Theory of Evolution

Forums › Off topic › Theory of Evolution

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2168239 27-Jan-2019 08:42

TwoSeven:
nunz:

Similarly what we do know of other solar systems / galaxys shows thousands of not a hope of life and only a couple have been listed as being maybe possibles.

I shall try making this post again, the last attempt seems to have vanished.

At last count there are roughly 4000 identified planets, and I think the calculated number for our galaxy is about 40 billion.

It would be a good idea for people to define want they mean by life and I would also suggest the word intelligent. The two terms are being bandied around in this thread without any thought to the fact that in the context of this topic, they have a very specific definition.

Good idea. I feel also life and evolution are being confused. Here are my interpretations of each

LIFE Anything that is an organism, commencing with a single celled organism. Complex life is multi celled and has a nucleus and DNA. Intelligent life has a brain.

CREATION The creation of a single cell organism by abiogenesis

EVOLUTION The change of an item of life over time, caused by adaptation to changing environments, random mutation (i.e. DNA malfunction) mutation of DNA by outside forces, i.e. radiation (possibly other factors) . The key is The change of an item of life over time, caused by adaptation to changing environments. A few simple examples are dark people whose dark skin has adapted from high levels of sun, to protect them. Flat nosed people is due to protecting the nose and lungs from freezing temperatures. Two iguanas of the same exact species are on two islands in the Galapagos. One is "normal" the other has no food due to the island, they are now marine iguanas. The live literally miles apart and have never been able to interact. These three simple examples are where nature has adapted the life form to manage in its environment.

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2168249 27-Jan-2019 09:14

I thought for the religious people that God creates us 6000 years ago? That number sticks in my head from somewhere

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2168251 27-Jan-2019 09:19

tdgeek:
I thought for the religious people that God creates us 6000 years ago? That number sticks in my head from somewhere

This number has become an accepted biblical chronology in some circles. Needless to say, not all religious people agree.

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2168252 27-Jan-2019 09:24

nunz:
gzt:
nunz: I may be a Christian but I thought evolution was complete bollocks well before ever discovering God.

I agree. Some people in this topic keep confusing those two things. The vast majority of people who identify as christian have no problem with the established facts of evolution and evolutionary theory from Darwin to the present day.

How do you feel about carbon dating?

Problematic as it is based on assumptions we cant prove and that are likely to be false. e.g. steady rates of decay, steady rates of uptake, steady rates of exposure etc.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2168255 27-Jan-2019 09:26

A few hundred years ago a rural British parson with time on his hands decided to work it out and made the calculation based on his reading of the bible. It is essentially nonsense but has gained currency with some fundamentalist sects.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2168256 27-Jan-2019 09:26

nunz:

1 - In probability theory / math there is an understanding that when a number gets too large it is equated with infinity or nothing. It is too large to bother about. Hawkin's improbability would be covered in that.

Rounding up to infinity or down to zero is only useful if the difference is too small to care about. However, we know the chances are non-zero, because we know life happened at least once. So it's not acceptable to round this tiny fraction down to zero. Conversely, in math, anything non-zero, even a tiny fraction, multiplied by infinity is infinity. If the universe is infinitely large, and matter is randomly distributed, then there are infinite life-development environments even if the chance of it happening is 1:10^34 or 1:10^340 or 1:10^3400. No matter how small a percentage of those actually results in life, then an infinite number of life-forms will be generated and will evolve.

Can you give a link to Hawking's improbability? My Googling only finds Hawking saying that life is probable. e.g.

"The discoveries of the [NASA] Kepler mission suggest that there are billions of habitable planets in our galaxy alone," Hawking said. "There are at least a hundred billion galaxies in the visible universe, so it seems likely that there are others out there."

NB that this is habitable by humans; there may be many more places where life can exist, but not be habitable by us.

2 - As for larger number of opportunity's for life ... how do you quantify that? You see my reasoning would be. We know 9 planets (shout out to Pluto - what's up??) and lots of moons etc of which only ours can sustain life. We have said no to far more planets and moons and only yes to Earth. As such the ratio of possible to impossible is well skewed towards impossible.

Similarly what we do know of other solar systems / galaxys shows thousands of not a hope of life and only a couple have been listed as being maybe possibles.

That ratio puts the probability against much much much higher than for. That would negate your statement the possibilities for are higher at a Macro level

The 1 in 9 ratio in out solar system isn't a problem. If it even applies (Could there be life that we don't recognize on other planets? Our knowledge of them is *very* sketchy.), all it means is that 1 in 9 Sun-like stars could produce life. There are many billions of Sun-like stars. As per Hawking, there's probably billions of habitable planets in our galaxy alone.

Getting to a micro level - e.g. only earth. No other signs of spontaneous life have been shown. Our theory of evolution has a single life form changing and splitting - with a single base to our tree of life. if it didn't start with two trees and parrallel evolution on earth where things are ideal you can pretty much wipe the idea of life elsewhere as the many more chances here on earth didn't take ... probably as there are too many chances against.

Do we know how to recognize all forms of life? Perhaps there's some form of life that is based on nitrogen chemistry rather than carbon-oxygen. There may be life forms that evolve a million times more slowly than here on Earth, or a million times faster. What would they look like?

There's no requirement in evolution that it start from a single life form. Multiple life forms could exist in parallel, and the best of them would expand and most likely wipe out the worst of them.

Your assertion that on Earth "things are ideal" is quite baseless... how do you know that Earth provides the best environment possible? How do you know "the many more chances here on earth didn't take"? I think the opposite is true -- we're discovering life forms that did take in widely disparate environments, and still exist. It's just that, not surprisingly in a largely temperate world, life has mostly evolved for temperate environments.

KiwiTim

376 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2168291 27-Jan-2019 10:58

gzt:
nunz:

gzt:
nunz: I may be a Christian but I thought evolution was complete bollocks well before ever discovering God.

I agree. Some people in this topic keep confusing those two things. The vast majority of people who identify as christian have no problem with the established facts of evolution and evolutionary theory from Darwin to the present day.

How do you feel about carbon dating?

Problematic as it is based on assumptions we cant prove and that are likely to be false. e.g. steady rates of decay, steady rates of uptake, steady rates of exposure etc.

Boy, Ken Ham really is an idiot. He is a perfect example of why a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is totally absurd. Ken, why would you expect the worldview of a people in the bronze age to accurately represent scientific truth as we know it today? What truths biblical authors express in their writings will be embedded within their culture's norms, their communities' teachings and world view (what I call cultural artifacts). Filter that out, and you are left with the true inspirational meaning found within the Bible. The Bible is not a scientific encyclopedia or an accurate record of world history (although some accurately dated historical events are found within it). An analogy I like to make is, if a five year old child was to express their understanding of some natural phenomena, lets say, why precipitation occurs, would we expect this to be an accurate and complete explanation of the phenomena? Of course not! There may be some element of truth in the child's description, but there will be a considerable portion of that description that comes straight out of the child's imagination. So it is with some of the content in the Bible; embedded in a common bronze age worldview, including myths, stories and superstitions.

I could go through point by point and refute his arguments, but it's not worth my time. This kind of fundamentalist creationism nonsense gives fuel to the atheist movement that promote abiogenesis, which, as I have already explained, has no solid scientific ground to stand on.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2168324 27-Jan-2019 11:51

Rikkitic:

A few hundred years ago a rural British parson with time on his hands decided to work it out and made the calculation based on his reading of the bible. It is essentially nonsense but has gained currency with some fundamentalist sects.

Near enough except that I don't think that James Usher, Bishop of Ireland, ever lived in the country. He mainly lived in Dublin, Ireland.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2168326 27-Jan-2019 11:59

KiwiTim: Boy, Ken Ham really is an idiot. He is a perfect example of why a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is totally absurd. Ken, why would you expect the worldview of a people in the bronze age to accurately represent scientific truth as we know it today? What truths biblical authors express in their writings will be embedded within their culture's norms, their communities' teachings and world view (what I call cultural artifacts). Filter that out, and you are left with the true inspirational meaning found within the Bible. The Bible is not a scientific encyclopedia or an accurate record of world history (although some accurately dated historical events are found within it). An analogy I like to make is, if a five year old child was to express their understanding of some natural phenomena, lets say, why precipitation occurs, would we expect this to be an accurate and complete explanation of the phenomena? Of course not! There may be some element of truth in the child's description, but there will be a considerable portion of that description that comes straight out of the child's imagination. So it is with some of the content in the Bible; embedded in a common bronze age worldview, including myths, stories and superstitions.

I could go through point by point and refute his arguments, but it's not worth my time. This kind of fundamentalist creationism nonsense gives fuel to the atheist movement that promote abiogenesis, which, as I have already explained, has no solid scientific ground to stand on.

It's interesting you bring up worldview, because if we place it against a previous statement you've made regarding the moon/sun size comparisons, we see that you've imposed a worldview which attributes the currently similar sizes of both bodies in the sky to design. The moon is in fact moving away from our planet, albeit very slowly (~3.78cm/annum), and has been moving away away since it was created. There's lots of articles available to read about this. Current belief (not fact) in scientific circles is that the moon was only about 22,500km away from earth when first formed through a collision with a Mars-sized planet. At that distance the moon would have been absolutely gigantic in the night sky.

Over the millennia since then the moon has slowly moved away from earth and slowed our planets rotation down from an estimated 5 hour 'day' to the 24 hour 'day' we know now. The theory contends that over many more millennia the moon will have moved away to such a point that it takes 47 'days' to circle the earth and the earth will have slowed down to a point where it takes 47 'days' to rotate once - at this point both bodies will permanently present only one face to each other. The moon will also appear quite small in the night sky.

Over the length of recorded human experience, nothing appears to have changed in regards to the sun and moon distances vs apparent size in the sky but it has. We simply haven't been around and been observant long enough to have recorded changes. I would argue this is testament to our short amount of time here (relatively speaking) as a species capable of recorded observation as opposed to any design.

KiwiTim: There are too many coincidences that need to occur in a very long string of exceedingly small probabilities to come up with life, this planet, this solar system, this universe just by pure natural random processes at work. A very simple observation: why should the moon and the sun be the same approximate size in the sky to an observer on the earth? The Earth-Moon distance, the Earth-Sun distance, the Sun diameter and Moon diameter have to be carefully coordinated to enable this. To me that seems like a small signature of design that is obvious to us all.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2168337 27-Jan-2019 12:39

Hammerer:

Rikkitic:

A few hundred years ago a rural British parson with time on his hands decided to work it out and made the calculation based on his reading of the bible. It is essentially nonsense but has gained currency with some fundamentalist sects.

Near enough except that I don't think that James Usher, Bishop of Ireland, ever lived in the country. He mainly lived in Dublin, Ireland.

In those days even Dublin was rural. I actually meant to say 'country parson', as in parochial, but couldn't think of the word for some reason.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

KiwiTim

376 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2168340 27-Jan-2019 12:57

Dratsab:

KiwiTim: Boy, Ken Ham really is an idiot. He is a perfect example of why a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is totally absurd. Ken, why would you expect the worldview of a people in the bronze age to accurately represent scientific truth as we know it today? What truths biblical authors express in their writings will be embedded within their culture's norms, their communities' teachings and world view (what I call cultural artifacts). Filter that out, and you are left with the true inspirational meaning found within the Bible. The Bible is not a scientific encyclopedia or an accurate record of world history (although some accurately dated historical events are found within it). An analogy I like to make is, if a five year old child was to express their understanding of some natural phenomena, lets say, why precipitation occurs, would we expect this to be an accurate and complete explanation of the phenomena? Of course not! There may be some element of truth in the child's description, but there will be a considerable portion of that description that comes straight out of the child's imagination. So it is with some of the content in the Bible; embedded in a common bronze age worldview, including myths, stories and superstitions.

I could go through point by point and refute his arguments, but it's not worth my time. This kind of fundamentalist creationism nonsense gives fuel to the atheist movement that promote abiogenesis, which, as I have already explained, has no solid scientific ground to stand on.

It's interesting you bring up worldview, because if we place it against a previous statement you've made regarding the moon/sun size comparisons, we see that you've imposed a worldview which attributes the currently similar sizes of both bodies in the sky to design. The moon is in fact moving away from our planet, albeit very slowly (~3.78cm/annum), and has been moving away away since it was created. There's lots of articles available to read about this. Current belief (not fact) in scientific circles is that the moon was only about 22,500km away from earth when first formed through a collision with a Mars-sized planet. At that distance the moon would have been absolutely gigantic in the night sky.

Over the millennia since then the moon has slowly moved away from earth and slowed our planets rotation down from an estimated 5 hour 'day' to the 24 hour 'day' we know now. The theory contends that over many more millennia the moon will have moved away to such a point that it takes 47 'days' to circle the earth and the earth will have slowed down to a point where it takes 47 'days' to rotate once - at this point both bodies will permanently present only one face to each other. The moon will also appear quite small in the night sky.

Over the length of recorded human experience, nothing appears to have changed in regards to the sun and moon distances vs apparent size in the sky but it has. We simply haven't been around and been observant long enough to have recorded changes. I would argue this is testament to our short amount of time here (relatively speaking) as a species capable of recorded observation as opposed to any design.

KiwiTim: There are too many coincidences that need to occur in a very long string of exceedingly small probabilities to come up with life, this planet, this solar system, this universe just by pure natural random processes at work. A very simple observation: why should the moon and the sun be the same approximate size in the sky to an observer on the earth? The Earth-Moon distance, the Earth-Sun distance, the Sun diameter and Moon diameter have to be carefully coordinated to enable this. To me that seems like a small signature of design that is obvious to us all.

The point that I was making is that during the period of time when humans are capable of perceiving it, the moon and sun are the same approximate size in the sky. Obviously, there is a process that has put the planets and moons in our solar system in their current positions, this is ongoing and is not, and never has been, static. I deemed this to be so obvious that it was not worth mentioning. The amazing coincidence is that it all lines up with our current era, when we are here to observe it. The unique combination of timing, solar diameter, lunar diameter, Earth Moon distance and Earth Sun distance bring it all together, which is another unlikely and improbable combination of events / phenomena. The timing makes it more improbable still. Why should it happen when we are here to observe it? When you multiply these probabilities by all the other tiny probabilities that came together to bring us into existence, it starts to stack up to the point where random chance for all of this looks increasingly absurd and illogical. Every human being is set within a culture and worldview, so we try to make sense of everything from where we stand. None of us are excluded from that condition.

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2168363 27-Jan-2019 13:40

Rikkitic:

Hammerer:

Rikkitic:

A few hundred years ago a rural British parson with time on his hands decided to work it out and made the calculation based on his reading of the bible. It is essentially nonsense but has gained currency with some fundamentalist sects.

Near enough except that I don't think that James Usher, Bishop of Ireland, ever lived in the country. He mainly lived in Dublin, Ireland.

In those days even Dublin was rural. I actually meant to say 'country parson', as in parochial, but couldn't think of the word for some reason.

While you may deride him as parochial, his chronology required a level of knowledge of history, languages and science, including their early form of archaeology, which extended far beyond the capabilities of a "country parson". Ussher's methodology for developing his chronology is very similar to what would be used today except with two key differences: we have access to far more scientific research and technology; and, today, most people don't agree with his key assumption that the date of creation can be determined - this is what I would call the "essentially nonsense" bit.

In our time, he would probably be highly regarded, first as a scholar, second as a politician/conciliator, and thirdly as a reformer. The main reason for deriding him today is simply that some creationists hold to his creation date. Typically, they often hold to other anachronisms which would not be supported by the majority of creationsist, e.g. promoting the Authorised/King James Version as the only reliable English translation of the Bible.

James Ussher's Chronology (Wikipedia)

Ussher remains extremely popular amongst creationists, even though they reject his methodology of using the most up to date contemporary scientific, chronological, historical and biblical scholarship to date the age of the world.

Dublin, even then, not rural and was called a city. It had a university and an estimated population of about 20,000 people during a century of disease, famine and war that had killed up to a third of the Irish population. Although the status of city wasn't determined by population but by importance and letters of patent, Dublin represented about 2-3% of the Irish population. This is well above the equivalent population requirement for a city in New Zealand which is about 1% of the total population.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2168369 27-Jan-2019 13:50

KiwiTim:

Why should it happen when we are here to observe it? When you multiply these probabilities by all the other tiny probabilities that came together to bring us into existence, it starts to stack up to the point where random chance for all of this looks increasingly absurd and illogical.

I don't understand how you can make this assertion. My reply would be 'why not'? It just happens. If we weren't around to observe it, we wouldn't be able to ask silly questions about it, but it would still happen without us. In fact, we haven't been around for most of the time but the sun and moon were doing essentially the same dance long before we arrived to notice it. The changes in apparent diameter only happen over a very long period.

How can you state random chance for it is absurd and illogical? On what basis do you make that judgement? What do you have to compare it to? Are you the universal arbiter of how random chance is allowed to work? This doesn't make sense. The Universe couldn't care less whether we are here to observe it or not. It would still carry on the same without us. If it actually is infinite, or even close, every random chance there is will occur regardless of how you feel about it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2168377 27-Jan-2019 14:03

Hammerer:

While you may deride him as parochial, his chronology required a level of knowledge of history, languages and science, including their early form of archaeology, which extended far beyond the capabilities of a "country parson". Ussher's methodology for developing his chronology is very similar to what would be used today except with two key differences: we have access to far more scientific research and technology; and, today, most people don't agree with his key assumption that the date of creation can be determined - this is what I would call the "essentially nonsense" bit.

In our time, he would probably be highly regarded, first as a scholar, second as a politician/conciliator, and thirdly as a reformer. The main reason for deriding him today is simply that some creationists hold to his creation date. Typically, they often hold to other anachronisms which would not be supported by the majority of creationsist, e.g. promoting the Authorised/King James Version as the only reliable English translation of the Bible.

James Ussher's Chronology (Wikipedia)

Ussher remains extremely popular amongst creationists, even though they reject his methodology of using the most up to date contemporary scientific, chronological, historical and biblical scholarship to date the age of the world.

Dublin, even then, not rural and was called a city. It had a university and an estimated population of about 20,000 people during a century of disease, famine and war that had killed up to a third of the Irish population. Although the status of city wasn't determined by population but by importance and letters of patent, Dublin represented about 2-3% of the Irish population. This is well above the equivalent population requirement for a city in New Zealand which is about 1% of the total population.

I'm not sure why you are making such an issue of this. My remark was intentionally flippant. I wasn't dissing on the good reverend, but on the modern day morons who take his calculations seriously (literally, as 'the gospel'). I also did not state that Dublin was not a city. I know perfectly well it was, and also that it was a centre of learning from medieval times. Ease up on the pedantry.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2168385 27-Jan-2019 14:19

Rikkitic:

I'm not sure why you are making such an issue of this. My remark was intentionally flippant. I wasn't dissing on the good reverend, but on the modern day morons who take his calculations seriously (literally, as 'the gospel'). I also did not state that Dublin was not a city. I know perfectly well it was, and also that it was a centre of learning from medieval times. Ease up on the pedantry.

Because you targeted Ussher instead of the "morons" you now say you were aiming at.

Because the words were derisive when they didn't need to be. If you knew all about Ussher then why portray him in opposite characteristics. I could create an apposite list to emphasise how your words sent a different message.

Because your "flippant" comments will likely be taken as reliable facts by someone else reading this thread. Particularly where you don't intentionally indicate flippancy - an emoji would have helped. It's similar to the consequences of repeating the flat-earth myth which has already turned up at least once in this topic.

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12