Evolution and probability

I think creationists have a point. After all, only a loving, benevolent god like the one described in the bible could come up with such wonderful creatures as:

The glomerata wasp

The tongue-eating louse (eats a fishes tongue but then has the decency to act as a new tongue for the fish while helping itself to whatever the fish eats)

The botfly (which has been known to infect the brain)

The guinea worm (takes months to pull out and makes your limbs feel like they're perpetually on fire)

The loa loa worm

Anisakis

Yes, let us give glory to God's wonderful creations that he put here for the wonder and enjoyment of people. Such amazing creatures could only be the result of an all-loving God. All the evidence you need is in how amazingly well adapted each of these parasites are to their hosts; so well adapted, in fact, that they couldn't exist without them. Now EVILutionsists would just say that all of these magnificent animals are just evidence of co-evolution, but we know better than that don't we creationists?

I think many of these evolution denying Christians forget just how incredibly large the universe is. It is so big that things with a low probability will happen quite often. Evolution as a theory is not 100% accurate at this point, however, I think MOST people will agree that it has the basics correct and they are getting closer by the day.

when creationists talk about probability and evolution, it becomes so blazingly clear that they have no grasp of either concept.

Yes, let us give glory to God's wonderful creations that he put here for the wonder and enjoyment of people. Such amazing creatures could only be the result of an all-loving God. All the evidence you need is in how amazingly well adapted each of these parasites are to their hosts; so well adapted, in fact, that they couldn't exist without them. Now EVILutionsists would just say that all of these magnificent animals are just evidence of co-evolution, but we know better than that don't we creationists?

gameguy6700

Drinking and designing will do that.

1. One cannot believe in science. One must accept it.
2. Evolution is true. It has been observed and has mountains of evidence to support it. Only denying it makes it untrue.

the thing about probability is something is going to happen. In fact, what we have now is probably the result of things that were statistically very probable. You cant see it as "1/2000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance of happening" but rather "1/3 * 1/5 * 1/3 *1/2....."

Lmao @ using statistics to disprove evolution.

Evolution is both theory and fact so lets get that straight. Fact: We know evolution is happening, we see it all the time and it is observable. Just like we see gravity happening and see what it does and can calculated it. Theory doesn't make it not factual, how absurd.

Theory: Based on observable facts.

Example of evolution: Introducing DDT to WWII to kill insect populations. Further generation of insects evolved to become highly resistant to it.

Interesting. People who pretend to know something that no one on earth knows. :P

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

The Orion Nebula is an example of a stellar nursery where new stars are being born. Observations of the nebula have revealed approximately 700 stars in various stages of formation within the nebula.

I just dont get with some folks who have a narrow view. Orion Nebula is one example of how creating amino acids and DNA from clouds of dust, then that DNA become bacteria to evolve into animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

There is at least a quadtrillion tons of matter around young stars that havent yet condensed into comets and pluto like bodies. With the mass being so high the possibility for DNA to form is very probable.

I'd recommend the TC read "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by Richard Dawkins.

That is, if you were actually honestly wanting an answer to the question you asked. It's a fun book to read anyway.

[QUOTE="ganon92"][QUOTE="exiledsnake"]You guys do know that its called the THEORY of evolution? While there are evidence supporting this theory, there are also findings that aren't concordant with it.exiledsnake

earth being round is a theory.

earth orbiting the sun is a theory.

[QUOTE="exiledsnake"][QUOTE="ganon92"] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#The_term_theoretical Seriously.Phaze-Two

earth being round is a theory.

earth orbiting the sun is a theory.

[QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

[QUOTE="exiledsnake"] So? Its still a theory. Like a scientific assumption. Just a very well accepted one until another one comes along.exiledsnake

earth being round is a theory.

earth orbiting the sun is a theory.

actually thats what Abiogenesis deals with, which is right now a hypothetical feild of science.

that is not what evolution is about. evolution is sound. it's a fact. read the book that in my post above, and get back with me.

[QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

[QUOTE="exiledsnake"] So? Its still a theory. Like a scientific assumption. Just a very well accepted one until another one comes along.exiledsnake

earth being round is a theory.

earth orbiting the sun is a theory.

There are parts of evolution still a mystery (origin) but there are parts of everything that are mysteries. You seem to think that they are something science couldn't come up with sound theories for in the future? Because I am for sure certain that they will and it will sound a hell of a lot better than anything the bible produced.

After looking at the statistics on the probability of evolution (If you believe in it) How do you rationalize it being true? Not a joke i really want to know your reasoning.

Simple Statistics

A little more complex statistics more so on the the universe by chance in general.

kneeha

One of the many probabilities must form the truth.

the probability that evolution is a fact, in hindsight is 100%.

Creationism is simply a quick and easy means of explaining the unknown, completely lacking in evidence. Science is a slower process of discovering answers, with solid evidence to back it up. If I was religious I would be panicking, seeing as evolution is quickly becoming an irrefutable fact, and Creationism being void of evidence.LiftedHeadshot

[QUOTE="LiftedHeadshot"]Creationism is simply a quick and easy means of explaining the unknown, completely lacking in evidence. Science is a slower process of discovering answers, with solid evidence to back it up. If I was religious I would be panicking, seeing as evolution is quickly becoming an irrefutable fact, and Creationism being void of evidence.mattbbpl

that can't be true, because some religions are proven to be false.

like, we know zeus as he was defined in greek mythology, doesn't exist. we know how lightning occurs thanks to science.

[QUOTE="LiftedHeadshot"]Creationism is simply a quick and easy means of explaining the unknown, completely lacking in evidence. Science is a slower process of discovering answers, with solid evidence to back it up. If I was religious I would be panicking, seeing as evolution is quickly becoming an irrefutable fact, and Creationism being void of evidence.mattbbpl

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="LiftedHeadshot"]Creationism is simply a quick and easy means of explaining the unknown, completely lacking in evidence. Science is a slower process of discovering answers, with solid evidence to back it up. If I was religious I would be panicking, seeing as evolution is quickly becoming an irrefutable fact, and Creationism being void of evidence.Phaze-Two

that can't be true, because some religions are proven to be false.

like, we know zeus as he was defined in greek mythology, doesn't exist. we know how lightning occurs thanks to science.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="LiftedHeadshot"]Creationism is simply a quick and easy means of explaining the unknown, completely lacking in evidence. Science is a slower process of discovering answers, with solid evidence to back it up. If I was religious I would be panicking, seeing as evolution is quickly becoming an irrefutable fact, and Creationism being void of evidence.LiftedHeadshot

[QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Religion, at it's core, is all about the search for truth. Burying one's head in the sand and ignoring the discoveries around you is completely counterproductive.mattbbpl

that can't be true, because some religions are proven to be false.

like, we know zeus as he was defined in greek mythology, doesn't exist. we know how lightning occurs thanks to science.

[QUOTE="exiledsnake"][QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

earth being round is a theory.

earth orbiting the sun is a theory.

Human-after-all

There are parts of evolution still a mystery (origin) but there are parts of everything that are mysteries. You seem to think that they are something science couldn't come up with sound theories for in the future? Because I am for sure certain that they will and it will sound a hell of a lot better than anything the bible produced.

[QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Religion, at it's core, is all about the search for truth. Burying one's head in the sand and ignoring the discoveries around you is completely counterproductive.mattbbpl

that can't be true, because some religions are proven to be false.

like, we know zeus as he was defined in greek mythology, doesn't exist. we know how lightning occurs thanks to science.

but i can do that without religion. and that's not just what religion is about. don't you like have to believe in some kind supernatural existance too, which by definition could never be proven because then it would have been demonstrated in the natural world? it seems more like they just settle with believing without there being any reliable demonstrable evidence, which is why they have faith. isn't settling on faith like the opposite of seeking facts?

[QUOTE="Human-after-all"]

[QUOTE="exiledsnake"] And those are very sound theories(without reasonable doubt). The theory of evolution is not. There are big gaps of evidence that still remain a mystery like the formation of RNA from inorganic molecules.exiledsnake

There are parts of evolution still a mystery (origin) but there are parts of everything that are mysteries. You seem to think that they are something science couldn't come up with sound theories for in the future? Because I am for sure certain that they will and it will sound a hell of a lot better than anything the bible produced.

no, it's not. thats what abiogenesis deals with. sorry.that's the process that lead up to, and made possible evolution. but thats not evoltion. cosmology and physics led up to abiogenesis, but that's not evolution either.

you can't just make stuff up and expect to have an actual meaningful discussion. i thought after reading your sig, you would actually understand that.

and you say god is suppossed to be perfect. well, if that's how you want to define him then okay. but you first need to demonstrate that he even exists before claiming that he designed anything.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

that can't be true, because some religions are proven to be false.

like, we know zeus as he was defined in greek mythology, doesn't exist. we know how lightning occurs thanks to science.

Phaze-Two

but i can do that without religion. and that's not just what religion is about. don't you like have to believe in some kind supernatural existance too, which by definition could never be proven because then it would have been demonstrated in the natural world? it seems more like they just settle with believing without there being any reliable demonstrable evidence, which is why they have faith. isn't settling on faith like the opposite of seeking facts?

[QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] Religions can be wrong, true. I'm talking from a philosophical standpoint - the point as a whole is to seek the truth and the best way to live your life.mattbbpl

but i can do that without religion. and that's not just what religion is about. don't you like have to believe in some kind supernatural existance too, which by definition could never be proven because then it would have been demonstrated in the natural world? it seems more like they just settle with believing without there being any reliable demonstrable evidence, which is why they have faith. isn't settling on faith like the opposite of seeking facts?

I must be clear here that I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion on the belief of such a deity - I'm simply stating that ignoring recent discoveries in a futile attempt at preserving one's previously established beliefs is silly and even counterproductive to the reason for having religious beliefs in the first place.

it dsefinitly is funny how religion claims to seek the truth, but what it actually does is assume knowledge without reliable deomstrable evidence. and that's not what science does.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

but i can do that without religion. and that's not just what religion is about. don't you like have to believe in some kind supernatural existance too, which by definition could never be proven because then it would have been demonstrated in the natural world? it seems more like they just settle with believing without there being any reliable demonstrable evidence, which is why they have faith. isn't settling on faith like the opposite of seeking facts?

Phaze-Two

I must be clear here that I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion on the belief of such a deity - I'm simply stating that ignoring recent discoveries in a futile attempt at preserving one's previously established beliefs is silly and even counterproductive to the reason for having religious beliefs in the first place.

it dsefinitly is funny how religion claims to seek the truth, but what it actually does is assume knowledge without reliable deomstrable evidence. and that's not what science does.

[QUOTE="Human-after-all"]

[QUOTE="exiledsnake"] And those are very sound theories(without reasonable doubt). The theory of evolution is not. There are big gaps of evidence that still remain a mystery like the formation of RNA from inorganic molecules.exiledsnake

There are parts of evolution still a mystery (origin) but there are parts of everything that are mysteries. You seem to think that they are something science couldn't come up with sound theories for in the future? Because I am for sure certain that they will and it will sound a hell of a lot better than anything the bible produced.

[QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] The deity you speak of is, indeed, at the heart of most religions. They will likely never be proven or disproven, and most people who believe in them have different reasons for doing so.

I must be clear here that I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion on the belief of such a deity - I'm simply stating that ignoring recent discoveries in a futile attempt at preserving one's previously established beliefs is silly and even counterproductive to the reason for having religious beliefs in the first place.mattbbpl

it dsefinitly is funny how religion claims to seek the truth, but what it actually does is assume knowledge without reliable deomstrable evidence. and that's not what science does.

wha? where did i go wrong? so since i say something you don't agree with, I must be making "jabs" at you? I haven't assumed you are even religious. that's irrelevant anyway.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Phaze-Two"] How is evolution not a sound theory? We observe it happening DAILY, just like we see the effects of gravity DAILY. What the hell does the RNA world hypothesis have to do with evolution not being a sound theory? That is absolutely ridiculous.

There are parts of evolution still a mystery (origin) but there are parts of everything that are mysteries. You seem to think that they are something science couldn't come up with sound theories for in the future? Because I am for sure certain that they will and it will sound a hell of a lot better than anything the bible produced.

Phaze-Two

no, it's not. thats what abiogenesis deals with. sorry.that's the process that lead up to, and made possible evolution. but thats not evoltion. cosmology and physics led up to abiogenesis, but that's not evolution either.

you can't just make stuff up and expect to have an actual meaningful discussion. i thought after reading your sig, you would actually understand that.

After looking at the statistics on the probability of evolution (If you believe in it) How do you rationalize it being true? Not a joke i really want to know your reasoning.

Simple Statistics

A little more complex statistics more so on the the universe by chance in general.

kneeha

[QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] We observe parts of evolution happening daily not the actual transition from species to species. Well about the RNA world hypothesis, if you think about it, inorganic molecules turning into biological molecules is evolution in a sense. If we can fill in the gaps in evolution, then its all good. God is suppose to be perfect, I'm sure he didn't leave any loopholes in his "intelligent" design :Pexiledsnake

no, it's not. thats what abiogenesis deals with. sorry.that's the process that lead up to, and made possible evolution. but thats not evoltion. cosmology and physics led up to abiogenesis, but that's not evolution either.

you can't just make stuff up and expect to have an actual meaningful discussion. i thought after reading your sig, you would actually understand that.

that's great, man. i'm glad you were honest enough to say that, I know it takes alot of courage to say something like that. if i were you i'd start reading up on evolution. there are even audiobooks that you can download and just listen to. that's what i do sometimes so i can do research about what is being said as it's being said.

Why is it that every link I see that supposedly "disproves evolutionary theory" ends up originating from some creationist crock site?

We don't bring in theologians or psychologists to debate the validity of Einstein's theory of relativity, do we? So why on earth are you referring to these guys - whose fields of expertise tend to revolve around the idea that our terrifically impractical bodies were apparently designed - as if they have any relevance at all to a purely biological debate?

[QUOTE="exiledsnake"][QUOTE="Human-after-all"] How is evolution not a sound theory? We observe it happening DAILY, just like we see the effects of gravity DAILY. What the hell does the RNA world hypothesis have to do with evolution not being a sound theory? That is absolutely ridiculous.

There are parts of evolution still a mystery (origin) but there are parts of everything that are mysteries. You seem to think that they are something science couldn't come up with sound theories for in the future? Because I am for sure certain that they will and it will sound a hell of a lot better than anything the bible produced.

Human-after-all

While I didn't study evolution in depth in Bible School, I did study Biotechnology for my degree though it does seem that I didn't take much in during those three years... oh well still got my second upper I guess. But I assure you, my dissertation was much better written then :D Personally, the way I see it, I believe in God just because of my rationale. If there's no god, no harm done. If there is a God, then woot woot for me.

[QUOTE="Human-after-all"][QUOTE="exiledsnake"] We observe parts of evolution happening daily not the actual transition from species to species. Well about the RNA world hypothesis, if you think about it, inorganic molecules turning into biological molecules is evolution in a sense. If we can fill in the gaps in evolution, then its all good. God is suppose to be perfect, I'm sure he didn't leave any loopholes in his "intelligent" design :Pexiledsnake

While I didn't study evolution in depth in Bible School, I did study Biotechnology for my degree though it does seem that I didn't take much in during those three years... oh well still got my second upper I guess. But I assure you, my dissertation was much better written then :D Personally, the way I see it, I believe in God just because of my rationale. If there's no god, no harm done. If there is a God, then woot woot for me.

that's pascals wager. check this video for why its not a good reason to believe anything.

Meh, that article looks at ex-ante probabilities in an interim/ex-post setting. Once someone comes up with conditional probabilities of evolution happening I'll consider them.

:lol:
I'd like to seetheir determined probability of god existing and creating everything instead.

I see it like this; the chances of me being born with the exact same physical and mental characteristics that I have are incredibly small, yet here I am.F1_2004

That makes no sense, you can't find the probability for something like that, there are WAY too many factors that are unknown, such as whether or not we have a common ancestor, whether life is easy to form or very difficult to form, or whether or not life naturally follows evolution or if it's just a phenomenon unique to Earth. We simply don't know enough about it yet, and we might never, so claiming that someone has found the probability of evolution happening is completely ridiculous. The closest thing we could come to that is using the data for genetic mutations on a generation to generation basis, which has been done and supports the theory of evolution (like Mendel's work, for example).

After looking at the statistics on the probability of evolution (If you believe in it) How do you rationalize it being true? Not a joke i really want to know your reasoning.

Simple Statistics

A little more complex statistics more so on the the universe by chance in general.

kneeha

They ignore all physics and chemistry. If you ignore those things any combination of an molecules ending up in a particular order is statistically impossible therefore the universe is statistically impossible. (which is correct. Without physics the universe would not exist)

/thread

Probability of god is just as astronomical as the probability of evolution. The arguments made for god are almost strong as the arguments made for evolution. The evidence for god isn't as strong as for evolution but it is still very substantial. So it is very easy to rationalize being an agnostic. Diablo-B

There's no evidence for god, there's simply a lack of scientific evidence which certain people take to mean that god did it. I do think that everyone should be an agnostic, whether an agnostic atheist or theist, but what you're describing doesn't seem much like agnosticism to me, it sounds like uncertainty.

The probability estimates are laughable. They take the number of atoms in the universe and divide them by the probability for life in the universe or other such rubbish. They are guestimates on top of guestimates leaving out such things as quantum physics and such. If you want to have an open mind you can start by reading science journals and trying to come to a better understanding of it. Religious belief and reality can live side by side. God and evolution can do the same.