Far be it from me to rub salt in an old wound, but JubilationTCornpone wrote:
cough cyanobacteria cough
Nicoli has left the building.
One factor that has to be weighed against totally randomized evolution is the probability of the occurence of chemical combinations that would not just be detrimental to evolution, protein hemology and all, or to an environment where evolution takes place, but would instantly wipe the entire environment out of existence.
Could you rephrase that? I’m afraid I don’t understand your point.
Incidentally, capacitor, I seem to remember that the last time I discussed evolution with you, it ended with you simply ignoring my arguments and charging on as if I weren’t there.
Now, that’s not going to happen this time, is it?
Anyway, let’s discuss protein homology a bit. Are we agreed on that point? Do you agree that protein homology proves that humans and apes share a common ancestor? Let’s not change the subject until we’ve settled the questions that have already been raised.
-Ben
Ok, I am sorry if part of what I am about to say has no sense in it or repeats others but I must do so to stay on track in my head.
OK,
A) Evolution is not really just a theory. It can be partially proven true through cases of moths and grasses that changed with different factors of industrial man’s coming about. We recorded those and therefore looked evolution dead in the eye.
B) Who is to say that a God or the God, my God or yours, would control the universe through the laws of science.
C) Earlier many questioned the chance of proteins assembling theirselves into genetic codes. Well, we can create proteins in an atmostphere very similar to that of primal earth. And it is not so far fetched to think they can bump into each other enough times to link together and make other things.
D) I don’t beleive this world is that unique. Just because we have found one like it yet doesn’t mean there is no similar one that has life, the chances of that happening are probably less than the chance of life. Man, although one of the most powerful beings on this planet, we are nothing more than simple beast. We still mate and still need food, we cannot conquer all in one swift blow, and therefore we cannot know all once we have just begun to know something.
Just because we don’t know all the particulars doesn’t mean science is wrong. But the way science works, it always assumes it can be wrong and therefore God is in no way impossible. God is almost probable. I mean the theory that all science can be explained by one idea is the goal of most scientists of today. That is very close to the ideas behind most religions.
I am tired maybe more tommorrow
But this has nothing to do with the point which was raised. The point made was that the probability of having a random protein form with a functional sequence was nearly nil. You’ve said that it’s easy to make proteins with random sequences, and handwavingly said that function isn’t a problem. In essence, you’ve told us that it’s easy to sit the monkey down in the typewriter, and if you can do that, Romeo and Juliet probably isn’t far away.
Of course, the people who claimed that you can’t get a functional sequence at random completely failed to prove their point, and others have already addressed it. I just felt that I should point out that you haven’t addressed it.
-Ben
Ok, I have my second wind. to the point about not addressing the point, well as I said, I was tired.
OK BEN. If I sat a monkey down on a typewriter and he mashed down all the keys(if he hit the keys at all) he would in a sense do the same as what the primal ooze existed as. Random key codes (random materials) all being written in one large work of gibberish. But about everything reacts with everything. And so the chance that monkey would make words is highly likely. Those words don’t just become existant and then disappear. No, they remain to interact some more. So life and processes are just a matter of time and having the right elements in the right place at the right time.
Chance doesn’t mean its unlikely. I just requires more defined features than any other situation that is similar. Like making fire when rains. But lightning usually strikes the ground during storms and then causes fire. Then fire during storms is not so unlikely. By only looking at the rain’s function in nature one could not logically assume that when it rains, fire could accompany that event. Never the less it does, and only now after years do we have the knowledge to completely look at this situation with sound foundation in its understanding.
Why am I arguing with Ben, He knows whats up. Ben has got the idea with the hemo. paragraphs but one could further elaborate with the evolution of speckled moths and grasses that live near lead mines. Anyone that knows what I am talking about give me a hell yah!
capacitor said:
And just what is the proability of the occurrence of a chemical combination that would instantly wipe out the entire environment?
I gotta see this one…
I think it’s worthwhile noting that, although there are random factors in evolution, the TOE has it that evolution proceeds in a decidedly non-random manner because of the effect of selection.
Remember that there are “facts” and there are scientific “theories”. A scientific theory has a different meaning than how the word theory is commonly used.
It is a fact that life evolves, as you said. The Theory of Evolution is the current best explanation of HOW it happens.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
http://www.skepdic.com/theories.html
Just as probable in some ways as life. Hence planets like venus and mercury where the atmosphere over time has developed its own cycles of creation, but it creates distructive acid rain and other environments just as deadly.
Yes, this is already know to me. I very well know the difference between the two.
I also wanted to state that the beleif in creationism, although unlikely, is in no way scientifically impossible. Even without that thought, I think Nicoli should be given his room. His beliefs are not to be thought of as wrong. That in my mind is the cause of all war.
One could very easily say that if humans can create proteins in a modern lab, why can’t a god create life with less effort.
We can never be so sure in what none of us were there to see it with our own eyes, and so we have no right to be so sure.
Sorry I cannot type. Maybe a more intelligent one would read it first?
Ben, it could be said that the Divine used the DNA sequence of the chimpanzee, tweaked it and what resulted was Homo. We can take a computer program, such as Java, and tweak it into something like ActiveX. Protein homology to me can be similar to object-oriented programming.
I was asking how evolution can be declared an entirely randomized sequence when it is much, much more a likelihood that this planet, this environment and our species cannot exist in a purely random basis, especially when the simplest of constructs, such as an arrow, must be made by a man?
The burden of proving pure randomness is on you guys. You have to prove that there is a probability of order of the universe than can be developed from pure randomness, versus the occurences of certain combinations that can wipe the universe out. You developed this theory of total order from pure randomness, you have to prove that not only can the development of the universe and evolution on Earth can occur without any divine intervention along the way, but it was the only way that it can occur. As for us who believe in a divine hand in the role of the development of the universe, we can apply Occam’s razor to this. This is what I meant earlier when I said “Randomness is you God.”
Note: I am disputing evolution anymore. I am objecting to the witnessing of atheism going unabated, while witnessing on behalf of other religions are being mocked.
I wouldn’t imagine that anyone is claiming that evolution is the only way that modern forms of life could conceivably have been developed. It is simply the way that is supported by the most evidence with the least ambiguity.
The basic mechanisms of evolution function without need for a guiding hand, divine or otherwise. Therefore, the theory itself does not take such guidance into consideration. Which is, of course, the true use of Occam’s razor; subtracting the unnecessary from a theory, and reducing it to the simplest, and most true.
Simplest, in terms of reductionist thinking and Occam’s razor, does not in any way imply that the final theory needs to be easily understood.
(As a sidenote, evolution isn’t truly random. Mutations, which form only the very first step of the selection process, are random.)
(As a second postscript, I don’t really think that attempting to help people understand extremely complex scientific theories qualifies as “atheist witnessing”. And if it does, then by all means feel free to mock away in the Pit.)
What in Randomness’ name are you talking about? 
No capacitor, there is no scientific assertion that God cannot be part of the mix. Science is rather agnostic on God’s behalf.
Evolution is not random at all. It is guided by what we perceive as the physical laws of the universe, as well as the biological rules of selection. What those laws are, whether they be the guiding hand of God or merely fundamental attributes of existence, is beyond our ken. Oh, we can describe them, but that doesn’t answer the “why” questions. “Why is c set precisely where it is? Why isn’t gravity twice as strong?” These laws simply are so far as science can determine. Why they are is left up to theologians to decide.
Whatever one can say about science, it cannot be said that it can touch the notion of God, but only the misguided notions of some of his followers.
Nobody’s “witnessing” for atheism. We’re saying it has no place in a discussion involving science.
And gang, more on the “couldn’t have happened by random chance” idea:
It has been stated several times on this thread the evolution keeps the sucesses and recycles the failures. Here’s some hard data on the subject:
“In order for the monkey to type the thirteen letters opening Hamlet’s solioquy by chance, it would take 26 to the power of 13 trials for success. This is sixteen times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of our solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the process operates much faster. How much faster? Richard Hardison (1988) wrote a computer program in which letters were “selected” for or against, and it took an average of only 355.2 trails to produce the sequence of letters TOBEORNOTTOBE. It takes the computer less than ninety seconds. The entire play can be done in 4.5 days”
Michael Shermer, “Why People Believe Weird Things, page 150” W.H. Freeman and Company, 1997.
Please stop using the phrase “pure randomness”. There is no theory that claims evolution is purely random. I am pretty sure there is also no theory that claims that life arose purely through random processes. If you truly believe that evolution and/or abiogenesis is “purely random”, then you need to do some learning before you are able to ask meaningful questions or make meaningful criticisms.
Randomness is involved in current theories of evolution and abiogenesis, but there is much, much more that is not random.
Which has been established to just about everyone’s satisfaction, especially those who are experts in the field. Not that argument from authority has any validity … but those who have approached the question seriously and without preconceived restrictions have all reached the same conclusion.
Absolutely not. All we can do is select the most likely explanation based on the available evidence. That’s science. Science is always subject to modification, even extreme modification, based on new evidence or insight. Only religion claims something is the only way.