And I wasn't trying to change the subject - I just didn't read well enough...
666...the Devils Moving Average
- Thread starter crackhead
- Start date
Hey, wait a minute - you did the same thing to me!
I have raised the issue as to how a reptile could morph into a bird in less than 10 million years when literally every structure in its body would also have to morph to support flight and an avian lifestyle.
Let me put it another way: evolutionists like to cite the microevolutionary changes in creatures on Galapagos and Australia. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of creatures have been observed to undergo small changes. The length and curvature of beaks have changed for example.
How long did it take for these changes to take place? In most cases, well over 10 million years! So the global norm is for very slow microevolutionary changes in 20, 30, 40 + million years and yet I'm supposed to believe that a reptile was drastically altered into a bird and small land rodent into a whale and a small land rodent into a bat and on and on and on all in less than 10 million years?
If evolutionists were honest about this, they would admit they don't even have a mechanism to explain this. Their only conceivable hope is punctuated equilibria and statistically that could easily be shown to be an impossibility...
Point 1 - Once, again, the hidden implication here is that OUR KIND OF LIFE could not form. Irrelevant.
Maybe OUR KIND OF LIFE would fail to exist if even one of those parameters are changed, but this in no way debunks evolution.
Why? Because if you were god, and were able to change a parameter, then roll the dice again, and POP, another kind of life form emerged, this proves evolution just as much as if OUR kind of life popped up.
Point 2 - Your still not thinking about all the variables here.
Your completely ignoring the MASSIVE number of variables that play a part on the "life forms" side of the fence.
In other words, there may be say 100 variables for tuning the universe, but there could be, say 2000 variables allowing for combinations of a living being to make it survivable in that universe.
Once again.... you have NO idea WHAT the probabilities are.
For every kind of universe you can create using your 50 variables, it may be just as possible to create 50 * 50 types of life which could survive in that very environment.
Point 3 - You still have not stated your null hypothesis.
You have NOTHING to test against.
That is the main issue here.
When I develop a trading system and want to know if it is giving me results beyond mere chance, what do I do?
I test my null hypothesis. I compare it to the same number of random trades...or maybe against the S&P500 for example.
Here is a market analogy to what you are doing.
1) You developed a trading system.
2) You look at the end results and it is VERY profitable
3) You have not compared it to the S&P500 for the same time period
If you later compared it to the S&P500 and discovered that you were trading in the mega bull market of 1997-2000, you would immediately realize it wasn't your trading system at all. You were wrong.
If however, you see that during the same time period the S&P500 was plummeting like a rock, then this would FURTHER verify that your system rocks.
So again... I ask you... what is your null hypothesis?
If we change these universal variables, how many life forms on AVERAGE would you expect to develop?
Your answer, I would wager, would be zero, but you simply can't claim that, because unlike the S&P, where I can show you a chart, and tell you EXACTLY what to expect, you have NO WAY of testing your hypothesis.
You cannot create a universe with different parameters and then wait 200 million years to see if anything happens
So basically.... your just guessing.
You may only make estimates about OUR KIND OF LIFE, within the context of OUR UNIVERSE.
But we already know that we can prevent OUR KIND OF LIFE, by changing parameters in OUR KIND OF UNIVERSE, thus making it incompatible with OUR KIND OF LIFE.
This is stating the obvious.
This is basically what Carl Sagan did. He came up with a very rough estimate based on a small set of variables, encapsulated within a small context of assumptions. More than likely, the truth is far more complicated than this, and his assumptions do not match reality, so his estimates are for a case which doesn't even exist.
peace
axeman
Maybe OUR KIND OF LIFE would fail to exist if even one of those parameters are changed, but this in no way debunks evolution.
Why? Because if you were god, and were able to change a parameter, then roll the dice again, and POP, another kind of life form emerged, this proves evolution just as much as if OUR kind of life popped up.
Point 2 - Your still not thinking about all the variables here.
Your completely ignoring the MASSIVE number of variables that play a part on the "life forms" side of the fence.
In other words, there may be say 100 variables for tuning the universe, but there could be, say 2000 variables allowing for combinations of a living being to make it survivable in that universe.
Once again.... you have NO idea WHAT the probabilities are.
For every kind of universe you can create using your 50 variables, it may be just as possible to create 50 * 50 types of life which could survive in that very environment.
Point 3 - You still have not stated your null hypothesis.
You have NOTHING to test against.
That is the main issue here.
When I develop a trading system and want to know if it is giving me results beyond mere chance, what do I do?
I test my null hypothesis. I compare it to the same number of random trades...or maybe against the S&P500 for example.
Here is a market analogy to what you are doing.
1) You developed a trading system.
2) You look at the end results and it is VERY profitable
3) You have not compared it to the S&P500 for the same time period
If you later compared it to the S&P500 and discovered that you were trading in the mega bull market of 1997-2000, you would immediately realize it wasn't your trading system at all. You were wrong.
If however, you see that during the same time period the S&P500 was plummeting like a rock, then this would FURTHER verify that your system rocks.
So again... I ask you... what is your null hypothesis?
If we change these universal variables, how many life forms on AVERAGE would you expect to develop?
Your answer, I would wager, would be zero, but you simply can't claim that, because unlike the S&P, where I can show you a chart, and tell you EXACTLY what to expect, you have NO WAY of testing your hypothesis.
You cannot create a universe with different parameters and then wait 200 million years to see if anything happens
So basically.... your just guessing.
You may only make estimates about OUR KIND OF LIFE, within the context of OUR UNIVERSE.
But we already know that we can prevent OUR KIND OF LIFE, by changing parameters in OUR KIND OF UNIVERSE, thus making it incompatible with OUR KIND OF LIFE.
This is stating the obvious.
This is basically what Carl Sagan did. He came up with a very rough estimate based on a small set of variables, encapsulated within a small context of assumptions. More than likely, the truth is far more complicated than this, and his assumptions do not match reality, so his estimates are for a case which doesn't even exist.
peace
axeman
Now I think we're getting somewhere. I understand what the confusion is. Here is what I am saying in a few simple steps:
1. The only kind of life in this universe is carbon-based.
2. More importantly, it is the only element upon which life can be based.
3. If any of these 50 parameters are tweaked, then there cannot be carbon-based life.
4. If there is no carbon-based life, then there is no possibility for life in our universe.
I think that you are thinking of the possibility of alternate, and for lack of a better word, "sci-fi-ish" forms of life or something. But hard science life cannot exist w/o carbon.
As I mentioned in previous threads, silicon cannot be used as a basis for life. Not that it matters because these parameters will kill silicon as well.
No carbon, no life - it's that simple. Again, I don't need a null hypotheses as there are no alternative probabilites.
I don't think so 
But I'm not going to look back and verify.
I believe I simply rejected evolution to keep you on track and focused on the intelligent design debate.
In any case...
I'll address this thread a little bit.
I really don't want to spend the next 10 months defending evolution when others can do a much better job than me.
Your post below makes quite a few assumptions.
Re-read it while keeping the following things in mind:
1) Think of how many mutations occur when the population size is in the billions. ( How many birds are in the world right now?? )
2) What effect does selection have in this process, which is NOT random?
3) "Human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimps and bonobos, a lesser-known chimp-like ape. " Note what huge changes such a small difference can make.
4) Think of modern day "forced" selection and how incredibly quickly it can change a species into nearly a new one. Dogs for example. Common ancestor, the wolf. In only a few hundred, maybe a couple of thousand, years, man took a wolf and turned it into a chiwawa! Technically the same species, but get real. They certainly have attributes that a creationist would DEMAND to see transitional fossils for! Ha ha
Basically...we know there have been "bursts" of evolution. And we have some examples of just how fast it can happen when an animals environment changes swiftly.
I was watching a show about rattlesnakes recently. This old dude has been hunting him his whole life in his town. He beats the bushes with a long stick and listens for the rattle.
Here is a wonderful example of forming a hypothesis based on evolution and predicting an outcome, then seeing if it actually happens.
Rattle snakes "rattle" at different noise levels. What would darwin predict would happen if some dude was locating and killing the snakes by using their warning system against them?
Darwin would predict that the snakes would get quieter every generation, since rattling gets them killed
Guess what happened? This is ONE dude doing this in this town and now the town, after a few decades, has QUIET and much more dangerous rattle snakes!!! A beautiful example of a creature changing very rapidly in a way that raises it's probability of surving its new environment. I dont think the show even mentioned Darwin, but it was an elegant example that made it SO OBVIOUS how evolution works. Rattlesnakes have had their rattle for probably millions of years, and they lost it in just a couple of decades!!!!
So change CAN happen fast. Your numbers dont add up for various reasons and there is evidence counter to them, so they need to be reformulated.
peace
axeman
But I'm not going to look back and verify.
I believe I simply rejected evolution to keep you on track and focused on the intelligent design debate.
In any case...
I'll address this thread a little bit.
I really don't want to spend the next 10 months defending evolution when others can do a much better job than me.
Your post below makes quite a few assumptions.
Re-read it while keeping the following things in mind:
1) Think of how many mutations occur when the population size is in the billions. ( How many birds are in the world right now?? )
2) What effect does selection have in this process, which is NOT random?
3) "Human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimps and bonobos, a lesser-known chimp-like ape. " Note what huge changes such a small difference can make.
4) Think of modern day "forced" selection and how incredibly quickly it can change a species into nearly a new one. Dogs for example. Common ancestor, the wolf. In only a few hundred, maybe a couple of thousand, years, man took a wolf and turned it into a chiwawa! Technically the same species, but get real. They certainly have attributes that a creationist would DEMAND to see transitional fossils for! Ha ha
Basically...we know there have been "bursts" of evolution. And we have some examples of just how fast it can happen when an animals environment changes swiftly.
I was watching a show about rattlesnakes recently. This old dude has been hunting him his whole life in his town. He beats the bushes with a long stick and listens for the rattle.
Here is a wonderful example of forming a hypothesis based on evolution and predicting an outcome, then seeing if it actually happens.
Rattle snakes "rattle" at different noise levels. What would darwin predict would happen if some dude was locating and killing the snakes by using their warning system against them?
Darwin would predict that the snakes would get quieter every generation, since rattling gets them killed
Guess what happened? This is ONE dude doing this in this town and now the town, after a few decades, has QUIET and much more dangerous rattle snakes!!! A beautiful example of a creature changing very rapidly in a way that raises it's probability of surving its new environment. I dont think the show even mentioned Darwin, but it was an elegant example that made it SO OBVIOUS how evolution works. Rattlesnakes have had their rattle for probably millions of years, and they lost it in just a couple of decades!!!!
So change CAN happen fast. Your numbers dont add up for various reasons and there is evidence counter to them, so they need to be reformulated.
peace
axeman
These are your assumptions:
1) The only kind of life in this universe is carbon-based.
2) More importantly, it is the only element upon which life can be based.
3) If there is no carbon-based life, then there is no possibility for life in our universe.
4) But hard science life cannot exist w/o carbon.
They are unsupported.
I will disagree with any scientist who claims this to be so, and label them closeminded and unimaginative
We simply have no idea what is POSSIBLE in a different kind of universe and are being arrogant if pretend to have experience enough in these "other" kinds of universes to be able to predict what COULD happen.
(Especially since we have ZERO experience )
"Again, I don't need a null hypotheses as there are no alternative probabilities."
This is analogous to saying that you don't need to check against the S&P500 because there are NO OTHER markets that can effect my system.
(Like the european, japanese, chinese, etc )
There ARE alternative probabilities.
It's logically impossible to prove this is not the case.
You are incapable of doing an exhaustive search of all "possible" universes to see if any other kind of life is possible at all.
peace
axeman
1) The only kind of life in this universe is carbon-based.
2) More importantly, it is the only element upon which life can be based.
3) If there is no carbon-based life, then there is no possibility for life in our universe.
4) But hard science life cannot exist w/o carbon.
They are unsupported.
I will disagree with any scientist who claims this to be so, and label them closeminded and unimaginative
We simply have no idea what is POSSIBLE in a different kind of universe and are being arrogant if pretend to have experience enough in these "other" kinds of universes to be able to predict what COULD happen.
(Especially since we have ZERO experience
)"Again, I don't need a null hypotheses as there are no alternative probabilities."
This is analogous to saying that you don't need to check against the S&P500 because there are NO OTHER markets that can effect my system.
(Like the european, japanese, chinese, etc
)There ARE alternative probabilities.
It's logically impossible to prove this is not the case.
You are incapable of doing an exhaustive search of all "possible" universes to see if any other kind of life is possible at all.
peace
axeman
Granted - if we are talking about another universe I agree with you. But if we're talking about our universe, then I still disagree with you (and you did give me permissions in a previous thread to stick to our universe) for the reasons above.Quote from axeman:
These are your assumptions:
1) The only kind of life in this universe is carbon-based.
2) More importantly, it is the only element upon which life can be based.
3) If there is no carbon-based life, then there is no possibility for life in our universe.
4) But hard science life cannot exist w/o carbon.
They are unsupported.
I will disagree with any scientist who claims this to be so, and label them closeminded and unimaginative
We simply have no idea what is POSSIBLE in a different kind of universe and are being arrogant if pretend to have experience enough in these "other" kinds of universes to be able to predict what COULD happen.
(Especially since we have ZERO experience
"Again, I don't need a null hypotheses as there are no alternative probabilities."
This is analogous to saying that you don't need to check against the S&P500 because there are NO OTHER markets that can effect my system.
(Like the european, japanese, chinese, etc
There ARE alternative probabilities.
It's logically impossible to prove this is not the case.
You are incapable of doing an exhaustive search of all "possible" universes to see if any other kind of life is possible at all.
And, by the way, I haven't forgotten about stu's post. He's probably lol - he gave me one brutal homework assignment...
First of all, let me say that I can appreciate to a certain extent that you don't want to go into evolution endlessly. I'm sure you get into debates where the theist is saying, "And how do you explain the firefly's phosphorescent butt?"Quote from axeman:
I don't think so
But I'm not going to look back and verify.
I believe I simply rejected evolution to keep you on track and focused on the intelligent design debate.
In any case...
I'll address this thread a little bit.
I really don't want to spend the next 10 months defending evolution when others can do a much better job than me.
Your post below makes quite a few assumptions.
Re-read it while keeping the following things in mind:
1) Think of how many mutations occur when the population size is in the billions. ( How many birds are in the world right now?? )
2) What effect does selection have in this process, which is NOT random?
3) "Human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimps and bonobos, a lesser-known chimp-like ape. " Note what huge changes such a small difference can make.
4) Think of modern day "forced" selection and how incredibly quickly it can change a species into nearly a new one. Dogs for example. Common ancestor, the wolf. In only a few hundred, maybe a couple of thousand, years, man took a wolf and turned it into a chiwawa! Technically the same species, but get real. They certainly have attributes that a creationist would DEMAND to see transitional fossils for! Ha ha
Basically...we know there have been "bursts" of evolution. And we have some examples of just how fast it can happen when an animals environment changes swiftly.
I was watching a show about rattlesnakes recently. This old dude has been hunting him his whole life in his town. He beats the bushes with a long stick and listens for the rattle.
Here is a wonderful example of forming a hypothesis based on evolution and predicting an outcome, then seeing if it actually happens.
Rattle snakes "rattle" at different noise levels. What would darwin predict would happen if some dude was locating and killing the snakes by using their warning system against them?
Darwin would predict that the snakes would get quieter every generation, since rattling gets them killed
Guess what happened? This is ONE dude doing this in this town and now the town, after a few decades, has QUIET and much more dangerous rattle snakes!!! A beautiful example of a creature changing very rapidly in a way that raises it's probability of surving its new environment. I dont think the show even mentioned Darwin, but it was an elegant example that made it SO OBVIOUS how evolution works. Rattlesnakes have had their rattle for probably millions of years, and they lost it in just a couple of decades!!!!
So change CAN happen fast. Your numbers dont add up for various reasons and there is evidence counter to them, so they need to be reformulated.
So, I'll try not to belabor things too much. And I appreciate your going out on a limb and providing a few examples.
But, that said, I've got to say that the examples you provided are what drive theists crazy. They are all examples of microevolution - very small changes in the grand scheme of life. With all due respect changing a wolf into a chihuahua is chump change. Is the dog's digestive system reengineered? No. Is the dog's circulatory and skeletal systems completely redesigned? No. This is little different than the Galapagos finches.
And more importantly, creating a chihuahua is anything but random. It is carefully guided by the 100 parallel Cray computers that sit inside our craniums.
Here is macroevolution: converting a unicellular organism from asexual to sexual. Changing a cold blooded, egg bearing, scale based, repilian creature into a warm blooded, live young, skin and hair based creature with completely different brain capacity, inner ear structure, digestion, etc. etc. Same thing with the bird example that I gave above.
The line of reasoning that you took is what evolutionists always take: they give tiny microevolutionary examples and then say imagine what would happen if you strung those all together. Why are we being asked to imagine something?
Stop and think of the # of mutations it would take just to make the human eye, our liver, lungs, circulatory system, nervous system, visual systems, hearing systems, skeletal systems, brain chemistry and add them all up. We're talking hundreds and hundreds of thousands of mutations perfectly sequenced in just the right order in just a few hundred million years?
I'll make you a deal. You send me a zoologist that will help me set up the microevolutionary changes that would need to morph a reptile into a bird. We'll assign reasonable probabilites to it and a probability tree sstructure and then I'll do Monte Carlo simulations and see how many times a bird pops out in ten million years.
I'm a decent database programmer - it wouldn't take me that long to set up. We'll include life span and reasonable bad/good mutation ratios as well.
Send him or her my way and we'll solve this whole mystery...
I'm a decent database programmer - it wouldn't take me that long to set up. We'll include life span and reasonable bad/good mutation ratios as well.
Send him or her my way and we'll solve this whole mystery...