Evolution and Intelligent Design

[BluePriest]

I won't go deep into this topic, but I'll just throw this as an idea. From what I understand, given infinite time even things that are unlikely to happen are bound to happen at some point.

That defense is not very good. Look at the suggestions I gave. Heres the thing, each event is an independent event. One doesnt have any effect on the other.

There is a 50 50 chance of getting a heads and a tails on a 2 sided coin. If i flip a coin 10times and get a tail EACH time, the chance of me getting a Tail the 11th time s still 1/2. According to the defense of the event happening eventually, people would say it has a 0.09765625 chance of happening, however, just because I flipped a tail each other time, it doesnt mean I have a better chance of flipping a head this time. This is something I refer to as an illusion of time and chance. I dont know if it actually does have a scientific name or not, but what I quoted is exactly what I mean by the illusion of time and chance.

When 1 event that has a chance of different outcomes happening, is repeated multiple times, the chance of each event happening remains the same the 100th time, just as much as it does the 1st time.

[Chemist]

"the universe happened during an explosion of molecules"

Please tell me you don't think that's what the Big Bang was supposed to be. Who told you something like that in the first place?

Would anyone here bet me that after the 100,000th try,[...]

I'll probably regret asking this, but... what exactly are you talking about? What (do you presume) has a small chance of having happened? You may think you're making arguments here, but it's not even entirely clear what you're referring too. I'm guessing evolution, but that wouldn't make much sense...

and BTW

Heres the thing. If you believe in evolution, but you dont believe that we all came from a common ancestor, then that means there was AT LEAST 2 cells in the beginning, which means this event that had to happen for life to staet, had to happen 2 times.

Two words: asexual reproduction. That is how simple life forms like bacteria reproduce...

Edit: Oops, misunderstood something here.

Heres the thing. If you believe in evolution, but you dont believe that we all came from a common ancestor

But that's not an argument against evolution (nor abiogenesis), then. I have to agree with scientists that if a single life form emerged via abiogenesis (or through any means actually) evolution is adequate to explain the biodiversity we have today (I believe we've discussed how it works).

[airframe]

@Bluepriest, what I said is more related to theories regarding the universe and existence, I wasn't defending evolution. I'm afraid I agree with chemist as I don't really understand what your idea there is.

[Demagog]

I won't go deep into this topic, but I'll just throw this as an idea. From what I understand, given infinite time even things that are unlikely to happen are bound to happen at some point.

That defense is not very good. Look at the suggestions I gave. Heres the thing, each event is an independent event. One doesnt have any effect on the other.

There is a 50 50 chance of getting a heads and a tails on a 2 sided coin. If i flip a coin 10times and get a tail EACH time, the chance of me getting a Tail the 11th time s still 1/2. According to the defense of the event happening eventually, people would say it has a 0.09765625 chance of happening, however, just because I flipped a tail each other time, it doesnt mean I have a better chance of flipping a head this time. This is something I refer to as an illusion of time and chance. I dont know if it actually does have a scientific name or not, but what I quoted is exactly what I mean by the illusion of time and chance.

When 1 event that has a chance of different outcomes happening, is repeated multiple times, the chance of each event happening remains the same the 100th time, just as much as it does the 1st time.

I think what we are discussing isn't based on independent events. We're discussing stuff that is entirely based on previous events. Each event had to have a cause. So you're coin analogy doesn't really work. Unless I'm confused and you're talking about something else...

[vrt]

Can you give me any examples of a mutation that added genetic material that wasnt already there? One that humans have seen in thier lets just say about 4000 life span?

Japanese people have a genetically determined enzym in their stomachs that help them digest seafood better. There you go.

[reqz]

Things to discuss
The whole concept of irreducible complexity
Fossil Evidence
Origins of the Earth, and all other planets
Big bang theory (this specific origin theory)
Common ancestory
Creationist Point of Views on Origins
Any other subject anyone could think of.
Just brainstormin some quick things.

For each topic I will link you to the most current understanding of each topic. This site uses PUBLISHED articles as bases for it's information. These articles are in scientific journals. The experiments in each article have been tested independently by other scientist and agreed to be accurate.

Irreducible complexity:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html)

Fossil Evidence:
This one is too broad. I will assume you want to discuss transitional fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)

Origins of the Earth, and all other planets:
I though this topic was evolution (biology) and creation. This is astronomy. Link anyways.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#bigbang (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy)

Big bang theory (this specific origin theory):
Astronomy again...
You are getting your facts mixed up. Like evolution does not explain the origin of life (that is abiogenesis). Evolution explains the diversity of already existing life. Like the big bang explains the development of the Universe from already existing matter. Science CANNOT say where that matter came from (assuming it didn't always exist, which is a possibility) because it is not testable.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#contents (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#contents)

Common ancestory:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html#common_descent (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html#common_descent)

Creationist Point of Views on Origins:
How about creationist claims on everything...ever...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html)

If you have a problem with any of the evidence in the website let me know. I go to college and have access to the sources (both online and library) and I could link you or something. If you have evidence that is contradictory to any of this let me know. I would really like to dig deeper and find out more about that source. The reason I am linking you the most current information is because humans are so successful as a species for many reasons. One reason is the ability to use information learned from the past as a building block to the future. Not reinventing the wheel if you will. Lets get this information straight so we can move on.

[BluePriest]

I'll probably regret asking this, but... what exactly are you talking about? What (do you presume) has a small chance of having happened? You may think you're making arguments here, but it's not even entirely clear what you're referring too. I'm guessing evolution, but that wouldn't make much sense...

Im talking about a 52 card deck.If I gave you 100,000 tries youd be able to guess what the order of cards in the deck is? I would shuffle the cards after each guess.

I think what we are discussing isn't based on independent events. We're discussing stuff that is entirely based on previous events. Each event had to have a cause. So you're coin analogy doesn't really work. Unless I'm confused and you're talking about something else...

I didnt make it clear, sorry, i was referring to the origin of life since Jetzal was asking where it even came from. I wasnt talking about The adaptation seen today. The original life coming into existence was independent events.

Can you give me any examples of a mutation that added genetic material that wasnt already there? One that humans have seen in thier lets just say about 4000 life span?

Japanese people have a genetically determined enzym in their stomachs that help them digest seafood better. There you go.

If im reading it right... its not really a mutation... the article doesnt even point to it as being a mutation...
"This is the first evidence that food bacteria can transfer genes to our own gut bacteria, and could help us extract more energy from food"
It transfered genes to us... I mean, some people may consider that a mutation, but especially since it even points out that this is the first evidence that something like this can happen,  it is not a type of mutation that evolutionists claim is part of what makes things evolve.
Just what I gather from the article. Im probably going to be ripped apart by that, but meh. I dont really care.

[reqz]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm)

Here BluePriest, this is a article about a group of lizards that were separated from its main group for about 36 years. They were sent to a new environment that caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.

"Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste."

I think new internal structures count as information being added.

[Chemist]

@BluePriest

You could join me in giving reqz +karma . You remember how you asked me for evidence and I didn't bother with it (I thought I'd need to scour half the Internet to make a comprehensive list). His fifth link provides what you were asking for on a silver platter.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

Isn't this exactly what you wanted?

And link number six addresses pretty much your every concern and argument in this thread. Concise responses given by people qualified to give them.

Im talking about a 52 card deck.If I gave you 100,000 tries youd be able to guess what the order of cards in the deck is? I would shuffle the cards after each guess.

What has that got to do with anything? You don't mean... this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html , do you?

I love that site .

[BluePriest]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm)

Here BluePriest, this is a article about a group of lizards that were separated from its main group for about 36 years. They were sent to a new environment that caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.

"Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste."

I think new internal structures count as information being added.

WHY LOOK AT THAT! Some type of intelligent being put them in a different environment, and they adapted to thier environment, and even got a new structure in the process that was very important since I already admitted that I was wrong on new information being added soemtimes.

However, thats if you think it was some type of adaptation. Theres 2 sides to every coin. Further research indicates other things as possibilities as well. (ns=natural selection, emphasis added)

"the environment, specifically the proteins/enzymes/chemicals of the plant life on the new Adriatic island has interacted with the genome to quickly bring about these changes. Considering Haldane’s Dilemna–much discussed here at UD–there have been simply too many changes that have occurred to the physiology of these lizards for NS to be invoked as the cause. Additionally, if NS “can” work this fast, then why aren’t we seeing the development of higher taxa of animals and plants right now?"

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rapid-evolution-is-it-ns-or-the-environment-that-matters/ (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rapid-evolution-is-it-ns-or-the-environment-that-matters/)

So unfortunatly, instead of giving plus karma with you, im afraid im going to have to simply do nothing Chemist

What has that got to do with anything? You don't mean... this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html , do you?

Why look at that! An article that I already knew about! How amazing. Lets talk about that article for a little bit.

1st response. Biochemistry is not chance... well... no, it isnt... but we are talking about the formation of the original biological form... which is chance... There would be no amino acids, no plants, no oxygen, it would all have to appear from nowhere. THAT is chance. The first cell IS chance.

2nd response. ok, lets say there are 10,000,000,000 different protiens. So now you have a 10,000,000,000/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000( 1/10¹⁰³ )Chance. Does that make you feel better?


3rd Response. Heres 3 things a cell HAS to have, no matter how simple.

1)The ability to reproduce itself.
2)A metabolism
3)mutagenicity , i.e. a potential for evolution.
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e41/41b.htm (http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e41/41b.htm)

So, the response, thriving on how we really dont know how complicated or simple a cell really was at first, really proves nothing... We know there are certain things it had to have to be useful. It had to have a way to sustain itself. It had to eventually had a way to reproduce, so it had to have some way of mutagenicity.

4th response. I once again point to what i say about Illusion of Time and Chance. They are independent events. It not happening 1 time doesnt give it any better chance to happen the 2nd time.

[airframe]

I don't really see why something wouldn't happen simply because it's unlikely. That just explains why there doesn't appear to be life anywhere else than on earth.

[Chemist]

1st response. Biochemistry is not chance... well... no, it isnt... but we are talking about the formation of the original biological form... which is chance... There would be no amino acids, no plants, no oxygen, it would all have to appear from nowhere. THAT is chance. The first cell IS chance.

Lets address some of the misconceptions here:
1. Life doesn't require oxygen to exist.
2. Life doesn't require plants to exist. (duh!)
3. Amino acids form spontaneously in conditions similar to those of the early earth.
4. We're talking about the probability of life arising by itself from inanimate matter on a planet in this Universe. You can't include the probability of this Universes' existence into the equation unless you pull it out of your... make it up.

So, the response, thriving on how we really dont know how complicated or simple a cell really was at first, really proves nothing... We know there are certain things it had to have to be useful. It had to have a way to sustain itself. It had to eventually had a way to reproduce, so it had to have some way of mutagenicity.

We can assume first life was simpler than current day cells (and who says it had to have metabolism from the start?), so it would be way easier for something like that to emerge by chance than something as complex as the cells around today. So for anyone doing "probabilities" of the right pieces hitting together they really *should* consider that there wouldn't be as many different proteins required, nor would those be nearly as complex.

4th response. I once again point to what i say about Illusion of Time and Chance. They are independent events. It not happening 1 time doesnt give it any better chance to happen the 2nd time.

But the odds of it happening at all in two events are higher than the odds of it happening in one, ya' know. The odds of getting heads at least once in ten coin tosses are over 99.9% (not 50%, even though those are the odds of getting heads on each of those coins). Even when the chance is smaller if you have enough trials taking place simultaneously the odds of the event occurring can be pretty much a certainty.

Why look at that! An article that I already knew about! How amazing. Lets talk about that article for a little bit.

Further recommended reading:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html