Response to 'prove evolution true'

Originally posted by King Tiger
But if a Christian is wrong, he still lived a good life and he loses nothing when he dies.

And I say that the claim that he looses nothing is false.

I also notice that you do not actually act on the Wager for any of the other beliefs that it could be applied to, which means you don't actually accept the validity of the wager yourself. For example if I say there are benefits to believing in fairies and no downsides, then do you now believe in fairies?

Originally posted by Pianoman1

Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance."

So what would be an example of an alternative other than "chance" or "design"?

Originally posted by divegeester
So what would be an example of an alternative other than "chance" or "design"?

Everyone is typing at once. I left this link in my post here a few posts back while we were all typing:

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-chemists-life-earth-fluke.html#ajTabs

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, you quite clearly do not. And this is mathematics, and in mathematics we can do indisputable proofs.
So lets go through your organisms evolution step by step. We start with the organism having one component and we want to find the probability of it gaining 200 components. Lets initially assume we are talking about a specific 200 mutations in a specif ...[text shortened]... r 200 such mutations the probability is also essentially 100%.

So, what do you disagree with?

Look, you missed the point. You aren't even arguing mathematics. But a system. Yes, IF you were able to have one successful mutation or an organism each generation your post would be true.

I'll quote this for reference.

"But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½ ) 200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one cha...chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

You are talking about the population, i.e. the individual organisms and the evolutionary concept of survival of fittest, good genes pass on etc. I'm talking about the likely hood on the micro scale of mutations within individual organism taking place. We aren't even mathematically talking about the same thing. From your post, I'm talking about the 1 individual who gets a good mutation-what is that likelyhood. My math is sound-it is rudimentary. Your process is sound too, but it assume that my process first successfully occurred successively and successfully.

You seem to think the 200 components spoke of a population pool. No, it spoke of the individual mechanism within the cell itself.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I say that the claim that he looses nothing is false.

I also notice that you do not actually act on the Wager for any of the other beliefs that it could be applied to, which means you don't actually accept the validity of the wager yourself. For example if I say there are benefits to believing in fairies and no downsides, then do you now believe in fairies?

I suppose I would if that could be proven. Like I said, it isn't indubitable. Don't treat a micro argument as conclusive. Examine it all.

Originally posted by King Tiger
Surely you can see how evolution would have implications regarding these 4 questions?

I see morality within an evolutionary construct as merely another survival strategy; observing our changing societal values indicates to me that morality is at best a transitory concept within this framework, a 'disposable' for some. Morality therefore has no finite value and is reduced to a coping strategy.

Originally posted by King Tiger
Look, you missed the point. You aren't even arguing mathematics.

Correct, I am not really using mathematics, I assume you know basic mathematics. You are however applying it wrong.

You seem to think the 200 components spoke of a population pool. No, it spoke of the individual mechanism within the cell itself.
Now I am really confused. Are you saying one cell had 200 successful mutations at once? Why are you even calculating that probability? You're not making any sense at all.

Originally posted by King Tiger
I suppose I would if that could be proven.

It doesn't need to be proven, you simply need to make a bet (Wager). That is what Pascals Wager is all about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Correct, I am not really using mathematics, I assume you know basic mathematics. You are however applying it wrong.

[b]You seem to think the 200 components spoke of a population pool. No, it spoke of the individual mechanism within the cell itself.
Now I am really confused. Are you saying one cell had 200 successful mutations at once? Why are you even calculating that probability? You're not making any sense at all.[/b]

I am calculating that probability because it is the probability in question. Not how easily the good mutation if successful is transferred, but rather the probability that a good successive successful mutation with 200 components (each requiring it's own mutation, so 200) would occur. That is the argument.

So hopefully that clears it up. You weren't approaching it mathematically, and apparently never thought to question the likelyhood of the source of mutation. That is the mathematical sticking point. Not transference generationally.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It doesn't need to be proven, you simply need to make a bet (Wager). That is what Pascals Wager is all about.

If you are suggesting that fairies somehow enhance my life by belief you will need to prove that just as it should be proven that belief or disbelief in God is beneficial. But, all analogies break down. I would contest your analogy is weak at best (i.e. comparing belief in fairies to belief in God).

Originally posted by sonhouse
The issue of probability has some evidence on the side of non-randomness. What you see as highly improbably may in fact be just the level of our knowledge. As time goes by, we see certain processes that allow reactions to take place as self assembly of simpler molecules to more complex ones. I will try to find the link about that. It begins to refute the id ...[text shortened]... fe origin and probability:

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-chemists-life-earth-fluke.html#ajTabs

I am devoted, just as you are devoted. Yet, I am academically open just as I hope you are. So bring it on and I'll examine it opening and hopefully honestly.

Originally posted by divegeester
So what would be an example of an alternative other than "chance" or "design"?

Laws. The universe operates by the laws of physics. The laws of physics allow for some chance, but they also result in patterns.
Take a system of particles under Newtonian mechanics. Firstly, they are not moving about purely randomly, the follow the laws of Newtonian mechanics. Secondly, if we then apply gravity, their motion ceases to be what initially appeared to be 'random' and suddenly they all congregate towards the centre of gravity. Such a simple law results in galaxies, planetary systems, and even the order of materials on the planets surface. The core of the earth is Iron and its surface is covered in water and gas - all because of density and gravity. Its not by design, and its not random.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
[b]3) Design. I began examining the full uniqueness of the natural world. The enzyme, the stars (billions of them), the exact mathematical placement of everything. I was forced to admit that the sheer mathematical probability that all that came to be from chance was so so so so very low that it approached zero%.

The argument that complex things coul ...[text shortened]... ism teaches us to be wary of the easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance."[/b]

I'm going to be honest here, anything written by Dawkins I'm very careful of. Dawkins is losing credibility in the scientific community. He is so polemic and ungenerous. He had the audacity to call Freemon Dyson mad for speaking of God. As if Dawkins couldn't believe that one of the world's leading physicists would believe in God. Dyson was incensed that Dawkins would say that about him.

Personally, before I was even a Christian I took Dawkins with a grain of salt because I viewed him as extreme, hyper, out there, however you want to say it. Yes, he is brilliant, intelligent and a fine scientist yet his methodologies are all wrong.

Originally posted by King Tiger
If you are suggesting that fairies somehow enhance my life by belief you will need to prove that just as it should be proven that belief or disbelief in God is beneficial.

No, I do not need to prove it. If it could be proven, then there would be no need for the Wager. The Wager is based the assumption that you do not know whether there is a benefit, only that there is a benefit if it turns out that there is, and that there is no detriment if there turns out that there isn't.

Originally posted by King Tiger
I am calculating that probability because it is the probability in question. Not how easily the good mutation if successful is transferred, but rather the probability that a good successive successful mutation with 200 components (each requiring it's own mutation, so 200) would occur. That is the argument.

But what cell has 200 successful mutations over its life time?

So hopefully that clears it up. You weren't approaching it mathematically, and apparently never thought to question the likelyhood of the source of mutation. That is the mathematical sticking point. Not transference generationally.
The sticking point is that you seem to be talking about something that has nothing to do with evolution. Most mutations occur during cell division, so to ignore generations and assume that all mutations occur in one single cell during its lifetime is simply wrong. The chance of a single cell having 200 good mutations and no bad ones is miniscule I agree, but this has nothing to do with how evolution proceeds.