Intelligent Design vs. Evolution: Evolution wins again. [Greg Laden's Blog]

[mrbananas]

If i roll a 6 sided die, there are 8 different possibilities. The die can land sides 1-6 normally or the die never lands on any side or it could land on multiple sides.
There are many conceivable ways as to how the die can end up not landing. The die could be is space and thus never stop rolling. My friend could catch the die in the air, the die could get destroyed in the middle of rolling (i drop the die into a vat of acid, or a super hot oven, or a volcano)
How could the die land on multiple sides? If i cut the die in half in the middle of the roll, its possible for the 6 and 1 to both be face up. The die could also be shattered into more than 2 pieces. Their are many ways that the die could shatter. It could shatter after the first bounce, it could get impacted in mid air by a number of things (ex.bullet). The die could also be in multiple pieces to begin with.

Considering that their are only 6 different events in which the die lands, and an inconceivably large number of events that could result in a #7 or #8 scenario, the probability of the die landing on just 3 normally (ie as a whole die) is
1/(6 + all the different ways you could conceive of the die not landing + all the different ways you could conceive of the die being broken)

thus the possibility of the one event,[the die landing normally on 3], is seemingly next to impossible when you include all conceivable outcomes of a die roll.

This is basically what your doing when you try to calculate the possibility of an evolutionary event happening. Your comparing it to all conceivably possible events, and ignoring any parameters necessary to make calculating an event useful.

If ever event is to be expressed as a probability in relation to all other conceivable events. Then any one event happening is infinitely improbable. IF infinitely improbable is to be considered as impossible, then nothing ever happens because every conceivable event would be impossible.
Since events do happen, then it can't be true that infinitely improbable = impossible.

If i make a lottery that uses a 10 million digit number for its winning ticket, but only print 10 tickets its still possible for one of those 10 tickets to be the winning ticket. I could randomly print just 1 ticket and it could be the winning ticket. I don't have to print 10 million tickets to get 1 winning ticket.

[Chaz]

mrbananas wrote:

If i roll a 6 sided die, there are 8 different possibilities. The die can land sides 1-6 normally or the die never lands on any side or it could land on multiple sides.
There are many conceivable ways as to how the die can end up not landing. The die could be is space and thus never stop rolling. My friend could catch the die in the air, the die could get destroyed in the middle of rolling (i drop the die into a vat of acid, or a super hot oven, or a volcano)
How could the die land on multiple sides? If i cut the die in half in the middle of the roll, its possible for the 6 and 1 to both be face up. The die could also be shattered into more than 2 pieces. Their are many ways that the die could shatter. It could shatter after the first bounce, it could get impacted in mid air by a number of things (ex.bullet). The die could also be in multiple pieces to begin with.
Considering that their are only 6 different events in which the die lands, and an inconceivably large number of events that could result in a #7 or #8 scenario, the probability of the die landing on just 3 normally (ie as a whole die) is
1/(6 + all the different ways you could conceive of the die not landing + all the different ways you could conceive of the die being broken)
thus the possibility of the one event,[the die landing normally on 3], is seemingly next to impossible when you include all conceivable outcomes of a die roll.
This is basically what your doing when you try to calculate the possibility of an evolutionary event happening. Your comparing it to all conceivably possible events, and ignoring any parameters necessary to make calculating an event useful.
If ever event is to be expressed as a probability in relation to all other conceivable events. Then any one event happening is infinitely improbable. IF infinitely improbable is to be considered as impossible, then nothing ever happens because every conceivable event would be impossible.
Since events do happen, then it can't be true that infinitely improbable = impossible.
If i make a lottery that uses a 10 million digit number for its winning ticket, but only print 10 tickets its still possible for one of those 10 tickets to be the winning ticket. I could randomly print just 1 ticket and it could be the winning ticket. I don't have to print 10 million tickets to get 1 winning ticket.

An excellent explanation of the fallacy inherent in the bogus probability calculation.

[Palawa]

Sheila wrote:

<quoted text>Hi, Palawa, we cool yet? Do you still hate me?

Hate is only for those who have something to lose, supporters of intelligent design are haters of truth and reality as they have every thing to lose. That's why they cause so many wars and destruction upon the planet. You're welcome to your hate and ideological fantasies, I couldn't care less, other than having a bit of a laugh at your deluded insanity.

[Sheila]

Palawa wrote:

<quoted text>
Hate is only for those who have something to lose, supporters of intelligent design are haters of truth and reality as they have every thing to lose. That's why they cause so many wars and destruction upon the planet. You're welcome to your hate and ideological fantasies, I couldn't care less, other than having a bit of a laugh at your deluded insanity.

Why are you being such a d!ckhead? If you had read my posts in the evolution thread you would see that I don't support intelligent design at all.

[Palawa]

Sheila wrote:

<quoted text> Why are you being such a d!ckhead? If you had read my posts in the evolution thread you would see that I don't support intelligent design at all.

I know you don't support intelligent design, however your an ideologist and a USA one. I do like to remind them of that, even when they look in mirrors and hope it is someone else in front of them. Plus I'm a bit bored today and the comments rarely provide any stimulating thought, so It's hard to write anything new and when you're bored, you make mistakes. But as a yank, I doubt you'd understand.

[LowellGuy]

Palawa wrote:

<quoted text>
I know you don't support intelligent design, however your an ideologist and a USA one. I do like to remind them of that, even when they look in mirrors and hope it is someone else in front of them. Plus I'm a bit bored today and the comments rarely provide any stimulating thought, so It's hard to write anything new and when you're bored, you make mistakes. But as a yank, I doubt you'd understand.

Don't you have to go rescue your baby from a dingo?

[Eric]

Good day guys. Honestly I see very little debate and a lot of mud slinging. However, in an attempt to reach a truth on the matter I will venture a topic. Should evolution be the sole manner in which life devoloped, how did the first cell come about. Even later, how did systems in our body come about that need every part in order to function? I would gladly hear the explinations.

[MIDutch]

Eric wrote:

Good day guys. Honestly I see very little debate and a lot of mud slinging. However, in an attempt to reach a truth on the matter I will venture a topic. Should evolution be the sole manner in which life devoloped, how did the first cell come about.

That is still uncertain, but there is a lot of work being done in the study of biochemical abiogenesis.

INCOMPLETE is NOT the same thing as invalid or useless.

Eric wrote:

Even later, how did systems in our body come about that need every part in order to function? I would gladly hear the explinations.

Evolution.

There is a LOT of information available on the internet, in your local library, at the local university of college.

If you are expecting a two paragraph "explanation" for the VAST amount of scientific evidence, information, data gathered over the course of 200+ years worth of scientific research on a (VERY limited and limiting) internet debate board, then you will be disappointed.

May I suggest doing some actual study, research and learning. Visit a museum, enroll in a basic biology course at your local community college, volunteer at an excavation site, visit Dinosaur National Monument, talk to your doctor, read some books, etc.

To get you started in this endeavor please allow me to direct you to this website:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/

It will show you what real science looks like and also give you a small glimpse into the MASSIVE amount of science that is being done in biology, paleontology, archaeology, biochemistry, physics, geology, etc. ALL of which support the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

Good luck with your continuing education.

[Darwins Stepchild]

Eric wrote:

Good day guys. Honestly I see very little debate and a lot of mud slinging. However, in an attempt to reach a truth on the matter I will venture a topic. Should evolution be the sole manner in which life devoloped, how did the first cell come about. Even later, how did systems in our body come about that need every part in order to function? I would gladly hear the explinations.

Evolution is the theory by which life DIVERSIFIES, not the means by which it developed. This is a major misconception with most people.

There are several ideas about how life arose, some are just-so stories and others have the status of scientific hypotheses. But nothing conclusive is known yet.

However, the theory of evolution does not deal with how life started. It is about how life changes over time. It STARTS with the assumption that life existed...which is clearly true. It also assumes that life does not replicate perfectly, which has been shown to be true. And it assumes that further replication is differential due to natural selection, which has a great deal of evidential support (as well as being a logical idea).

Thus, no matter how life first came to be on Earth, once there is life, evolution follows.

[Erasmus05]

Eric wrote:

Should evolution be the sole manner in which life devoloped, how did the first cell come about.

Evolution has always been an explanation of how life CHANGED OVER TIME. Abiogenesis is an explanation for how life first came about. Developmental biology describes how multicellular organisms develop into a multicellular organism from a single fertilized egg. You need to specify which topic you want to discuss, and then refer to the correct area of biology.

Even later, how did systems in our body come about that need every part in order to function?

A good analogy is the modern city. The first megacities (e.g. London, Rome) did not have electricity, gas mains, plumbing, etc. And yet, these cities functioned just fine. However, if you removed electricity, pressurized water, etc. from a modern city it will come to a stand still in just a few days. So how is that? Well, at one point these advances were luxuries. They made life easier but the city did not require them in order to function. After some time these luxuries became the norm and the city was slowly built around these luxuries to the the point that the city became dependent on them in order to function.

The same for evolution. When these functions first came about they were a handy feature to have, but not required. Over time the survival of the species became more and more dependent on that feature to the point that it became a requirement for the species to survive. A good example is the lung. Even today we can find fish that have both gills and a lung (e.g. lungfish). They can survive just fine in aerated water, and the lung offers them a survival advantage in brackish water that is low in oxygen. In the Devonian period there were no vertebrates on land so this early lung also gave them access to land where there was no competition. This allowed for selection of features which allowed movement on land. As these species moved farther and farther onto land the lung became more and more important, and the gills less so. After some time the lung was absolutely needed for the species to survive as they had become adapted to life on land.

[MIDutch]

Erasmus05 wrote:

<quoted text>
Evolution has always been an explanation of how life CHANGED OVER TIME. Abiogenesis is an explanation for how life first came about. Developmental biology describes how multicellular organisms develop into a multicellular organism from a single fertilized egg. You need to specify which topic you want to discuss, and then refer to the correct area of biology.
<quoted text>
A good analogy is the modern city. The first megacities (e.g. London, Rome) did not have electricity, gas mains, plumbing, etc. And yet, these cities functioned just fine. However, if you removed electricity, pressurized water, etc. from a modern city it will come to a stand still in just a few days. So how is that? Well, at one point these advances were luxuries. They made life easier but the city did not require them in order to function. After some time these luxuries became the norm and the city was slowly built around these luxuries to the the point that the city became dependent on them in order to function.
The same for evolution. When these functions first came about they were a handy feature to have, but not required. Over time the survival of the species became more and more dependent on that feature to the point that it became a requirement for the species to survive. A good example is the lung. Even today we can find fish that have both gills and a lung (e.g. lungfish). They can survive just fine in aerated water, and the lung offers them a survival advantage in brackish water that is low in oxygen. In the Devonian period there were no vertebrates on land so this early lung also gave them access to land where there was no competition. This allowed for selection of features which allowed movement on land. As these species moved farther and farther onto land the lung became more and more important, and the gills less so. After some time the lung was absolutely needed for the species to survive as they had become adapted to life on land.

Mr. Erasmus05, excellent example using the city; one I had not heard before.

[Erasmus05]

MIDutch wrote:

<quoted text>
Mr. Erasmus05, excellent example using the city; one I had not heard before.

It came to me a few years back when there were those massive blackouts on the eastern seaboard of the US. Just a few hours without electricity and people were acting like it was the end of the world. It made me think of how a Roman would have just sat there and laughed.

[Eric]

Erasmus05 wrote:

<quoted text>
A good analogy is the modern city. The first megacities (e.g. London, Rome) did not have electricity, gas mains, plumbing, etc. And yet, these cities functioned just fine. However, if you removed electricity, pressurized water, etc.

I like the example, however I think there is a basic flaw. Take electricity, there was not an evolution where first there were power lines (without energy running in them), and then there were power lines and a generator but no outlets, etc etc. There is a fundamental (functional) beginning. Of course how we produce and distribute electricity has "evolved" but only after the foundation has been laid to improve upon. In the case of the first lung, was it just a mathematical anomaly that one little fish mutated and grew a functional lung? Anything short of functional would be disastrous for the little fish, because nature dislikes "extra baggage". Unless the lady fish just liked someone with a useless lung in their chest, the trait would not be passed on through natural selection long enough to develope functionality. I see it more likely that systems, processes, and cycles are developed by intelligent minds, even in biology.

[Foie Gras Fox]

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
I like the example, however I think there is a basic flaw. Take electricity, there was not an evolution where first there were power lines (without energy running in them), and then there were power lines and a generator but no outlets, etc etc. There is a fundamental (functional) beginning. Of course how we produce and distribute electricity has "evolved" but only after the foundation has been laid to improve upon. In the case of the first lung, was it just a mathematical anomaly that one little fish mutated and grew a functional lung? Anything short of functional would be disastrous for the little fish, because nature dislikes "extra baggage". Unless the lady fish just liked someone with a useless lung in their chest, the trait would not be passed on through natural selection long enough to develope functionality. I see it more likely that systems, processes, and cycles are developed by intelligent minds, even in biology.

Much like the Cambrian Explosion. A phenomenon that even Darwin admitted undermined his theory of evolution and remains unexplained. Also, Darwin's theory conveniently doesn't mention botany because plant species seems to have no need of evolving. The majority of plants haven't changed at all or only slightly over millions of years.

Charles Darwin on his Theory of Evolution:

He confessed to a fellow scientist "It is a mere rag of a hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts...but I can carry in it my fruit to market...a poor rag is better than nothing to carry one's fruit to market in."

Darwin once wrote to a friend that he prided himself as an expert in the "master art of wriggling."

He admitted to fellow scientist Asa Grey about his book 'The Origin of Species' "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

It seems silly to believe in the Theory of Evolution simply because there is no known acceptable or third alternative. IMO.

[Noodly James]

Foie Gras Fox wrote:

<quoted text>
Much like the Cambrian Explosion. A phenomenon that even Darwin admitted undermined his theory of evolution and remains unexplained. Also, Darwin's theory conveniently doesn't mention botany because plant species seems to have no need of evolving. The majority of plants haven't changed at all or only slightly over millions of years.

Cambrian "explosion" is explained. Plants do evolve. Where do you get your claims from? AIG?

Foie Gras Fox wrote:

Charles Darwin on his Theory of Evolution:
He confessed to a fellow scientist "It is a mere rag of a hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts...but I can carry in it my fruit to market...a poor rag is better than nothing to carry one's fruit to market in."

We don't care what Darwin said especially when taken out of context.

Foie Gras Fox wrote:

It seems silly to believe in the Theory of Evolution simply because there is no known acceptable or third alternative. IMO.

We don't accept evolution "because there is no alternative". We accept it because it explains the observed facts. This is what science is. IMHO you need to read more about the theory BEFORE you attack it. BTW I like your screen name.

[Noodly James]

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
I like the example, however I think there is a basic flaw. Take electricity, there was not an evolution where first there were power lines (without energy running in them), and then there were power lines and a generator but no outlets, etc etc. There is a fundamental (functional) beginning. Of course how we produce and distribute electricity has "evolved" but only after the foundation has been laid to improve upon. In the case of the first lung, was it just a mathematical anomaly that one little fish mutated and grew a functional lung? Anything short of functional would be disastrous for the little fish, because nature dislikes "extra baggage". Unless the lady fish just liked someone with a useless lung in their chest, the trait would not be passed on through natural selection long enough to develope functionality. I see it more likely that systems, processes, and cycles are developed by intelligent minds, even in biology.

The lung FIRST presented (conjecture here) as a gas absorbing mucosal patch in the proximal GI tract which enabled gas exchange and hence improved survivability without immersion. These sorts of changes are found in evolutionary development (see Endless forms most beautiful). While I am an atheist I have no problem with people preferring the presence of a deity to the absence. My issue is when people attempt to insert this claim into science. Science doesn't require or dismiss the presence of a designer and inserting either of these claims would derail the scientific process.

[Andrew]

nina wrote:

evolution rules
religion drools

That makes no sense.

[Eric]

So what is the explanation? This is a debate, right? We are not seriously going to start saying, "You are wrong and should read more." That, in no way, seeks truth. So, how is Cambrian explosion explained by evolutionist and in what way was the quotes from Darwin taken out of context.

Like you, I do not care for this to become a religious discussion. I simply point out that it is unlikely that in a system where everything is governed by mathematics (ex. the golden ratio) things happened by chance. Most secular scientist discard the idea that these things could have been designed before they really even consider the possibility.

[Eric]

I like the explanation of the lung, are you saying that it originally started out as a sort of defect that caused better survivability?

[Kong_]

Eric wrote:

So what is the explanation? This is a debate, right? We are not seriously going to start saying, "You are wrong and should read more." That, in no way, seeks truth. So, how is Cambrian explosion explained by evolutionist and in what way was the quotes from Darwin taken out of context.
Like you, I do not care for this to become a religious discussion. I simply point out that it is unlikely that in a system where everything is governed by mathematics (ex. the golden ratio) things happened by chance. Most secular scientist discard the idea that these things could have been designed before they really even consider the possibility.

The Cambrian 'Explosion' was hardly a sudden event:

"The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden."

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.h...