 AMThe evidence for evolution is vast, vast, vast... If you haven't found enough to satisfy you then you haven't looked. If you haven't looked, you're not actually interested in learning, and if you're not interested in learning then what is point of having the discussion?

I'm interested in learning about the mathematical probability of the evolution of human life on this planet. Creationist mathematicians tell me it's essentially nil; they state their assumptions, show their calculations, and present their conclusions. I'm looking for the same kind of thing by an evolutionist so I can compare the assumptions, calculations, and conclusions. Got a link?

Dobermonster

Nonsense.
Yes, you can function in many specific scientific careers without directly using the theory of evolution in the same way you can build a bridge without giving a thought to the theory of relativity. That doesn't mean that either theory isn't essential in biology and physics, respectively. Evolutionary theory unifies every field in biology, but there are many opportunities to work in each field or understand the specifics of biological concepts without understanding the bigger picture.

We know humans evolved on the planet. Speculating on the probability of it occurring is at best intellectual masturbation. Which, no offense, you are on your own with. It's not evidence for or against evolution. There is no evidence against evolution. If the people who wrote those websites had genuine evidence that overthrew the theory of evolution, they wouldn't be on the internet, they would be in the newspaper as the next recipients of the Nobel Prize for Biology.

Asmodean

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 12:23:12 PM
I'm interested in learning about the mathematical probability of the evolution of human life on this planet. Creationist mathematicians tell me it's essentially nil; they state their assumptions, show their calculations, and present their conclusions. I'm looking for the same kind of thing by an evolutionist so I can compare the assumptions, calculations, and conclusions. Got a link?
The mathematical probability for evolution taking place is completely irrelevant because evolution is ongoing.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Niya

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 12:23:12 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 11:48:43 AM*Nothing* in biology makes sense without [evolution].

Nonsense. See http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp

Quote from: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 11:48:43 AMThe evidence for evolution is vast, vast, vast... If you haven't found enough to satisfy you then you haven't looked. If you haven't looked, you're not actually interested in learning, and if you're not interested in learning then what is point of having the discussion?

I'm interested in learning about the mathematical probability of the evolution of human life on this planet. Creationist mathematicians tell me it's essentially nil; they state their assumptions, show their calculations, and present their conclusions. I'm looking for the same kind of thing by an evolutionist so I can compare the assumptions, calculations, and conclusions. Got a link?


What? Gerry, the article at trueorgin doesn't even attempt to discredit the paper by Dobzhansky. Are you really going to throw this on the table?
Not that anyone cares what I say, but the Restaurant is on the other end of the universe." –Marvin
-----
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy