Evidence for Creationism - 3D

Great Debates
61

Well, my understanding (which may well be wrong or incomplete) is that the Higgs field is indeed tangible:the “drag” of particles moving through the field gives rise to what we perceive as mass, and it seems reasonable to think of that as touching. The really weird thing about the Higgs field is that, unlike all the other “force fields”, it contains zero energy when the strength of the field is non-zero.

I think that people have alternate “linchpins” for the standard model if the Higgs field/boson does not exist and, of course, there is also the possibility that nobody has formulated the “true” theory yet. I know that there are theories that involve more than one Higgs boson, but I don’t know anything more than that about them.

I confess that I don’t know how string theory and the Higgs boson relate to each other. I’ve fallen somewhat behind on string theory …

Fascinating thought his is, I’m going into hiatus for the next week; I’ll be on a beach on St. Johns. Perhaps we can resume in a week

jrf

62

wonders idly how long it will be before “Gator’s Collary to Godwin’s Law” comes into effect

Could someone explain this to me? I mean, how on earth can someone say that adaptation or survival of the fittest(gram negative v. gram postive bacteria/viri)is true, and is perfectly okay with the Bible; but then turn around and say that the entire theory of evolution is junk?

I mean, to me, if you believe in adaptation, evolution makes sense.

But then, I could be temporarily insane because of this wonderful(heavy sarcasm)case of mono…

Hey Falcon. Nice to see you again. :slight_smile:

Phoenix

Sors immanis et inanis, rota tu volubilis, status malus, vana salus semper dissolubilis.

Carmina Burana: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi–O Fortuna. Carl Orff: 1937

63

[hijack]

What if we were to discover some way to neutralize the Higgs field (if it exists)? An object would therefore have no mass, right? You could thus accelerate it at any velocity, change direction on a dime, even reverse direction instantaneously, because if an object was massless, it would also have no inertia.

Maybe you could also find a way to amplify the Higgs field of, say, deck plates, making them more massive, massive enough to generate a gravitational field strong enough to simulate Earth’s gravity.

Now you know how the Starship Enterprise and the Millennium Falcon are able to maneuver at multi-light speeds. And why Captains Kirk and Solo walk instead of float down their ships’ corridors. :wink:

[/hijack]

Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you.

64

This seems to be as good a place as any to post this link: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/currentmail.html#Wednesday

No commentary by me; not that don’t have anything to say (that’ll be the day…), but it would take an hour or so to write it, and I just don’t have a solid hour at the moment.

“I don’t just want you to feel envy. I want you to suffer, I want you to bleed, I want you to die a little bit each day. And I want you to thank me for it.” – What “Let’s just be friends” really means

65

The following is all stolen from various sources in counterpoint to the link posted by Akatsukami.
*The argument from “improbability” is probably (no pun intended) one of the most common fallacies in critical thinking.
Take a deck of cards. Look at them each in order. The chances for the cards being in that specific order are 52! or 8.07 x 10^67 to 1. Clearly an event so improbable must have been preordained. You would have to shuffle the deck once per second for 2.55 x 10^60 years to get that exact order! that’s 50 orders of magnitude greater than the age of the universe (about 1.5 * 10^10 years)!
The obvious fallacy in that reasoning is that the deck had a 100% chance of being in exactly one of those states. All states of the deck are equally improbable. After you’ve read the deck, the probability of it being in that order is exactly 100%.
The sample calculation of the odds is invalid, because it presumes a simplest-replicator many orders of magnitude larger than abiogeneticists propose, and treats individual events as independent, which no abiogeneticist proposes. In short, those odds are a straw man.

What is “random”, anyway? We are never told. It says that self organization cannot occur because the process is “blind” and “random” that is supposed to drive it. Never mind that the system has a finite number of states it can occupy and its history can constrain its future states. This borrows from the thermodynamic argument the confusion over entropy and open system states.

The theory of evolution doesn’t say it did happen by chance. The “random” argument completely ignores natural selection.*

66

IMO, Jerry handled it very well. He accepts that the current theories of macroevolution are lacking. Well, duh. Of course it’s not a completed theory. Neither is gravity.

He states that many people believe evolution required some sort of intervention.

And he leaves it at that.

Any wonder Pournelle’s as well-respected as he is?

-andros-

67

Jerry Pournelle, like most science fiction writers (except Charles Sheffield) is not a professional scientist. IMHO he’s not even one of the better SF writers.

The examination of the probabilities of evolution change radically when you factor in natural selection.

Let’s examine an analogous situation: It takes 52!/2 shuffles to have a 50% chance of ordering a normal deck of cards. This is an astronomical number (4e67), orders of magnitude higher than the number of milliseconds in the universe.

But let’s use natural selection. Take two randomly ordered decks and compare them, card by card. Compare the first two cards: The deck with the lower ordinal value (Ace of spades = 1, Two of Clubs = 52) lives, and the other deck “dies”. If there’s a tie, you look at the next card.

Throw away the losing deck. Make a copy of the winning deck. Randomly switch the positions of two cards in each deck and repeat the procedure.

Now the Ace of spades will almost certainly be the top card after only 1,326 (52 * 51 / 2) iterations. The Ace and King of Spades will be the 1st and 2nd cards (at worst) after 1,326 * 2 = 2,652 iterations. The entire deck becomes ordered after only 68,952 iterations!

Now I’m not taking into account regressive disordering of the deck. Once the AofSp is in first position, the probability is 1/52^2 = 2704 of losing it (replacing the first card in both decks simultaneously). However, if we go to 3 decks, (with one winner) the probability goes down to 1/52^3 = 1/140,608, while the number of iterations to order the deck goes down to 45,968.

So we’ve seen that even a trivial version of natural selection can remove 63 orders of magnitude!

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

68

Arguing against the argument of improbability on this basis has some flaws. We are not talking about a deck of cards here. In your scenario all “improbable states” of the deck are equal. Andy state of the order of the cards is limited to that-the order. You can’t rationally draw a comparison between this and the infinite number of possibilities (the fewest of which would be abiogenisis) that could have occurred resulting in us.

69

Go away, Boomer. We don’t want you here. We don’t like you. We’re all laughing at you behind your back.

70

Singledad don’t stoop…

Anyway, boomer. Think about this. If you were a giant purple with polka dots Ameoba with intelligence and this board was up you’d say the same thing. “resulting in US”

Lil clearer for you?

Oh and Abiogenesis IS theoretically possible.
I already have ya the theory on it last thread.

71

err gave

72

CalifBoomer said:

Of course, you can’t rationally claim that we know there is an “infinite number of possibilities (the fewest of which would be abiogenesis)” – but you claimed it anyway. Do you know what the chances are? I don’t. In fact, nobody does. For all we know, the universe is teeming with life, and on every inhabitable planet, life has arisen. Then again, we may be completely alone. But we don’t know. So you can’t claim to have a statistical answer.

Plus, as has already been noted, no matter what “you” were, “you” would think “you” were it. It’s a bit silly to ask what the chances were that we would evolve exactly as we were. Because if we evolved with four legs and four arms, you’d be asking the same exact question and laughing at the possibility that intelligent beings could have evolved with only two legs and two arms.

73

Any argument against the argument of improbability based on decks of cards is simply not viable. Forget, even, the fact that you attribute odds to unconnected, random, events. A deck of cards, no matter *how ordered[/] is still only a deck of cards. Each card is the same shape and size as each of the others. When you are talking about micro-evolution, you are talking about a huge number of possibilities - I agree that the word ‘infinite’ cannot be demonstrated. But to say that the argument of improbability is not rational based on the theoretical order of decks of cards is foolishness.

::

74

Even if the deck of cards analogy is not the most appropriate, and even if you could nail down reliable statistics which saisd that the odds on us reaching this point were astounding, the beauty of statistics shows that given enough variables - in this case, a virtually unlimited, mostly unknown universe many light years across, and many years (as in time) for things to happen - eventually the extremely unlikely becomes an enevitibility.

No matter how unlilely it is for a person to win the lottery, eventually someone does win it. Congratulations, mankind… We won the lottery.

Bommer, you’ve been popping into these threads for a while just saying, essentially, “The odds…” Well, I believe the above answers that, and even if it does not to your satisfaction, positing “The odds” is not conclusive evidence against Evolution.

At best for your opinion with what you have presented, the commentary would simply be, “Yes, it sure was against the odds. But since all of the other evidence points to it (since thus far, nobody has come up with anything that doedn’t), and since probability shows that eventually something, no matter how unlikely, becomes enevitable, all we can respond with is that we bucked the odds.”

Now, do you per chance have anything else for the court to consider?

Yer pal,
Satan

75

origninally posted by Satan:

100% agreed. The entire argument for creationism vs. macro-evolution based on ‘the odds’ is neither conclusive nor substantive. My only point was that the ‘deck of cards’ argument entirely discounted the potential complexities of the natural selection process and focused only on the math- itself only theoretical.

Since we now know that the ‘agiogenisis’ theory is bunk, we’re still left with the original question “how did life begin?” It would seem this is a crucial component of any discussion on evolution.

::

76

Boomer said:

Excuse you? Maybe you believe that, but that does not make it so.

Actually, it’s not. For all we know, life developed elsewhere and traveled here on a meteor, or was dropped off by aliens, or whatever. However it got here, evolution deals with what has happened with that life after it began.

“Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is, to my mind, the most beautiful in all of science.”
– Susan Blackmore, The Meme Machine

77

True. Evolution “in a vacuum” is a concept which can ignore irreducible complexity (itself still unexplained by neo-darwinism) however when discussing creationism vs. evolution it remains a critical component.

::

78

I’m sorry Calif, but wasn’t that just explained? The odds might be impossible to calculate and they may be barely finite, but guess what, IT’S STILL A POSSIBILITY!

As for Abiogenesis there are plausable explainations. Such as I mentioned last thread–the ribozyme. Now you may be asking how one of these ribozymes came into existance in the first place. The probability is astoundingly low, but it’s once again still a possibility.

Just to let you know of a way of reducing this astounding improbabilty think about this. Since we are the only life we know of we can’t be sure that it can’t exist in a different form. Who knows, light might be alive.

79

I think I understand that irreducible complexity argument now. Is it that the only life we know of is a single cell and we can’t get any less complex then that? If it is can I laugh now?

Who says an entire cell just came into existence? Why not have a bunch of steps lead up to this forming of the first cell. Look you just reduced it all the way to atoms. Now if you want to argue the point of irreducible complexity at the level of atoms, go ahead you’re not going to get an argument from me.

80

Boomer said:

What, exactly, are you claiming is “unexplained”? Or is this just another of your statements that you make without any factual basis (like the one about abiogenesis above, which I noted you didn’t say anything about in this response).

When discussing creationism, abiogenesis may be important. When discussing evolution, it is a separate issue. But then, considering that creationism has exactly no scientific evidence, there really isn’t much to worry about on that front.