Coragyps

The scientific calculator in "accessories" on Windows 98 will go to at least 12000! = 1.2 x 10^43741 or so...

lpetrich

Suburban:
DNA is information. Information is orderly and cannot arise from chaos absent some sort of intelligence behind it.

DNA is a molecule. And what do you mean by "information"?

To propose that every species on Earth arose from one common ancestor is preposterous (to be kind).

How so? The biochemical unity of life is truly remarkable.

The Burgess Shale should be enough proof for anyone that the number of species has been in decline for some time (whether that be hundreds of thousands or billions of years is absolutely irrelevant).

How is that supposed to be the case?

For evolution to be supported, the number of species would have to be ever increasing.Were that not the case, we would still only have that very first species.

Evolution does NOT require such an uninterrupted increase; why does it supposedly require such an increase?

lpetrich

It is a credit to modern science that plausible solutions have been discovered for many of the problems mentioned below; I wonder where "Suburban" had got them from.

Suburban:
The appearance of the first living cell requires the following:

This is abiogenesis, not evolution (what happens afterwards). The first organism could have been the result of time travelers seeding the Earth in order to assure that they will some day come into existence, but evolution can still happen.

- The accidental creation of a functional strand of DNA. This represents one chance in 10^600 (10 to the 600th power, a 1 followed by 600 zeroes).

That's 4^1000, which means getting 1000 nucleotides exactly right. However, such precision is unnecessary in most cases.

- The accidental creation of the 2,000 proteins needed as enzymes by cells. This represents odds of 1 in 10^40,000.

However, the "RNA world" hypothesis states that the original enzymes were RNA molecules and not proteins, meaning that enzymes could replicate themselves. Both DNA and proteins were invented as outgrowths of the original RNA enzymes -- DNA for master copies and proteins as cofactors of RNA enzymes that eventually become most or all of these enzymes. Some enzymes still have bits of modified RNA doing cofactor duty; this "vestigial RNA" seems to me to be an especially strong argument for the existence of a one-time RNA world.

- The simultaneous accidental creation of all the necessary components of the most primitive form of life, assembled in the correct configuration. The odds against this are not even reasonably calculable.

Except that the first living thing could have been a RNA or RNA-precursor molecule that assisted its replication.

- The odds against a perfect mixture of chemicals in the right place

What "perfect mixture" is supposed to be necessary?

- The odds against an external influence that is perfectly suited to creating life from the chemicals

Whatever that is supposed to be.

- The odds against creating a functional cell membrane

A cell membrane is essentially a kind of soap bubble, though with pores and various other structures embedded in it. These can easily be later elaborations, however.

- The odds against creating cytoplasm

Cytoplasm is the stuff inside a cell membrane. Are you asking about the composition necessary for the cell to function?

- The odds against creating functional organelles within the cyoplasm

Except that prokaryotic organisms usually do not have organelles, except if ribosomes count as organelles.

- The odds against creating a nucleus within the cytoplasm

Except that prokaryotic organisms seem to do OK without one. Their genetic material simply floats in the cell interior.

As to the origin of the eukaryotic-cell nucleus, that is a difficult question, though it may have been the result of one prokaryote inhabiting another one (endosymbiosis). This would be like the origin of the mitochondria and chloroplasts, except that the cell inside gained instead of lost genetic material.

- The odds against creating a properly-coded DNA strand

All that one needs is a single RNA or RNA-precursor strand that can assist the self-replication of other copies of itself. The rest can come later.

- The odds against creating all the necessary amino acids and proteins to support the DNA

The simpler ones can be produced in prebiotic-chemisty experiments, including the original Urey-Miller experiment itself.

Proteins were likely invented as enzyme cofactors, as I'd mentioned earlier.

- The odds against containing the DNA along with its support chemicals within the nucleus

Except that there was originally no nucleus!

- The odds against all of that being contained within the cell membrane

A simpler system is more easily "captured" by proto-membranes.

- The odds against the environment of the cell being hospitable to life

Except that prebiotic chemistry in liquid water is all that's really necessary.

- The odds against there being nutrients available for the cell

Prebiotic chemistry to the rescue!

- The odds against the DNA being matched to the cell

Except that the original RNA or RNA precursor need not be matched to anything except itself.

- The odds against the DNA being coded to initiate mitosis

Except that the original cell division was likely growing too big and spontaneously splitting. Better-organized division was a later invention. Bacteria divide with the help of some protein that forms a ring around the middle of the cell -- a ring that shrinks itself, splitting the cell in two.

Each of these defies statistical odds that any rational statistician would consider absolutely impossible. Yet we are to believe that EVERY ONE of these impossible things occured simultaneously.

That is the biggest load of taurine feces I've seen in a long time.

Looking over that list, several of these occurrences are independent of each other, and some seemingly impossible ones are known to happen.

ftorresgamez

To be "satistically speaking", you would need to use a statician's language.

Your assumption begs the question: How do you know information cannot arise from chaos?

"For evolution to be supported..." means you assume it is like that. Once again, your assumption begs the question: How do you know evolution is valid if the number of species increases? Even so, unless you have made a total inventory of living species, you are just guessing.

Oolon Colluphid

Aberdeen has been in contact with me, so I'm bumping this for his attention.

Since his email contains nothing personal, but does make further points for his claims, I'll let him come here, but if not, after an appropriate space of time I'll let you all eviscerate it, just for the exercise.

Cheers, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid

Okay, here’s Aberdeen’s reply to me. He said he didn’t have time to reply to this thread, as he’s busy getting his book ready for publication. However, he had time for the following exchange. I reproduce it without explicit permission, because he came here asking for comments, and because his emails contain nothing ‘personal’. If he’s putting this stuff into a book, he surely cannot mind if we discuss it. My logic will become apparent...

*************************

My book does not attempt to prove or disprove evolutionary theory--it merely points out some obvious weak points--some of these weakness are explainable, but the explanations require as many leaps of faith as does any religion I am aware of.

My argument with the theory of evolution by Natural Selection is that a) It fails to address primary cause and b) it attempts to 'prove' that the grand design grandly designed all by itself without the aid of a Grand Designer. There is no proof that design happens all by itself and believing it does in my opinion, takes more assumptive faith than believing in all of the world's religions combined. That is the argument put forth in my book and if it is not clear, then I failed in clarity, not in facts. I have not tried to prove current theory right or wrong, so it would be hard for my book to be incorrect (or correct), as the conclusion in the book is that modern science does not know and neither do I.

Based on my own research into science in general, which is considerable, science has an established track record of being fundamentally wrong about major postulates over the course of historical time. It has no track record of ever being essentially correct; for example, Newton supplanted previous theory, Einstein supplanted Newton and now Hubble appears to indicate that Einstein was also wrong in fundamental theory of gravity and light. Thus, the only thing dependable about science is that we can depend on it to fundamentally change in theory over time. For someone to assume that evolution by Natural Selection is fundamentally correct is to assume in the face of all known history and track record of science, which like I pointed out, requires more blind faith than believing in all of the world's religions combined.

If we don't really know how the Creator creates, then we don't know and it would be refreshing if modern 'scientists' quoted on PBS, the Discovery Channel and the Science Channel would be brave enough to look into the camera and say "I don't know much for certain", rather than "Natural Selection is an absolute fact" and other unproven assumption that I consistently hear stated. I have heard some scientists say that we really don't know, just like my book concludes---just a couple of weeks ago, one biologist said that in 50 years, the current theory of evolution by Natural Selection is likely to be a long since disregarded mistake in fundamental assumption, as the evidence clearly points to the fact that we really don't know very much at all.

Oolon Colluphid

... and here’s my reply:

***********************

My book does not attempt to prove or disprove evolutionary theory--it merely points out some obvious weak points

And, we at the Infidels would contend (as would just about every worker in the fields involved), fails miserably. Why not come along and try it out -- if you’re interested in the truth of the matter, that is, rather than just ranting and selling your rants to a gullible public...?

--some of these weakness are explainable, but the explanations require as many leaps of faith as does any religion I am aware of.

Nonsense, old chap. The thread is here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=58759
And I’ll bump it for your attention.

Do you mind if I post your ideas below in that thread? You could then see our responses if you like, but wouldn’t have to participate if you don’t have the time.

My argument with the theory of evolution by Natural Selection is that a) It fails to address primary cause

Well duh. See my post at the top of page 3.

and b) it attempts to 'prove' that the grand design grandly designed all by itself without the aid of a Grand Designer. There is no proof that design happens all by itself

There is no ‘proof, anywhere in science. Only accumulated evidence.

and believing it does in my opinion, takes more assumptive faith than believing in all of the world's religions combined.

Well you are welcome to have your unfounded opinion.

That is the argument put forth in my book and if it is not clear, then I failed in clarity,

Oh no, your opinion is perfectly clear.

not in facts.

You don’t seem well acquainted with the facts. Come to the thread and let me explain.

I have not tried to prove current theory right or wrong,

No, you would rather just call those ‘believers’ “baboons”, whose “twisted vicious reasoning” is “complete and utter monkey shit”.

so it would be hard for my book to be incorrect (or correct),

I suppose so. It is, after all, mere ranting.

as the conclusion in the book is that modern science does not know and neither do I.

You’re half right.

Based on my own research into science in general, which is considerable,

Then I call you a liar. (That’s only fair, after all you’ve said about ‘believers’.)

science has an established track record of being fundamentally wrong about major postulates over the course of historical time. It has no track record of ever being essentially correct; for example, Newton supplanted previous theory,

Newton’s was the first coherent theory.

Einstein supplanted Newton

Not that old chestnut again! Newton is still good enough to send a probe out past Saturn. Relativity did not overturn Newton, it merely showed ‘him’ to be incomplete and not universally applicable in all circumstances. All of ‘Newton’ flows from relativity. Newton was not wrong, just not the last word on the subject.

That you do not know this is why I consider your talk of ‘considerable scientific research’ to be a lie. And that you use this hoary old fable is indicative of the sorts of sources you have been using for whatever researches you have done.

and now Hubble appears to indicate that Einstein was also wrong in fundamental theory of gravity and light.

Blah blah blah. Your thread awaits, sir.

Thus, the only thing dependable about science is that we can depend on it to fundamentally change in theory over time.

I suppose that if you’d been around in the 1930s, you’d have been arguing too that Mendel overthrew Darwin...

For someone to assume that evolution by Natural Selection is fundamentally correct is to assume in the face of all known history and track record of science, which like I pointed out, requires more blind faith than believing in all of the world's religions combined.

If we don't really know how the Creator creates, then we don't know and it would be refreshing if modern 'scientists' quoted on PBS, the Discovery Channel and the Science Channel would be brave enough to look into the camera and say "I don't know much for certain", rather than "Natural Selection is an absolute fact"

<sigh> Natural selection is an observed phenomenon. It is a fact. It is also part of the explanation for a broader fact: all life on earth being related. So, as many of us are sick of having to point out to people claiming to know about the subject, evolution is both a fact, and a theory.

and other unproven assumption that I consistently hear stated.

Go on then. Name them. But please do so in the thread YOU started. I don’t have time to respond to a string of emails. Been there, done that, and they tend to spiral out of control in length (my final reply I did this way was a 40,000 word effort. I’ve no inclination to put that much effort in again. If you challenge science, then challenge a group And anyway, if you’re courageous enough to publish these ideas in a book, I’m sure you’ll not fear any criticism that publishing them on a message board might produce.

I have heard some scientists say that we really don't know, just like my book concludes---just a couple of weeks ago, one biologist said that in 50 years, the current theory of evolution by Natural Selection is likely to be a long since disregarded mistake in fundamental assumption, as the evidence clearly points to the fact that we really don't know very much at all.

Uh-huh. Name, position held (ie relevance of his opinion) and context please.

I look forward to seeing your reappearance at the Infidels.

TTFN, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid

And here’s his reply to that. I’ll bring this thread to his attention. He asked for our comments: he’s going to damn well get them. There seems to be a selective shortage of time here.

****************************

RA: and other unproven assumption that I consistently hear stated.

OC: Go on then. Name them.

PARTIAL LIST OF UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS OF MODERN SCIENCE:

1) Natural Selection: There is definitely modern scientific evidence that indicates species change. Exactly how they change is open to a lot of debate. Natural Selection by fundamental definition, ignores evidence for design and pretends that design processes somehow appear and function automatically on their own. Natural Selection is therefore, flawed at the fundamental level, based on a totally non-proven assumption. There is no evidence that natural processes arrive and work on their own without the aid of a Grand Designer and there is no known logical reason for assuming that such processes exist all by themselves. All modern evolutionists have managed to 'prove' is that species change. Because species change does not mean the theory of evolution by Natural Selection is correct, any more than because most earth-based applications work based on Newton's theories, it then means that Newton's theories are universal "facts". Scientists have been correct from a perspective going way back to the sun rising in the sky and the comings and goings of seasons, something farmers depended on for thousands of years---their theories worked for them just as well as Newton's theories work for airplanes---this does not mean that ancient farmers theories were factually correct from universal perspective, nor does it mean, as Einstein later pointed out, that Newton was correct. Because species change does not mean that "self-organizing" processes appearing all on their own change species, anymore than because some object objects are painted blue, they were painted randomly on their own.

Your defense of Newtonian theory also lacks coherent logical rational--I am a big admirer of Newton and do not fault him for the lack of technology that we now have. Nevertheless, although Newtons theories work well from most earth-based applications, they are still as wrong as the sun rising in the sky from true universal perspective.

2) Universal Laws conception: There is no conclusive evidence that there are any such thing as "universal laws" that apply uniformly everywhere in the universe, nor is it likely that we will ever know from our current earth-based perspective.

3) Nature and speed of light. Some modern astronomers and physicists now believe that the speed of light may not be constant and that there may be greater speeds obtainable. If this is true, then Einstein was fundamentally wrong.

4) Nature of gravity. Recent Hubble observations indicate that the universe is expanding out ever-faster, now slowing down as previously assumed. Many astronomers and physicists now believe that our theories of gravity may be fundamentally wrong.

5) The existence of "anti-matter", "dark matter" and other exotic matter has been assumed due to our inability to otherwise, explain how galaxies can be flying away ever-faster rather than slowing down--just like you speak of the "fact" of Natural Selection, some modern astronomers speak of the "fact" of dark matter. The existence of this exotic stuff is only 'provable' if our modern theories of gravity are correct. If our theories are wrong (see 4 above), then this exotic matter may not exist at all or in much different quantities and nature than now assumed.

I have heard some scientists say that we really don't know, just like my book concludes---just a couple of weeks ago, one biologist said that in 50 years, the current theory of evolution by Natural Selection is likely to be a long since disregarded mistake in fundamental assumption, as the evidence clearly points to the fact that we really don't know very much at all.

Apparently you don't think it is 'scientific' to accept statements by a great many scientists if they are made in an unscientific forum, such as on the Discovery Channel. I recommend that you watch a few videos on the science and discovery channels--there you will find many scientists in essence saying, "we do not know". There is a considerable amount of debate regarding fundamental theories of evolution, gravity and light since Hubble---the debate is becoming more difuse, rather than more coherent, meaning that modern science theory is open to serious challenge from a great many scientific (including historical) disciplines.

And finally, the reason my article resorts to name-calling such as "baboonery" and "complete monkey shit" is because modern scientists are trying to tell the general public that they know there is no God and/or, that science does not have to address the "God" question. Belivers in Natural Selection can rationalize all they want regarding their supreme mis-assumption that Natural Selection does not have to address fundamental cause, but as an avid student of history, I don't buy it and neither would any rational baboon. If a 'theory' can not explain how its purported processes originated, then it is no more than poor guesswork, which is all current theory is. As the sun also rises, truly there is nothing new under the sun--only the names and dates change--the fundamental liars remain.

Secular Pinoy

Why is he so afraid to defend his arguments in a public forum? I received a PM from him early in his stay here, and I find that pathetic. Ask him to return here and not leave his topics hanging.

DMB

Well now we know where he did his "research": on the Discovery Channel! It does rather make sense.
There is no evidence that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist. So what? He simply doesn't seem to understand what science is about.

With regard to design and designers I like what Massimo Pigliucci wrote in the recently published Science and Religion: Are They Compatible. He says that one can divide design into four possible categories:

1. nonintelligent-natural -- example natural selection within Earth's biosphere -- not irreducibly complex, produced by incremental, continuous, though not necessarily gradual, changes over time. Objects designed this way are never optimal in an engineering sense, but may contain junk and non-utilised or under-utilised parts and resemble similar objects occurring simultaneously or previously in time.
2. intelligent-natural -- example watch -- usually irreducibly complex, not optimal but subject to various constraints. Might be designed by any intelligent lifeform such as human or comparable extra-terrestrial.
3. intelligent-supernatural-sloppy -- what one might expect either of a minor god with limited powers or an evil omnipotent god amusing itself with suboptimal products-- not likely to be easily distinguishable from 2.
4. intelligent-supernatural-perfect -- what one might expect from an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god -- artifacts would be both irreducibly complex and optimal (no need for trade-offs to satisfy physical laws since god can design laws to fit).

Of course, Dawkins was there first with the Blind Watchmaker, but I think it is worth re-iterating until we are blue in the face that Natural Selection is a design process; it just isn't intelligent design.

Another point: is it accurate to claim that evolution by Natural Selection is a "fact"? Surely evolution is a fact, but can we say more than that NS provides a mechanism that fits the known facts extremely well and better than any rival explanation? E.g. we could ask Aberdeen to explain the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria any other way.

I think his arguments about Newton and farmers are a bit of a non sequitur but what he seems to be getting at is his second point:
I don't know that I'd go along with his statement that we are unlikely ever to know. Provided our species and civilisation survive long enough, science may well reach heights in a few thousand years that we cannot conceive of. But he is right on universal laws, except that I didn't think anyone took it as a cast-iron truth. It seems to me to be a reasonable simplifying working hypothesis until it is shown to be false.
Once again, this is like the Newton-Einstein thing. I was recently reading a book by one such chap, and I didn't get the impression that his theory would throw out everything: merely Special Relativity.
Another "So what?" (yawn).
He really has got the wrong end of the stick. All this sort of thing is subject to furious debate and I strongly doubt that anyone would go so far as to call dark matter a "fact". It's a question of competing models.
Someone should explain to him about peer review.
Can he refer us to any accepted branch of science that does address the existence of god(s). Has he heard of Laplace?