Question to the evolutionists.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================================
the probability of an event that already happened is 1. you can say you have 1 in a million chance of getting struck by lightning but if you were already struck, then that chance is 1. likewise the universe. if the universe had evolved any different, we would be wondering why that chain of events happened
=========== ...[text shortened]...
(I do not mean the original organism).

What was the first instance of Natural Selection ?

…What was the first instance of Natural Selection ?.…[/b]

When the natural environment claimed its first life form as its victim.
This must have happened very soon after whenever and wherever the very first life came into existence.

Why do you keep asking that question? (I remember you asked this before some months ago) -I mean, what relevance do you think it has?

@ Jaywill
Let's say I filled a barrel with chemicals of all kinds, materials of all kinds, substances of all kinds, and sent it tumbling through outer space for 15 Billion years,

Is there a possibility that light years away, 15 Billion years from the lauching of that barrel, someone might open it up and see a fully functioning Electron Microscope thrown together?

Quick answer... Nil,
Next question does this in anyway relate to evolutionary theory?
Quick answer... No

Long one...
Hmmmmmm, this is very close to building a big ol straw man.... However I'll respond to your analogy as best I can. But let it be stated that your verging on the origins of life with this argument line and evolutionary theory explicitly does not deal with this.

Firstly
Your barrel is a very very poor analogy for the primitive earth, for a start it has no gravity, or atmosphere, or plate tectonics (which were very different back then). Its not extremely catastrophic inside your barrel, which it was in the primitive earth etc etc. Thus you can't use it for a replica of primitive earth

Secondly
An electron microscope requires external information, and a reason for existence, It doesn't respond/adapt/perish to its environment and it lacks even basic survival instinct. You analogy is highly flawed

Thirdly
For and Electron Microscope to form by pure chance I agree your theory is highly improbable over any timescale. However chance has a very insignificant part to play in Evolution, and if you don't agree with this then you've failed to understand some fundamental evolutionary mechanisms, either deliberately or through some small mistake.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================================
What a totally absurd estimation on your part! “15 BILLION years SEEMS too short “? -are you mad? Can you honestly comprehend what “15 BILLION ” really means? -I mean, for example, can you actually visualise exactly 15 BILLION marbles?
===================================

I know it is a huge number.

ht into the theory? Or would you also consider his comment "absurd?"

If so, why?[/b]

…Let's say I filled a barrel with chemicals of all kinds, materials of all kinds, substances of all kinds, and sent it tumbling through outer space for 15 Billion years,

Is there a possibility that light years away, 15 Billion years from the launching of that barrel, someone might open it up and see a fully functioning Electron Microscope thrown together?

In how many years would it be plausible that a tumbling barrel of materials might eventually throw together a fully functioning Electron Microscope? Is 15 Billion unnecessarily too long or too short?
…

But we are not talking about the formation of an Electron Microscope, we are talking about the formation of a very simple living cell made out of purely organic molecules -this is much more credible as organic molecules CAN conceivably spontaneously form and join up while metal components such as electromagnets cannot.

And, we are not talking about the formation of life in a barrel, we are talking the formation of life somewhere on a planet with, presumably, a vast number of locations where life could form under the right conditions thus giving rise to vastly greater opportunity for the formation of life that would be possible “in a barrel”.

….========================================
you fundamentally misunderstood the simple concept of evolution in a subtle way here?
=========================================

You're probably right. But I don't think you understand it too well either. I COULD be wrong. ..… (my emphasis)

-you are absolutely right -you COULD be wrong -because you ARE wrong.
I understand this very simple concept perfectly while you don’t
-that makes me vastly better qualified to judge it and yet you say it is wrong even though you don’t know what it is that you are saying is wrong!

…."Evolution is thus basically an attempt to explain the ORIGIN of life from ,.… (my emphasis)

No it isn’t! Evolution is NOT a theory of the “ORIGIN” of life. He has just shown that he knows nothing about evolution by blatantly demonstrating the fact he doesn’t even know what the theory is of!
This is DESPITE the fact that he has two Phds. in pharmacology -shame on him!

…do you think this person with two Phds. has a worthwhile insight into the theory?..…

It doesn’t logically follow from “he has two Phds” that “he has a worthwhile insight into the theory” -and that fact has been PROVEN by the fact he has CLEARLY demonstrated he doesn’t know anything about evolution.

….Or would you also consider his comment "absurd?" ..…

I would say his comment is “idiotic” ; the man clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about for the reason I just gave.

…If so, why?..…

Because evolution is NOT a theory of the origin of life (unlike what he suggested).

Oh I forgot to mention, Having 2 Phd's in anything doesn't make you any less wrong or any more qualified to comment.

I've a BSc and an MSc in Geology, doesn't make me qualified to willfully comment on String theory......

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…Let's say I filled a barrel with chemicals of all kinds, materials of all kinds, substances of all kinds, and sent it tumbling through outer space for 15 Billion years,

Is there a possibility that light years away, 15 Billion years from the launching of that barrel, someone might open it up and see a fully functioning Electron Microscope thro /b]

Because evolution is NOT a theory of the origin of life (unlike what he suggested).[/b]

i would hardly deem the living cell 'very simple', on the contrary it is extremely complex! infact so complex that irreducible complexity has shown that it could not have arisen by chance! just another instance of sensationalistic journalism!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i would hardly deem the living cell 'very simple', on the contrary it is extremely complex! infact so complex that irreducible complexity has shown that it could not have arisen by chance! just another instance of sensationalistic journalism!

Irreducible complexity has been conclusively proven incorrect on several counts. Gimme your proofs and I bet I can systematically prove them wrong.

Taking the cell as your first. There is no single component of a cell that cannot be seen in a simpler form, AFAIK right the way back to the prokaryotic cells. Not one and I ask you now to give me one example.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i would hardly deem the living cell 'very simple', on the contrary it is extremely complex! infact so complex that irreducible complexity has shown that it could not have arisen by chance! just another instance of sensationalistic journalism!

…i would hardly deem the living cell 'very simple' …

When talking about modern living cells -yes.

What about the first one to form into existence?
How do you know how complex it was?
How do you know that it was NOT 'very simple' and not just compared to modern living cells but also intrinsically so?

-the answer to this last question is that it probably was very simple even intrinsically so simply because logic dictates that it is more probable that a simpler cell would spontaneously form than a more complex one.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…i would hardly deem the living cell 'very simple' …

When talking about modern living cells -yes.

What about the first one to form into existence?
How do you know how complex it was?
How do you know that it was NOT 'very simple' and not just compared to modern living cells but also intrinsically so?

-the answer to this last questi ...[text shortened]... at it is more probable that a simpler cell would spontaneously form than a more complex one.[/b]

This reinforces my point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microspheres

“Although roughly cellular in appearance, microspheres in and of themselves are not alive. Although they do reproduce asexually by budding, they do not pass on any type of genetic material. However they may have been important in the development of life, providing a membrane-enclosed volume which is similar to that of a cell. Microspheres, like cells, can grow and contain a double membrane which undergoes diffusion of materials and osmosis. Sidney Fox postulated that as these microspheres became more complex they would carry on more lifelike functions”

So the first living cells could have been so simple that it just consisted of just a single microsphere that had encapsulated just a few strands of DNA/RNA (whichever came first) and some peptides as the microsphere formed that gave it a competitive advantage over any competing microspheres that had encapsulated no such thing.

-after that, evolution did the rest.

=====================================
But we are not talking about the formation of an Electron Microscope, we are talking about the formation of a very simple living cell
========================================

Andrew, I don't think there is any such THING as a "simple living cell." I haven't seen one yet.


=========================================
made out of purely organic molecules -this is much more credible as organic molecules CAN conceivably spontaneously form and join up while metal components such as electromagnets cannot.
=========================================

That may make the problem SIMPLIER in your eyes. To me "organic molecules" in the matter make it nearly unfathomly MORE complicated.

And such complication is not addressed by the familiar chorus "But Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life." That kicks the can down the road. But it does not make the problem simplier.

====================================
And, we are not talking about the formation of life in a barrel, we are talking the formation of life somewhere on a planet with, presumably, a vast number of locations where life could form under the right conditions thus giving rise to vastly greater opportunity for the formation of life that would be possible “in a barrel”.
==================================

The problem for me Andrew, is that "the right conditions" have to be AROUND LONG ENOUGH for the evolutionary algorithm to take hold. How much things change in even in three hundred years, let alone a billion.

====================================
-you are absolutely right -you COULD be wrong -because you ARE wrong.
===================================

To understand it, is to believe it ?

Nobody who understands it disbelieves that life develops without the impact of intelligent direction?


==================================
I understand this very simple concept perfectly while you don’t
-that makes me vastly better qualified to judge it and yet you say it is wrong even though you don’t know what it is that you are saying is wrong!
====================================

I understand that you are talking about something happening APART from Intelligent Design. THAT I got.

Don't underestimate me. You may score all kinds of little points on amino acids and details about enzymes. Not terribly impressed on your ability to dazzle me on minor miniscule details. The big picture, the big picture is you want me to believe in a fortunate accident totally apart from intelligent design.

I am talking about the big picture here. Don't try to dazzle me with all kinds of distracting minute details that you can go on and on about.

I grasp the big picture Andrew. I probably grasped the big picture while you were still a toddler.

=========================================
…."Evolution is thus basically an attempt to explain the ORIGIN of life from ,.… (my emphasis)

No it isn’t! Evolution is NOT a theory of the “ORIGIN” of life.
============================================

"The ORIGIN of Species," was the title of Darwin's book. Why didn't he call it "The Origin of every species EXCEPT the FIRST?"

==================================
He has just shown that he knows nothing about evolution by blatantly demonstrating the fact he doesn’t even know what the theory is of!
This is DESPITE the fact that he has two Phds. in pharmacology -shame on him!
=====================================

Okay. Put a dunce cap on the guy with two doctorates and make him sit in he back of your class.

==================================
…do you think this person with two Phds. has a worthwhile insight into the theory?..…

It doesn’t logically follow from “he has two Phds” that “he has a worthwhile insight into the theory” -and that fact has been PROVEN by the fact he has CLEARLY demonstrated he doesn’t know anything about evolution.
====================================

I asked myself "How can this guy Andrew say so many arrogant things in one day?" Then it came to me. "He gets up early."

Okay, kidding aside. The the comment of Wilder about the information being created from the molecules without an external concept, I think. is quite appropriate to the theory of evolution as process requireing no intelligent design.


===================================
….Or would you also consider his comment "absurd?" ..…

I would say his comment is “idiotic” ; the man clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about for the reason I just gave.

…If so, why?..…

Because evolution is NOT a theory of the origin of life (unlike what he suggested).
=======================================

To my sense that excuse arose from the difficulty Evolutionists had with the Origin of Life problem. When their model failed to answer the problem of the FIRST instance of biological "natural selection" to preserve the theory they had to DISTANCE it from the problem of life's origin.

I know many Evos disagree. That's what I think happened.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…What was the first instance of Natural Selection ?.…

When the natural environment claimed its first life form as its victim.
This must have happened very soon after whenever and wherever the very first life came into existence.

Why do you keep asking that question? (I remember you asked this before some months ago) -I mean, what relevance do you think it has?[/b]

=======================================

When the natural environment claimed its first life form as its victim.
This must have happened very soon after whenever and wherever the very first life came into existence.

Why do you keep asking that question? (I remember you asked this before some months ago) -I mean, what relevance do you think it has?
=================================

Hold on here. Are you saying that the emergence of the first living thing occured WITHOUT any Natural Selection taking place ?

And repeating "Evolution, my dear fellow, has nothing to do with the origin of life" is not a good answer.

Natural Selection came about only AFTER the first living thing "came into existence?"

If you are saying that you CHOOSE to ignore the problem of the coming into existence of the first living thing, that doesn't help me to understand your theory of Evolution any better.

I will accept "I don't know" or "We haven't figured that out yet" as reasonable answers.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================================
But we are not talking about the formation of an Electron Microscope, we are talking about the formation of a very simple living cell
========================================

Andrew, I don't think there is any such THING as a "simple living cell." I haven't seen one yet.


================ igin.

I know many Evos disagree. That's what I think happened.

…Andrew, I don't think there is any such THING as a "simple living cell." I haven't seen one yet.
…[/b]

Of course you “haven't seen one yet” !-they existed in the past but not in the present day because evolution would have made them much more complex and advanced.

….That may make the problem SIMPLIER in your eyes. To me "organic molecules" in the matter make it nearly unfathomly MORE complicated.
….

That is because you know little about organic chemistry while I do. I have done an university on organic chemistry and found it to be a fascinating subject. How do you judge it to be “MORE complicated” when clearly you don’t know much about it?

…"But Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life." ..…

-correct -get it?

….And, we are not talking about the formation of life in a barrel, we are talking the formation of life somewhere on a planet with, presumably, a vast number of locations where life could form under the right conditions thus giving rise to vastly greater opportunity for the formation of life that would be possible “in a barrel”.
==================================

The problem for me Andrew, is that "the right conditions" have to be AROUND LONG ENOUGH for the EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM to take hold.
..…

“EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM”? what on earth are you talking about?
I presume you mean “EVOLUTION”? -which would make no sense because, very OBVIOUSLY, “EVOLUTION” is NOT a theory of how life originated and thus it is OBVIOUSLY NOT the accepted explanation of how the first life got started.

So what on earth are you talking about when you say “..have to be AROUND LONG ENOUGH for the EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM to take hold…”?
what kind of “EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM” has to be “AROUND LONG ENOUGH”? -your statement makes no sense.

…"The ORIGIN of Species," was the title of Darwin's book. Why didn't he call it "The Origin of every species EXCEPT the FIRST?"
..…

Because that would be idiotically pedantic. And it was called "The ORIGIN of Species" and not "The ORIGIN of life" for a reason.

….The the comment of Wilder about the information being created from the MOLECULES without an external concept, I think. is quite APPROPRIATE to the theory of EVOLUTION as process requiring no intelligent design.
..…

How can his comments of the assembly of MOLECULES to form the first life be “APPROPRIATE” to the theory of EVOLUTION when EVOLUTION has nothing to do with assembly of MOLECULES to form the first life because it is NOT a theory of how life originated?

Answer- it is certainly not “APPROPRIATE” and he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

…When their model failed to answer the problem of the FIRST instance of biological "natural selection"..…

The concept of "natural selection" was never applied to the problem of the origin of life because it is IRRELEVANT to origin of life thus it would be totally idiotic to do so. It would be as totally idiotic to do so as to apply the concept of "natural selection" to the origin of the sun.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=======================================

When the natural environment claimed its first life form as its victim.
This must have happened very soon after whenever and wherever the very first life came into existence.

Why do you keep asking that question? (I remember you asked this before some months ago) -I mean, what relevance do you think i ill accept "I don't know" or "We haven't figured that out yet" as reasonable answers.

…Hold on here. Are you saying that the emergence of the first living thing occurred WITHOUT any Natural Selection taking place ? …[/b]

Yes! That is correct! Affirmative! Evolution had NOTHING to do with the origin of life -get it?

….And repeating "Evolution, my dear fellow, has nothing to do with the origin of life" is not a good answer. ….

Wrong -it is the ONLY answer -get it?

…Natural Selection came about only AFTER the first living thing "came into existence?" ..…

Yes -get it? It came AFTER and NOT BEFORE the first living thing came into existence thus evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

….If you are saying that you CHOOSE to ignore the problem of the coming into existence of the first living thing..…

Where did I say or imply that?

…that doesn't help me to understand your theory of Evolution any better. ..…

-and it wouldn’t anyway because evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life.
If you really want to understand evolution then, in your case, you must understand that it has nothing to do with the origin of the first life.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…Hold on here. Are you saying that the emergence of the first living thing occurred WITHOUT any Natural Selection taking place ? …

Yes! That is correct! Affirmative! Evolution had NOTHING to do with the origin of life -get it?

….And repeating "Evolution, my dear fellow, has nothing to do with the origin of life" is not a good answer. …. ...[text shortened]... your case, you must understand that it has nothing to do with the origin of the first life.

=====================================
…Hold on here. Are you saying that the emergence of the first living thing occurred WITHOUT any Natural Selection taking place ? …

Yes! That is correct! Affirmative! Evolution had NOTHING to do with the origin of life -get it?
========================================

I got it. But I don't know what I'm suppose to DO with it.

If your Natural Selection process had nothing to do with the first living thing coming into existence, then HOW can you be so cock sure that it had anything to do with the second, third, or fourth one?

=============================

….And repeating "Evolution, my dear fellow, has nothing to do with the origin of life" is not a good answer. ….

Wrong -it is the ONLY answer -get it?
=================================

Yea. I got it. You intend to evade the problem.

"Trust us. Somehow the first living thing came along. Then after that Natural Selection kicked in and we came from simple cells to the bio-diversity we see today, given billions of years and trillions of trial and error selection accidents."

Gotta go. Sorry. Latter.

Originally posted by Mexico
Irreducible complexity has been conclusively proven incorrect on several counts. Gimme your proofs and I bet I can systematically prove them wrong.

Taking the cell as your first. There is no single component of a cell that cannot be seen in a simpler form, AFAIK right the way back to the prokaryotic cells. Not one and I ask you now to give me one example.

i like this quotation

could natural selection produce the same effect through randomly saving the genes the necessary proteins, preserve them, bring them together, and assemble them
yes? the question is how likely is that

"to attribute irreducible complexity to a direct Darwinian pathway is like attributing Mount Rushmore to wind and erosion. There's a sheer possibility that wind and erosion could sculpt Mount Rushmore but not a realistic one."

for indirect Darwinian pathways to bring this about there would have to be not only an evolution of existing structures but an evolution of their purposes!

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================================
…Hold on here. Are you saying that the emergence of the first living thing occurred WITHOUT any Natural Selection taking place ? …

Yes! That is correct! Affirmative! Evolution had NOTHING to do with the origin of life -get it?
========================================

I got it. But I don't know what ...[text shortened]... ars and trillions of trial and error selection accidents."

Gotta go. Sorry. Latter.[/b]

….I got it. But I don't know what I'm suppose to DO with it.

If your Natural Selection process had nothing to do with the first living thing coming into existence, then HOW can you be so cock sure that it had anything to do with the second, third, or fourth one?
….

What is stopping natural selection from effecting “the second, third, or fourth one”?

-as for the first one -read this carefully:

For what we call “natural selection” to work, it has to select some individuals in favour over other individuals.
-now:

1, BEFORE there exists any individuals (including the first one), “natural selection” cannot work because there are NO individuals in existence for “natural selection” to select in favour over other individuals!

2, AFTER some individuals came into existence, “natural selection” CAN work because there ARE individuals in existence for “natural selection” to select in favour over other individuals

Note that the very first individual in existence started off with no competition with other individuals (because they didn’t exist yet) thus “natural selection” would not had a chance to favour some other individuals over it because there were no “other individuals”! -all it had to do was survive independently until it succeeded to reproduced.