Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 199154 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

FREE SERVANT

United States

#120415 Aug 19, 2014
In the real world nothing can be made without a plan and in nature these plans are patterns.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120416 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr. James Coppedge an expert in statistical probability puts it this way:..the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10 to the 161st power using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began....That's just the beginning!
For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life the probability is 1 in 10 followed by 119, 879 zeros.
When the evolutionists began saying that life arose by chance, math could be used to measure the probabilities of that chance.
of course since it conflicts with their beliefs , they dismiss the math.
yes, I have seen such calculations like that. They are uniformly wrong and for a very simple reason: they assume each step is probabilistically independent from every other step. This is known not to be the case. The way these calculations work is that they multiply a LOT of different probabilities together to get the odds you see. But that means *any* dependence of the different stages is completely ignored. It means that *any* differences in the interactions are completely ignored.

For example, the types of interaction between hydrogen and oxygen atoms is quite different than those between hydrogen and carbon, or between carbon and nitrogen, etc. That simple fact alone means the probabilities are not independent. But it goes much, much further. Any time there is a feedback loop in your system, the probabilities are NOT independent. Any time the probabilities are not independent, the calculation of the end result is MUCH more complicated.

I can set up a simple demonstration of the difference between independent probabilities and what happens in the real world as follows: Write out a string of, say, 150 characters where each character can be one of, say 90 possibilities (upper case, lower case, spaces, punctuation). Then ask how long it would take to find a *specific* string of your choosing.

Well, the probability of finding that one string is 1 in 90^150. If you guessed 100 times each second, it would take much longer than the age of the universe (13 billion years) many times over to find your target string. this is how those making creationist claims work their calculations.

But, suppose instead I randomly take 50 strings, each with 150 characters. I select the 5 that are closest to the target string. Then I have each of those produce 10 'children' by randomly selecting a spot in the string and randomly changing it. That gives 50 children, all chosen 'randomly'.

Now, again, I select the 5 that are closest to the target string and do the same process over again. NOW how long does it take to find the target string? You can do the actual experiment on your computer and it will find your target string in a few minutes.

The point is that in the latter process, the later stages are dependent on the earlier ones. That means the calculation of probabilities by multiplication does not work. Instead a much, much more subtle calculation needs to be done.

In the case of life in the real world, we do not know all of the dependencies to even begin the calculation. ANYONE claiming to do such a calculation is lying or simply ignorant. I think the person you quoted is both.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120417 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you are again ....it took a hundred million years for life to form! Time is not a mechanism! time did not cause life!
Time isn't the cause, bu the chemical reactions take time to occur. They take time to mix. They take time to build up concentrations.
So you believe your compounds just floated around for millions of years waiting to self organize and spring to life? Earlier you said its just a matter of the proper chemicals in the proper mixture and life goes shazzam!, chemical reaction!
You really are grasping at straws aren't you?
And those chemical reactions take time. At the least, it takes time for the concentrations to build up.
Why not just claim ,as some have faced with the enormous complexity of life,that aliens seeded the earth , it would save you from all that meandering about
All that does is push the question back a stage. Life *still* would arise by chemical means in some environment. And yes, alternative environments are being considered. But given the variety of chemicals and environments on the early Earth, there is still a LOT to investigate right here.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120418 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
This not a word game like scrabble,..there are only two possibilities as I've stated, we can say created or it created itself, we can say caused or uncaused
1. requires a creator or a cause
2. requires nothing as a cause or creator
or....
3. duck the question, hide and play semantic word games
Speaking of option three, you ignored my last rather thorough rebuttal of your assertions. Why's that, Bo?
FREE SERVANT

United States

#120421 Aug 19, 2014
Step by step plans must be set forth for anything such as a machine that functions to be made. Intelligence is needed to set up the assembly process in the first place. Machines can be programmed to make other machines, but always according to a pattern that is shown for them to follow. Nature works this way, and things are reproduced from patterns of former things. We could say that life unfolds to be what it is to be following instructions that are shown through patterns.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120422 Aug 19, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
So sue me, I was at work then and working from memory. It was SANDSTONE, not Limestone.
.
<quoted text>
Please be so kind as to repost that link. Somehow I feel that you're missing something -- or the link itself is the problem.
.
I couldn't find my original link, but I did find similar data referencing the same 70% similarity.
http://blog.drwile.com/...
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120423 Aug 19, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, I have seen such calculations like that. They are uniformly wrong and for a very simple reason: they assume each step is probabilistically independent from every other step. This is known not to be the case. The way these calculations work is that they multiply a LOT of different probabilities together to get the odds you see. But that means *any* dependence of the different stages is completely ignored. It means that *any* differences in the interactions are completely ignored.
For example, the types of interaction between hydrogen and oxygen atoms is quite different than those between hydrogen and carbon, or between carbon and nitrogen, etc. That simple fact alone means the probabilities are not independent. But it goes much, much further. Any time there is a feedback loop in your system, the probabilities are NOT independent. Any time the probabilities are not independent, the calculation of the end result is MUCH more complicated.
I can set up a simple demonstration of the difference between independent probabilities and what happens in the real world as follows: Write out a string of, say, 150 characters where each character can be one of, say 90 possibilities (upper case, lower case, spaces, punctuation). Then ask how long it would take to find a *specific* string of your choosing.
Well, the probability of finding that one string is 1 in 90^150. If you guessed 100 times each second, it would take much longer than the age of the universe (13 billion years) many times over to find your target string. this is how those making creationist claims work their calculations.
But, suppose instead I randomly take 50 strings, each with 150 characters. I select the 5 that are closest to the target string. Then I have each of those produce 10 'children' by randomly selecting a spot in the string and randomly changing it. That gives 50 children, all chosen 'randomly'.
Now, again, I select the 5 that are closest to the target string and do the same process over again. NOW how long does it take to find the target string? You can do the actual experiment on your computer and it will find your target string in a few minutes.
The point is that in the latter process, the later stages are dependent on the earlier ones. That means the calculation of probabilities by multiplication does not work. Instead a much, much more subtle calculation needs to be done.
In the case of life in the real world, we do not know all of the dependencies to even begin the calculation. ANYONE claiming to do such a calculation is lying or simply ignorant. I think the person you quoted is both.
.
So what is the probability? Go best case scenario.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120424 Aug 19, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you care what's being tested?
Evidence doesn't matter to your position. Testing doesn't matter to your position.
So how come all you can do is ask dishonest questions.
.
And why can't you produce the data?
FREE SERVANT

United States

#120425 Aug 19, 2014
Contrary to what evolutionists want the public to believe, the Creationists camp is still in the battle and the guys in the white lab coats on the other side should be getting the flags of surrender ready. I expect this will really make them mad now, but both sides will be heard from unless our freedom of speech is taken from us by the lawless ones on their side.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120426 Aug 19, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
So what is the probability? Go best case scenario.
Like I said, ANYONE who claims to have such a probability is either a liar or ignorant. We simply do not know the relevant facts to calculate such a thing.

For example, we do not know what the correct initial materials are. We do not know what the probability is that a planet will have such materials. We do not know what the probability is that a planet will be the right distance from its star, etc. ALL of these are required to even give an estimate of the probability.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120427 Aug 19, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Contrary to what evolutionists want the public to believe, the Creationists camp is still in the battle and the guys in the white lab coats on the other side should be getting the flags of surrender ready. I expect this will really make them mad now, but both sides will be heard from unless our freedom of speech is taken from us by the lawless ones on their side.
Dream your little dreams ...
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120428 Aug 19, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
In the real world nothing can be made without a plan and in nature these plans are patterns.
In the real world everything is made without a plan.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120429 Aug 19, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is often simplicity that is evidence of intelligence: smooth lines where nature produces complex ones, perfect squares when nature tends not to produce such. Even out more complex devices have simple lines in them that nature does not make spontaneously. THAT is the evidence for intelligence.
Nature is often, even typically complex, with multiple feedback loops and multiple causes for most events.
.
Why would you think that a smooth line is less complex than a jagged one. Certainly if you are trying to express it mathematically it is more complex but if you are trying to form rock a smooth line is far more complex. If we took a look a a pyramid when newly contructed where it has facing stones smooth and a knife edge cannot fit in the joints, would one conclude that this is less complex than a pile of rock?
.
Now I will give you that in looking for an explanation simple is an indication of intelligence.
Occam's razor
FREE SERVANT

United States

#120430 Aug 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
In the real world everything is made without a plan.
Only In nightmare scenarios!
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120431 Aug 19, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, ANYONE who claims to have such a probability is either a liar or ignorant. We simply do not know the relevant facts to calculate such a thing.
For example, we do not know what the correct initial materials are. We do not know what the probability is that a planet will have such materials. We do not know what the probability is that a planet will be the right distance from its star, etc. ALL of these are required to even give an estimate of the probability.
.
This doesn't stop people from making claims. Can you apply this to those who are saying we descended from a common ancestor 6 million years ago.
.
I have supplied two studies now, which measure the difference in the genome at 30% between a man and a chimp. Multiplying this by the 6 billion pairs and dividing by 2 (although I would think this is an assumption also but for Turkana Boy I will include it) leaves 900 million changes (I claimed before 90 million) in 6 million years. I have asked are we the seeing 15 changes in base pairs per year required to achieve this change in 6 million years?
Looks like we need 150 changes per year! Keep in mind this is not on an individual level, whatever changes occur in an individual must be passed on and incorporated into the gene pool as a whole. This may require more than the 900 million changes.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120432 Aug 19, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Only In nightmare scenarios!
.
Maybe he's thinking of the government.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120433 Aug 19, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Life is extinct? When did that happen?
Why do you think you can make a valid argument when you can't even put together a coherent query correctly?
That's just it, isn't it? You're here for the sake of argumentation, right or wrong doesn't make a difference. The Bible "predicted" people would call out your BS and that's what you're here for - your daily martyr whipping.
.
Does life need to be extinct for a new life to come into existence? How do you know there weren't multiple cells being formed nearly simultaneously in different parts of the Earth?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120434 Aug 19, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Contrary to what evolutionists want the public to believe, the Creationists camp is still in the battle and the guys in the white lab coats on the other side should be getting the flags of surrender ready. I expect this will really make them mad now, but both sides will be heard from unless our freedom of speech is taken from us by the lawless ones on their side.
Creationists are not in the battle to understand and explain the world around us. Creationists are in a cultural battle that offers nothing in the way of explanation. I wouldn't want them silenced because every time one of them says something inanely ridiculous, they do more damage to their own cause that anything I can possibly say.

Funny, if you read the Wedge Strategy document or pretty much the statements of faith from most Creationist organizations (AIG, ARN, and ICR come to mind) you will see who is most interested in silencing their opposition. Like 'Freedom of Religion', most creationists seem to define 'Free Speech' as you are free to say anything you want, as long as you are saying what I allow you to say. Your idea of Freedom of Religion seems to be "I am free to believe as I wish and you are free to believe as I wish as well!"

Very few scientists have called for stopping religion, the most they say is religious beliefs are not science and do not belong in the science classroom as science. Funny many more theists have called for stopping science, particularly biology.

No white flags needed. You might actually think about what the world would be really like if you managed to replace real functioning science with your particular strain of a religious belief. Electricity, cars, gasoline, even things like television and radio. Tell me, how many scientific advances have been made based on Creationism? Not by someone claiming to be a Creationist, but advances based on Creationism? You won't even need any fingers to count them up.

You can crawl back into a cave, or choose to live as if it were 1850. But you do not have the right to make that decision for the rest of us. Thank goodness!
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120435 Aug 19, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Only In nightmare scenarios!
Only in YOUR nightmare scenarios.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120436 Aug 19, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationists are not in the battle to understand and explain the world around us. Creationists are in a cultural battle that offers ....
TED!

Long time, no see! Welcome back!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 1 min Old Sam 34,960
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 2 min Old Sam 7,635
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 4 min Old Sam 8,670
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) (Dec '14) 8 min Old Sam 4,028
tell me a lie 9 min Liar Liar 5
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 9 min Old Sam 82,101
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 9 min Princess Hey 3,186
2words into 2new words (May '12) 12 min Sharlene45 2,133
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 35 min Northbound 7,392
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 53 min streetglidehoney 56,716
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 1 hr streetglidehoney 7,126
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr grace-fallen 192,671
More from around the web