# Level of Proof for Evolution

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by BenTheMan, Mar 23, 2007.

1. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238

No offense, but you don't know anything about the chances, never mind random events.

3. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Not like i have presented anyway.

5. ### spidergoatValued Senior Member

Messages:
52,321
You really don't understand the nature of evolution as a principle. Although any particular collision between two molecules may be random, wether they fit together or not is not random. In fact, in an ocean the size of a planet, there are so many random events like this in each drop of seawater that the chances of evolution happening there are practically 100%.

7. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Evolution, is a principle, which bases the fact that at one singular point, all life was reserved, and this does not despite the statistics behind them. This is what you do not understand, my friend.

8. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
And the chances are not 100%. IF THEY WHERE, then take a prokaryote, and watch it at your own accord.

9. ### EnmosStaff Member

Messages:
43,184
lol.. ok then.

10. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Enmos, have you listened to anything i have said?

The main point is, is if you believe that things ''just happened,'' there are still statistical maths behind how such a thing can even arise. Because of these statistics, it seems highly improbable.

This is the point.

11. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Stephen Hawking, the brilliant theoretical physicist in writing his book ''a breif history of time,'' once said, and he really is, considered to be the greatest mind in the world, even if i do not share this view...

"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us"

12. ### EnmosStaff Member

Messages:
43,184
I have heard this ID approach many times before Reiku..
Sorry.. carry on, without me.

13. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
The probablity of having a DNA strand in its form stands at around:

$8.00 x 10^{-66}$

14. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
These probablities lye within the factor of the age of the universe, and since these probablities example in area's which are deemed ''unnacceptable'' by maintream math, the idea can only lye within some kind of determination.

Now, there is a model in quantum physics which allows this. The Bohmian interpretation states that everything was predetermined at the very beginning of big bang, which evidently gives rise to everything known.

What gave matter the quantum code to do so?

I settle with a superintelligence, even if your score goes against 10 to the power of a million, as all stiatistics may be added.

15. ### EnmosStaff Member

Messages:
43,184
If you think the formation of DNA is a series of random events...

Please, Reiku, educate yourself on evolution.

16. ### EnmosStaff Member

Messages:
43,184
What are the statistics for this "superintelligence" ?
Where did it come from ? How did it come to be ?

You're taking the easy, theistic, way out of something you don't understand.

Last edited: Aug 27, 2008
17. ### synthesizer-patelSweep the leg Johnny!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,262
Nothing - Not One Word - evolution does not concern itself with the origins of life - it is concerned with how life diversifies and adapts after life begins - hence the reason why it is predominantly only a few religious nutcases living way out on the fringes of extremist religions have any problem with evolution for this reason - and for the simple reason that they don't actually know what evolution is - for the rest of us who aren't religiopus extremists, ufo panspermia loonies, or in some other way twisted or retarded, evolution leaves plenty of room for a god or creator if we want it to .

In relation to the experiments you mention, it sounds like you are referencing the Miller-Urey experiments ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_urey ) - while this experiment was unsuccessful in creating life, and has ultimately been found not to accurately replicate the Earth's primordial atmosphere, it does prove one thing - the basic compounds necessary for life can form spontaneously through mundane means - no bearded sky daddy required - its a small step, but a step nonetheless.

18. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Evolution is n-statistical, nothing for me to educate myesef on, Enmos.

Synthesizer - rubbish, sorry. But evolution does concern itself with life, since everything depends on it. Yet another rubbish remark.

I am worried about people round here.

19. ### EnmosStaff Member

Messages:
43,184
Do you understand evolution, have you studied it ?
You are talking nonsense.

20. ### synthesizer-patelSweep the leg Johnny!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,262
Your comment was on how evolution deals with how life started or rather the lack of evidence or experimental success in demonstrating it

The simple answer is that it doesn't and it doesn't have to, that isn't in evolution's breif - its like asking a meteorologist how theories of hurricane formation explain the big bang and then criticising him and his theories for failing to do so - they are simply 2 unrelated fields.

Last edited: Aug 27, 2008
21. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Oh please, am i even entertaining this?

22. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
This is the biggest pile i have seen today.

''
The simple answer is that it doesn't and it doesn't have to, that isn't in evolution's breif ''

23. ### synthesizer-patelSweep the leg Johnny!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,262
if you don't know what evolution is reiku - why bother even discussing it?

why not read a book and familiarise yourself with the subject matter at around a junior high-school level first and then get back to us?