Evolution Just Got Harder to Defend

[stu]

Except that's exactly what teachers do when they teach a class in evolutionary biology....

No it isn't , no one teaches evolution as origin of life. If they ever do, they are not teaching evolutionary biology science.
Intelligent Designers for instance don't teach evolutionary biology science. Maybe they are infiltrating classrooms and you should be more concerned about that.

Not listening to what is actually being taught in class or maybe an unwillingness to understand the science may lead someone to jump to the erroneous conclusion that evolution is to do with origin of life.

Going by the title of the thread it seems the OP was not listening either.

 

[stu]

see that Jem...parody!

 

[WeToddDid2]

On a personal note I've never thought about belief in big bags, but more generally I find no necessity to either believe or not believe in the big bang.



It is not known what did exist and what did not exist, what laws of physics were or were not present at big bang.
Whether the Universe started to exist or existed forever is for me a scientific question to be answered.
It's perfectly possible existing laws of physics might well explain what happened.
However the art of concocting philosophical questions or remarks similar to yours which merely assume and don't explain, and are basically intended never to be answered, sit more in the realm of religion than physics.

Well, you should consider a belief in big bags because the empirical evidence suggests that they do exist.

 

[jem]

piezoe lately you have been going for the easy put down and lazy argument.
I did not misinterpret anything. When I speak of random, I speak of the random combination of the materials in existence in the universe at that time. There was no reason for you non sequitor.

Let me explain why your argument is so off base.
Right now in science our Standard model of physics is highly fine tuned.

http://www.economist.com/node/21558248

"The constant gardener

One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.

Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world."


----
Stick to facts and writing persuasively about them. You should avoid conjecture about what the physics mean. I believe you are working with a 1950s educational bias on this one subject.

That tuning is considered highly non natural. Non natural is in a sense the opposite of the way you were explaining things. Scientists are saying that if mother nature insisted its very unlikely almost impossible for it to be this tuned. (I am using the term non natural the why physicist use it. see See. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalness_(physics))


In short your argument is 1950s thinking bullshit. you need to come up to speed instead of using terms you don't understand and then bullshitting about them.


----
Next... this paper from MIT does a survey of some of the top minds in the field and shows that given the building blocks we had in the universe at the time its highly unlikely they would combine by chance into life given the time we had.

http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

Well I gave you too much credit, that's all. Obviously you have misinterpreted the the word "random" in the statistical sense. Random means random in order of observation. It doesn't mean anything can happen. For example when you draw a card from 52 cards thoroughly mixed in a hat the probability of a particular draw is determined by the makeup of the cards. There is nothing random about it. It is fixed. the order in which the observations are made of which card has been drawn is what's random. In other words, you might draw two Jacks in a row one time and the next time draw a 2 of diamonds and next an ace of spades. But the probability of drawing any of these cards is fixed by the cards themselves. And so it is in nature. What can happen is entirely fixed by the laws of chemistry and physics there is nothing random about THAT! Everything is highly determined from the outset, i.e., highly constrained. And that makes the spontaneous development of life vastly more probably than some might think! As long as you have the elements of the first four periods of the periodic table present and you have suitable conditions of time, temperature, concentration, aided by perhaps a suitable substrate, you will have many trillions of instances on both our planet and in the universe where organisms develop and evolve. You won't be able to avoid it! Mother Nature will insist!

Well I gave you too much credit, that's all. Obviously you have misinterpreted the meaning of the word "random" in its statistical sense. Random means random in order of observation. It doesn't mean anything can happen.

For example when you draw a card from 52 cards thoroughly mixed in a hat the probability of a particular draw is determined by the makeup of the cards. There is nothing random about it. It is fixed. The order in which the observations are made of which particular card has been drawn is what's random. In other words, you might draw two Jacks in a row one time and then next time draw a two of diamonds followed by an ace of spades. The probability of drawing any of these cards, however, is fixed by the cards themselves.

And so it is in nature. What can happen is entirely fixed by the laws of chemistry and physics there is nothing random about THAT! Everything is highly determined from the outset, i.e., highly constrained. And that makes the spontaneous development of life vastly more probably than some might think! As long as you have the elements of the first four periods of the periodic table present and you have suitable conditions of time, temperature, concentration, and aided by perhaps a suitable substrate, you will have many trillions of instances on both our planet and in the universe where organisms develop and evolve. You won't be able to avoid it! Mother Nature will insist!

If you were to catalog every organism on the Earth today, which naturally you can not, and live a billion years, which naturally you can not, and then once again catalog every organism on the planet, you would find huge numbers of organisms that were in your original catalog that are no longer present. And too, there would be huge numbers of new organisms. I will assure you without any reservation whatsoever that that is the case, and challenge you to disprove what I say.

There is your your God, Jem, the chemical and physical laws. That is "the creator," the intelligent designer you've been searching for. But it's a pointless search, like looking for your glasses when they are resting on your nose.

 

[jem]

1. That looks like worms on a spud. When you click on the link and watch the video which explains the image you presented they have a worm on a hook.
To me its looks like you have pasta brain. Far from a parody the video is nicely informative.

2. I just presented one of the many links which I have presented about crook to Piezoe. You are once again full of argument and shit at the same time.

3. You are lying your ass off... here is a page where you were lying your ass off about fine tuning... and you re presented your argument about the cc being zero. Here you once again said Einstein said it. Which was old science.

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/why-some-scientists-embrace-the-multiverse.276376/page-32

here is more where you were now back tracking and bullshitting your ass off.

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...ce-the-multiverse.276376/page-33#post-3856496

here is more...

Quote from jem:
just like when you insisted the cosmological constant is just a place holder and could be changed to zero...
Albert Einstein, not me, had the cosmological constant at zero. He coined the term and did the field equations for it. But hey, thanks for the compliment.


Quote from stu:

Susskind called the cosmological constant the worst prediction ever. Physicists have no consensus on an actual or exact calculation of it. It is given an apparent value only.
A value that, if it were slightly less, physicists say would be far more favorable to the formation of galaxies than is the case.



First of all you never present a link to Carrols statement. I would like to read it in context.
Because the non zero aspect of the cosmological constant


4.

Finally I have asked you to present a link to Carrol's statement so we can read it in context.
Finding the Higgs Boson at Cern confirmed the fine tuning of the standard model and that the cc is not zero.

If you need a parody to be explained then you don't understand parody.
If you need me to explain why the BBC put the FSM (Pasta Be Upon Him) where you imagine a God to be and why I called it proof, then as far as things go, you resemble the intellect of a five year old.



yep you know who Crick was so well you referred to him as "one of the guys who discovered DNA" .

And you present links alright, but in the same way a pet cat presents dead birds into the living room. You really haven't a clue what you've done or what any of it means.

You keep trying to make a big deal about DNA structure not having enough time to develop on Earth due to comments made by Crick, though he quickly rescinded his assessment on hearing new discoveries in the properties of RNA.


I said the CC could/might be zero, not that it IS zero. For a long time now you've portrayed a distinctly severe problem recognizing words and their meaning.

You must imagine Sean Carrol is distorting science too...
"The value of the cosmological constant in our present universe is not known, and may be zero, although there is some evidence for a nonzero value; " Sean Carroll Preposterous Universe

For all your "presenting of links" you have an astonishingly low level of knowledge about any of this. But of course you need to stay that way to allow for that "Creator".

 

[wildchild]

Except that's exactly what teachers do when they teach a class in evolutionary biology....

So perhaps you should notify Universities, Colleges and High Schools across the country and let them know Darwins evolution doesn't extend to the origin of life......

I would also add many evolutionists assert life came from nothing. The "primordial soup" as they like to call it. So that's not really accurate, either.

Evolution has come a long way since Darwin. It's Darwin 2.0 (aka Atheism).

Its not my job to notify universities. Do yourself a favor and don't worry about what other people are trying to push. Examine what the facts are, leave other peoples opinion out of it, then come to your own conclusion.

If more people took this approach, we wouldn't have these people claiming the earth would be inhabitable in 50 years.

 

[achilles28]

Its not my job to notify universities. Do yourself a favor and don't worry about what other people are trying to push. Examine what the facts are, leave other peoples opinion out of it, then come to your own conclusion.

If more people took this approach, we wouldn't have these people claiming the earth would be inhabitable in 50 years.

The simple point I'm trying to make is that evolutionists and teachers assert life came from nothing. While that has nothing to do with darwin, they have attached it to evolutionary theory and thus must be addressed as the bullshit that it is

 

[jem]

what you wrote is correct.

10 to 20 Years ago evolution and the primordial goo idea were seen as almost the same thing by everyone from teachers to star trek. ( Picard and Q visited the goo.)

I did not know that there was no science showing that life evolved from non life til I read it here on elitetrader. I believe a smart guy was arguing with Stu about it. I remember thinking wow... that is not what public schools are teaching my kids or what they taught me when I was in school. I remember hearing overstated claims about the Miller and Urey experiment.

We don't hear many highly educated people stating we evolved from primordial goo these days but I would bet most people not in biology still believe we have science showing it. I remember some pretty well educated home builder execs I played softball with insisting science had proof we evolved from non life. I could not even argue with them. It was like 5 guys hammering me. I guy sitting quietly because we were friends and he knew I don't bullshit much... But, they were sort of crazed ... just like stu when he said there was plenty of science showing life from non life.

The simple point I'm trying to make is that evolutionists and teachers assert life came from nothing. While that has nothing to do with darwin, they have attached it to evolutionary theory and thus must be addressed as the bullshit that it is

 

[oldnemesis]

I hope you guys enjoy these arguments because they obviously serve no productive purpose.

It reminds me of when I worked in Academia and had to publish regularly to keep my academic appointment. I would do my real job most of the year and then when I hadn't had a publication in a while I would scrounge around in the Journals and come up with a project I could do quickly to get a publication, do the project, write a paper and then go back to my real work taking care of patients.

e.g. here is one of my Gems squirreled away in the Journal of Applied Physiology :

http://jap.physiology.org/content/36/2/202

I HAD to do this crap but if you guys aren't doing this for recreation then you are wasting your time and that of any poor soul who reads any of this baloney by accident.

 

[piezoe]

I speak of the random combination of the materials in existence in the universe at that time.

I know exactly what you are speaking of. And those "materials' you speak of can't 'combine' 'randomly'. Change "combine" to "collide" and OK. But any "combination" won't be random, only the encounters.

This "fined tuned" excrement is utter bullshit. Every physical constant is "fine tuned."

For your edification, I will quote from your own reference, as the statement below is precisely in line with my own thinking, the thinking of the vast majority of scientists today, and is undoubtedly correct thinking.

"The common view is that given a fuller understanding of the physical and
biological conditions and processes involved, the emergence of life should
be seen to be quite likely, or at least not very surprising. The view which is
almost universally rejected by researchers in the field is that the numerous
and prima facie improbable physical and biological requirements for life all
fell together just by a fluke, like so many dice tumbling out of a bag and
landing all sixes."

​