Creation vs. Evolution

[CMvan46]

The discovery of solving the origins of life or the origins of the eye (not just the eyeball) would be so huge and you think that person wouldn't get a Noble prize for that discovery?

And his point (which you missed entirely) is that if your "theory" had been proven or anywhere near proven that person would have a Nobel Prize by now... Fact is there is no possible way to explain it. Again as has been stated nobody claimed to know how the eyeball evolved or how the eye came to be but there are proposed theories that make a heck of a lot more sense than an all powerful being created an entire human being and all the animals of the modern world.

There are many ways to track adaption and evolutionary changes over long periods of time and the most complicated being DNA tracking. You can actually follow a species through time by following the DNA sequences.

 

[wfooshee]

The fossil record doesn't even support that video. (Not that the fossil record is very reliable since it is rewritten all the time.)

I've been completely unable to fathom a method for rewriting fossils. I mean, I guess if time machines existed . . . .

And people!!!! Stop calling it the Noble Prize!!!!!!
Unless you just want to continue professing your ignorance.

 

[CMvan46]

Fixed mine

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I've been completely unable to fathom a method for rewriting fossils. I mean, I guess if time machines existed . . . .

And people!!!! Stop calling it the Noble Prize!!!!!!
Unless you just want to continue professing your ignorance.

You are right I should have wrote "reinterpreted" or "evolving".

... but there are proposed theories that make a heck of a lot more sense than an all powerful being created an entire human being and all the animals of the modern world.

I respect your opinion but we already know a being who's able to create machines, cars, planes, art, computers, software, etc.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

dp

 

[Strittan]

I respect your opinion but we already know a being who's able to create machines, cars, planes, art, computers, software, etc.

You are not afraid to embarrass yourself, are you?

 

[TankAss95]

You are not afraid to embarrass yourself, are you?

Why is he embarrassing himself?

 

[Strittan]

Why is he embarrassing himself?

Why am I not surprised you're asking? Because he compares the existence of everything with what the human has accomplished.

 

[TankAss95]

Why am I not surprised you're asking? Because he compares the existence of everything with what the human has accomplished.

I think he said a valid point.

 

[Strittan]

I think he said a valid point.

Really? Why so?

 

[TankAss95]

Really? Why so?

We are very intelligent beings ourselves compared to all life that we know of. To this day we have not yet made life from the building blocks that supposedly started the first life form. We can't make RNA or the simplest life forms, so why should chance be able to?

 

[Exorcet]

It wasn't chance, it was chemistry. None of us have had 13 billion years to play with a very huge ball of space that contains billions and billions of tons of matter in various conditions. It's no wonder nature did it and we can't (yet).

 

[TankAss95]

It wasn't chance, it was chemistry. None of us have had 13 billion years to play with a very huge ball of space that contains billions and billions of tons of matter in various conditions. It's no wonder nature did it and we can't (yet).

If I look at the title of a book, I see it's letters intelligently placed in a way that gets across the message the author intended it to do.
RNA and DNA are no different to me. The way I see it God is the author of science.

 

[Exorcet]

Only we know book authors to exist, and we only know of chemistry that can generate RNA. You're making up an answer when you say God = science author.

And speaking of sentences, something of that complexity can be modeled with natural selection.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2SVMKZhV2g&t=170

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

It wasn't chance, it was chemistry. None of us have had 13 billion years to play with a very huge ball of space that contains billions and billions of tons of matter in various conditions. It's no wonder nature did it and we can't (yet).

The question needs to be answer can time make everything and anything possible? The odds of finding the right genetic sequence of some that protein are larger than all the atoms of the universe.

And speaking of sentences, something of that complexity can be modeled with natural selection.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2SVMKZhV2g&t=170

LOL another you-tube video.

-"natural selection can make almost infinitesimally improbably events occur with ease"
Even most scientist wouldn't make such a bold statement as this one. NS can't make anything occur.

-" kill off 95% of new generation keeping the 50 that are most fit ."
That's the real trick , how to determine which are the most fit. In nature it's the creature that survives. If the most fit cat in the world gets run over by a car then it wasn't the most fit after all.
How will a computer (AI) determine the "most fit". the video tells us

-"the closer an image gets to a goal image the greater it's fitness." In another words the program itself is not creating new information as the information (images) are already there.

 

[Exorcet]

The question needs to be answer can time make everything and anything possible? The odds of finding the right genetic sequence of some that protein are larger than all the atoms of the universe.

The gap between anything and genes is infinite. "Anything" doesn't have to be possible.

The odds of the right genetic code popping out of nothing are basically zero. Luckily, no sane scientist bets on that having happened.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

The gap between anything and genes is infinite. "Anything" doesn't have to be possible.

The odds of the right genetic code popping out of nothing are basically zero. Luckily, no sane scientist bets on that having happened.

Some of them knows the odds are so bad they are starting to support the idea of multi-universes

 

[TankAss95]

Some of them knows the odds are so bad they are starting to support the idea of multi-universes

According to quantum physics this post is only a figure of your imagination. It doesn't actually exist as such (I think).

 

[Exorcet]

-" kill off 95% of new generation keeping the 50 that are most fit ."
That's the real trick , how to determine which are the most fit. In nature it's the creature that survives. If the most fit cat in the world gets run over by a car then it was the most fit after all.
How will a computer (AI) determine the "most fit". the video tells us

-"the closer an image gets to a goal image the greater it's fitness." In another words the program itself is not creating new information as the information (images) are already there.

There is new information being created, if you mean the arrangement of pixels. A random set of pixels "evolves" into an image, each new generation contains different pixels than the previous or following generations.

But, new information doesn't really have anything to do with it. The most fit organisms survive to pass on their genes, and evolution occurs. The cat you mentioned wasn't fit, it died. Think of it this way, you could have two kinds of cats. One species (A) is a a kind of cat that can run at 700 mph, jump skyscrapers, and crack rocks with its claws. The other species (B) is lazy and sluggish, and it's even prone to getting sick. Which is the most fit? You can't tell from the information I have given. You need more.

Let's suppose that that A likes to dodge cars as they drive by on the highway (not unlike how moths like to fly into a bright light like fire or a fly zapper), and that A dies 95% of the time. In contrast, B dies only 30% of the time from disease, but because they are lazy and sit at home and do nothing, they avoid being run over by cars. B is the more fit species because it has the better chance at surviving. It doesn't matter than A is olympic champion compared to B. It's strengths count for nothing in this environment.

Some of them knows the odds are so bad they are starting to support the idea of multi-universes

No, research indicates that multiple universes might exist, hence the acceptance of that idea. Nothing to do with evolution.

According to quantum physics this post is only a figure of your imagination. It doesn't actually exist as such (I think).

What gave you that idea?

 

[TankAss95]

What gave you that idea?

YouTube.
A creepy guy talking about quantum entanglement, unlimited universes and 'vibrations'.
Seriously I or nobody else is supposed to be real here. This entire posts may actually be your imagination.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

There is new information being created, if you mean the arrangement of pixels. A random set of pixels "evolves" into an image, each new generation contains different pixels than the previous or following generations.

Here's the things about computers we can easily calculate how much information is possible a computer can find/create. This is why they tell you not to use known words as passwords since this information is already in the program (just like those goal images). The longer you make your password and the more you use symbols , caps , numbers the longer it's take the computer to find your password. If you had a password as complex as some proteins it's doubtful a supercomputer could crack it in billions of years.

 

[dylansan]

The question needs to be answer can time make everything and anything possible? The odds of finding the right genetic sequence of some that protein are larger than all the atoms of the universe.


LOL another you-tube video.

-"natural selection can make almost infinitesimally improbably events occur with ease"
Even most scientist wouldn't make such a bold statement as this one. NS can't make anything occur.

-" kill off 95% of new generation keeping the 50 that are most fit ."
That's the real trick , how to determine which are the most fit. In nature it's the creature that survives. If the most fit cat in the world gets run over by a car then it wasn't the most fit after all.
How will a computer (AI) determine the "most fit". the video tells us

-"the closer an image gets to a goal image the greater it's fitness." In another words the program itself is not creating new information as the information (images) are already there.

In the description of the video:
"This video is NOT meant to be an accurate representation of evolution, as evolution does not have a predetermined goal (though there is the goal to reproduce). This video is meant to test one simple point, that
RANDOM MUTATION +
NON-RANDOM SELECTION =
VERY IMPROBABLE RESULT. "

Try this video instead; it addresses all your complaints:

 

[CMvan46]

I respect your opinion but we already know a being who's able to create machines, cars, planes, art, computers, software, etc.

Except all of those have been a constant evolution as well. One day a guy sitting in his basement didn't just grab particles from literally nothing but the environment and create a computer. If creation is correct an all powerful being grabbed a bunch of elements and X amount of time latter.... Ta da! A human being. It's simply not possible to do.

Cars can be broken down into individual parts which can be broken down to individual materials which can go back to when some guy decided to severely heat up some rock he found and figured out he had found metal. I really hope you see where I'm going but in a sense all modern and inventions have gone through an evolution of sorts. Every product you see can be traced farther and father back to very simple inventions.

NS can't make anything occur.

Oh the ignorance in that. Actually it can make extremely significant changes even in direct offspring.

 

[Exorcet]

YouTube.
A creepy guy talking about quantum entanglement, unlimited universes and 'vibrations'.
Seriously I or nobody else is supposed to be real here. This entire posts may actually be your imagination.

"May" makes that last line true. You said "doesn't" last time, which can't be proved. This doesn't have anything to do with quantum mechanics though.

Here's the things about computers we can easily calculate how much information a computer can find/create. This is why they tell you not to use known words as passwords since this information is already in the program (just like those goal images). The longer you make your password and more use symbols , caps , numbers the longer it's take the computer to find your password.

I don't get how this is related.

If the image generation worked like a bruteforce password cracking code, it would take 100000000000000000000000000000 years (the number is made up, but I think you get the point). If the computer was looking for an image stored on the computer, it wouldn't have gone through generations.

 

[niky]

Some of them knows the odds are so bad they are starting to support the idea of multi-universes

Quantum Theory is part of the cosmogonic-evolutionary-atheist conspiracy? That's a new one.

The question needs to be answer can time make everything and anything possible? The odds of finding the right genetic sequence of some that protein are larger than all the atoms of the universe.

Given an infinitely large sample size, the odds of anything happening are 100%.

-

You're looking at a gene as something that's been selected for.

The gene sequence came about simply because that was what's given.

We don't have to use the four base pairs we currently have in DNA. Those were simply the ones that developed. We don't have to use "left-handed proteins" , but that's what's there.

The chances of a random language generator putting together the word: "antediluvian" are relatively small. But the chances of it generating any word at all are pretty good.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

In the description of the video:
"This video is NOT meant to be an accurate representation of evolution, as evolution does not have a predetermined goal (though there is the goal to reproduce). This video is meant to test one simple point, that
RANDOM MUTATION +
NON-RANDOM SELECTION =
VERY IMPROBABLE RESULT. "

Try this video instead; it addresses all your complaints:

This is a better video and would agree this is evolution. Random search engine shouldn't have any trouble at all gaining 8 bits of information. These are very good odds to work with. It's the same with programming a Chess AI which uses a random search engine more complex than the one in this video. Since they are a limited of number possible moves each turn and absolute combat results (no dice rolling) a computer can play chess very well. Chess AI has no long term strategy so it heavily depends of the values the programmer program in to determine it's "most fit" move.

 

[homeforsummer]

The question needs to be answer can time make everything and anything possible? The odds of finding the right genetic sequence of some that protein are larger than all the atoms of the universe.

Complete conjecture.

And yes, with the right amount of time, the chances of anything happening are possible. The Grand Canyon is pretty big, right? That's 17 million years work, right there. Not bad work for some simple flowing water.

The Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. That's about 265 times older than the Grand Canyon has taken to form.

The universe is estimated to be around 14 billion years old. Could well be significantly older. Even so, that's over three times the age of even the beginnings of when our planet formed.

I know numbers that big are hard to fathom but I can never understand why people think some of the things we witness are so impossible when they're the work of such vast amounts of time. Is it really so difficult to imagine that life could have developed in several hundred million years, from building blocks that were likely around for billions of years previous?

 

[Strittan]

I know numbers that big are hard to fathom but I can never understand why people think some of the things we witness are so impossible when they're the work of such vast amounts of time. Is it really so difficult to imagine that life could have developed in several hundred million years, from building blocks that were likely around for billions of years previous?

This.

On a side note, Bill O'Reilly is a very typical creationist I'd say. He obviously has no interest in being open minded and listen to anything a scientist has to say, no matter how much sense it makes. When discussing with Richard Dawkins he said; "Jesus is a real guy, I could see him. You know, I know what he did. And, so, I'm not positive that Jesus is God but I'm throwing in with Jesus, rather than throwing in with you guys, because you guys can't tell me how it all got here." Firstly, I thought Jesus was God's son, but I guess Bill knows his stuff, and secondly, it's hilarious that he thinks just because there is no complete explaination for everything it's better to stick with religion. Again, typical creationist.

​

 

[TankAss95]

Firstly, I thought Jesus was God's son, but I guess Bill knows his stuff, and secondly, it's hilarious that he thinks just because there is no complete explaination for everything it's better to stick with religion.

Jesus is the Son of God. He is God because he is part of the trinity.
Around 70% of the world is religious. Here is a video to why I think there will never be a complete natural explanation or formula to everything: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5lY0TcdAw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I don't think that it's hilarious at all.

 

[Strittan]

I don't think that it's hilarious at all.

Of course you don't. You share his opinion.