Originally posted by KellyJayBecause the 'numbers' as you call them, or the 'odds', are a calculation of the probability of something occurring based on a random selection.
I'm saying we can run the numbers if we know what has to happen providing we
have all the material at hand, which in itself is problematic. Since we can run the
numbers for the first piece and every piece after that and the numbers show that
even if you are in a favorable enviroment the odds are still stacked against you
why believe it?
You are totally misapplying the result.
If I hold up an apple and let go, and it can go in any possible direction with equal probability, then the probability of it going in any given direction is infinitesimally small as there are infinite directions to go in.
But if I change the equation and add gravity, then the calculation too changes and it becomes certain that it will fall under gravity in one direction only.
Any probability calculation starts with an assumption. For example, if I want to calculate a probability regarding throwing dice, the assumption is that the dice fall randomly and there is an equal likelihood of getting any of six numbers. If the assumption is false the calculation is not valid.
You are making the calculation then claiming that the calculation is valid regardless of the assumption: this is not correct.
2 edits
Given enough time (i.e. if time is infinite and with a cardinality of time bigger than the cardinality of possible events) then anything that could happen will.
Note that for this condition on cardinalities to be true, then I'm excluding the definition of possible events as being time conditional (i.e. "humans will evolve" is an event but not "humans will evolve before time t" is not).
Originally posted by KellyJayI am not sure what you are actually saying in that post there but:
I was thinking about if you have enough monkeys typing on type writers you would
at some point in time come up with the works of Shakespeare. I know some here
may not agree with that, others may. Anyone thought about the odds of human
life actually springing up by random mutations? I know the card trick part of the
theory that suggests good mutations st ...[text shortened]... e universe. By then monkey's may have evolved enough to find better use for their time."
“...Anyone thought about the odds of human
life actually springing up by random mutations? ...
What we are saying is that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor and that evolving didn't just consists of random mutations but natural selection which is NOT purely random hence evolution is NOT purely random.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonsomewhere in the universe there is a species of sentient crystals asking themselves the same question: the odds of rock life actually springing up by random mutations
I am not sure what you are actually saying in that post there but:
“...Anyone thought about the odds of human
life actually springing up by random mutations? ...
What we are saying is that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor and that evolving didn't just consists of random mutations but natural selection which is NOT purely random hence evolution is NOT purely random.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is a good analogy, although to help the analogy further, pressing backspace each time the result doesn't make sense (either spelling or grammatical). The result will eventually be any possible book (albeit not a very good plot). This is more like evolution. A selected result that works but not necessarily the "best".
Why the conclusion?
Why are you saying: If it cant happen by pure randomness then it cant happen by randomness and selection? It just doesn't follow.
It is the selection that makes it possible, yet you seem to simply ignore it.
If I sit behind the monkeys and press 'Backspace' every time they make a mistake, then they will finish Shakespere in a mate ...[text shortened]... 't mean the word, I mean the complete works! That is how much difference selection can make.
In comparison to natural selection, a species that does not fit very well in the environment will be more vulnerable and more likely to die out, leaving behind ones that fit better.
It is easier to understand if people look at what doesn't get selected, rather than what does.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThink of it this way, evolution is like playing cards except there are a lot more
I am not sure what you are actually saying in that post there but:
“...Anyone thought about the odds of human
life actually springing up by random mutations? ...
What we are saying is that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor and that evolving didn't just consists of random mutations but natural selection which is NOT purely random hence evolution is NOT purely random.
than 52 in a deck. No matter how fast each hand is dealt you still only get what
was dealt to you. The random mutations are all the feeds natural selection so
getting bad hands (mutations) can end the life, getting non-death threatening hands
(mutations) is still bad if they alter the life form in away that does not advance it,
while getting a good hand moves you forward. The belief here is that the deck is
stacked towards life, I see no reason to accept that what so ever.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo you come up with the odds here, I don't think you'll see anything better!
Because the 'numbers' as you call them, or the 'odds', are a calculation of the probability of something occurring based on a random selection.
You are totally misapplying the result.
If I hold up an apple and let go, and it can go in any possible direction with equal probability, then the probability of it going in any given direction is infinitesimall ...[text shortened]... en claiming that the calculation is valid regardless of the assumption: this is not correct.
The facts are a lot of things had to happen just right, before any life gets started,
and from that point on a lot of things had to fall into place just right over and over
again. I'm not misapplying the result, I'm pointing out to you that your belief is
like a stacked deck of cards you setup the belief so it cannot fail, so it must be true
even though you cannot show this type of thing anywhere else in the universe.
A creationist can say the odds of creation is 1 it happened, you'd not be happy
with that, so why should I or anyone accept that for evolution?
Kelly
Originally posted by PalynkaTime isn't infinite by peoples beliefs that it is billions of years old, time is also lost
Given enough time (i.e. if time is infinite and with a cardinality of time bigger than the cardinality of possible events) then anything that could happen will.
Note that for this condition on cardinalities to be true, then I'm excluding the definition of possible events as being time conditional (i.e. "humans will evolve" is an event but not "humans will evolve before time t" is not).
in the formation of the planet after the Big Bang, time for evolution can only start
counting once all the pieces for it are in place. Not sure how much time that was,
but even there, with chemical bonds if they are mix wrong you could lose what you
need so the material to work with is limited too. There are a lot of things just
passed off as true that if you really think about is simply a belief.
Kelly
Originally posted by lauseySo you want to put a little intelligence into the back space?
This is a good analogy, although to help the analogy further, pressing backspace each time the result doesn't make sense (either spelling or grammatical). The result will eventually be any possible book (albeit not a very good plot). This is more like evolution. A selected result that works but not necessarily the "best".
In comparison to natural selection ...[text shortened]... ier to understand if people look at what doesn't get selected, rather than what does.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you want to make the claim that evolution is unlikely or not? Seems you're just dithering.
Time isn't infinite by peoples beliefs that it is billions of years old, time is also lost
in the formation of the planet after the Big Bang, time for evolution can only start
counting once all the pieces for it are in place. Not sure how much time that was,
but even there, with chemical bonds if they are mix wrong you could lose what you
need so the ma ...[text shortened]... ot of things just
passed off as true that if you really think about is simply a belief.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is evolution:
I think what it is being given credit for is highly unlikely yes.
Kelly
1. There is a correlation between the genetic code of parents and offspring.
2. Some parents have more offspring than others
Therefore:
3. The characteristics of the genetic code of the parents who have more offspring will be more prevalent in the next generation relative to those who have less offspring.
Do you disagree?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by PalynkaSo 'evolution' as you define it cannot take place without 'parents' to pass on the genetic code to the 'offspring'?
This is evolution:
1. There is a correlation between the genetic code of parents and offspring.
2. Some parents have more offspring than others
Therefore:
3. The characteristics of the genetic code of the parents who have more offspring will be more prevalent in the next generation relative to those who have less offspring.
Do you disagree?