The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Science:
Physics

Nothing adds up

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · >>
radharc On June 06, 2011




auckland, New Zealand
#76New Post! Mar 15, 2009 @ 01:47:50
@alexkidd Said

Quite the opposite,
But there is a difference between understanding and finding fault with a theory and simply not understanding it and thinking you find fault in the ghost you perceive to be evolution.

If someone could falsify the theory of evolution they'd get the Nobel prize.
If of course their findings stood up to refutation themselves.



evolution is described as a process of change, as i understand it, and evolutionists are still asking the question, how did life evolve? its a question that assumes evolution to be true, its like saying how did god create life? its an assumption that god exists.
alexkidd On February 07, 2012
Captain Awesome!


Deleted



in a bog, Ireland
#77New Post! Mar 15, 2009 @ 01:50:05
@jck200 Said


I base this on the mathematics required for chance alone to do the perfect copy within the lifetime of the earth.



Once again, it is not chance alone.
Evolution is not chance, it is the principle that traits that make an animal more likely to survive will be passed on through successive generations.
This is dictated by the environment, NOT chance.
alexkidd On February 07, 2012
Captain Awesome!


Deleted



in a bog, Ireland
#78New Post! Mar 15, 2009 @ 01:54:25
@radharc Said

evolution is described as a process of change, as i understand it, and evolutionists are still asking the question, how did life evolve? its a question that assumes evolution to be true, its like saying how did god create life? its an assumption that god exists.


That is not the assumption evolution is based on.

The observation that life has evolved comes from multiple independent sources such as fossil record,genetics, anthropology and biology.

how it happened is a logical question after the verifiable observation that it indeed has.
radharc On June 06, 2011




auckland, New Zealand
#79New Post! Mar 15, 2009 @ 02:10:13
observing evolution sorry but thats funny

scientists are not trying to prove or disprove evolution, whatever a particular scientists thinks is irrellevent so if they want to get a grant for research in whatever field its easier to go along with evolution because its acceptable to officialdom including the vatican which recently held a conference on the origins of life and did not invite the proponents of intelligent design which i find rather interesting in that the church would take evolution and reject the bibles account?
alexkidd On February 07, 2012
Captain Awesome!


Deleted



in a bog, Ireland
#80New Post! Mar 15, 2009 @ 02:18:25
@radharc Said

observing evolution sorry but thats funny

scientists are not trying to prove or disprove evolution, whatever a particular scientists thinks is irrellevent so if they want to get a grant for research in whatever field its easier to go along with evolution because its acceptable to officialdom including the vatican which recently held a conference on the origins of life and did not invite the proponents of intelligent design which i find rather interesting in that the church would take evolution and reject the bibles account?


Yes observing evolution,
Both in real terms, in the lab and in nature, and from the wealth of evidence provided by genetics, fossils and biology.

I suggest you do your homework.

As for the vatican intelligent design proponents were not really merited since they represent a minuscule percentage of people qualified in the field.

Do they have to invite holocaust deniers to every historical visit to Auswitz? (of which there are more than intelligent design proponents) or moon landing deniers at every shuttle launch?
JR_Sanford On August 02, 2017




Portland (St. Johns), Oregon
#81New Post! Mar 15, 2009 @ 02:30:52
I gotta ask this... why not stop and smell the roses? By over-thinking (analyzing) this, you risk losing the essence of what beauty everything has. The purpose of evolution is just that... to evolve. Even a plant that dies and rots is going through it's evolution.

Try this... make a gratitude list and see what things you really are grateful for. You may be surprised of how the little things (in your life) really matter the most to you.

J.R.
jck200 On April 22, 2009




cardiff, United Kingdom
#82New Post! Mar 20, 2009 @ 00:14:41
This is not a matter of opinion, Darwin was correct and logical but for those who wish to deny that then that is their choice.

My small contribution merely pointed out the billions upon billions of combinations required to get perfect copy when practically all those billions represent mutation going the wrong way with a tiny few going the right way at each and every stage cannot be done for the large number of lifeforms in the timescale required.

The odds make any evolution towards perfect copy requiring more billions of years than the planet has been in existance.

Those who fail to comprehend mutliple combinations at mutliple stages add up to billions and billions of the most likely mutation at each stage favouring a wrong direction have a very simplistic approach to calculating these odds.

john
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#83New Post! Mar 20, 2009 @ 03:12:40
@jck200 Said
My small contribution merely pointed out the billions upon billions of combinations required to get perfect copy when practically all those billions represent mutation going the wrong way with a tiny few going the right way at each and every stage cannot be done for the large number of lifeforms in the timescale required.

The odds make any evolution towards perfect copy requiring more billions of years than the planet has been in existance.

Those who fail to comprehend mutliple combinations at mutliple stages add up to billions and billions of the most likely mutation at each stage favouring a wrong direction have a very simplistic approach to calculating these odds.

john


You make pretty big claims about math, statistics, and probability. Much bigger than your understanding of math or statistics can possibly justify.
alexkidd On February 07, 2012
Captain Awesome!


Deleted



in a bog, Ireland
#84New Post! Mar 20, 2009 @ 11:59:12
@jck 200 Said

This is not a matter of opinion, Darwin was correct and logical but for those who wish to deny that then that is their choice.

My small contribution merely pointed out the billions upon billions of combinations required to get perfect copy when practically all those billions represent mutation going the wrong way with a tiny few going the right way at each and every stage cannot be done for the large number of lifeforms in the timescale required.

The odds make any evolution towards perfect copy requiring more billions of years than the planet has been in existence.

Those who fail to comprehend multiple combinations at multiple stages add up to billions and billions of the most likely mutation at each stage favouring a wrong direction have a very simplistic approach to calculating these odds.

john



yikes, i think you'll find that you are the one performing simplistic
calculations.
Doing so without an understanding of evolution too.

something isn't able to evolve 'in the wrong direction', any mutation in such a direction by definition would lower its ability to survive.
Also most mutations are neutral, neither good or bad.

there will be a small few bad and a smaller few good.

the bad ones get bred out because they can't survive and the good ones thrive throughout the species.
do you understand that? it seems to be where you keep getting mistaken.

there are other factors that come in such as population size, if the population is too big the genes will not spread as effectively.
The kind of evolution you're discussing probably took place in a relatively small population.

Evolution does not require more billions of years than the planet has been in existence,
only your misunderstood definition of evolution requires such things.
jck200 On April 22, 2009




cardiff, United Kingdom
#85New Post! Mar 21, 2009 @ 00:13:20
alex,

It has nothing to do with simplistic basic evolution as you keep going on about.

The wrong direction is pointed at the right direction calculations not the wrong direction following the wrong direction.

Look, from a million fish take just one ok?

Right now this one specimen gets a chance mutation that affects the fin...what are the odds on that being in the right direction compared to the billions of wrong directions?

Still the mutation for the one specimen gets it right ok?

See we are not talking about the millions who get it wrong first time so stop going on about them.

The odds against that one fish getting a right mutation to the fin is billions to one.

If you think it is an even money chance then all is lost.

So, you tell me what the correct odds are that this one specimen mutates a single gene to affect the tail in the right direction>

It does so that is not the problem.

The problem is it is a billion to one against it getting the mutation right at even the first stage.

Now, same fish must mutate again as the first flimsy mutation gives no benefit at all because the fin still looks like the original fin apart from a minor alteration.

You don`t think a single mutation for a single fish would cause the fin to turn into a perfect copy of a leaf do you?

Then for the single fish to mutate again in the right direction towards the leaf it is another million to one but that has to be multiplied by the first million to give the odds on two consecutive mutations in one correct direction.

Start multiplying the odds when they are in the millions to one and very soon you get odds of billions to one.

Look getting six numbers out of seven on the lottery is seven cominations and odds of one in seven but add one more number to make eight and any six from eight is twenty eight combinations and from then on it escalates.

Any six from 49 is close to 14 million combinations.

Let us say there are only 6 consecutive mutations required to get a fin to make a perfect copy of a certain plant.

Let us say there are only 49 possible mutations including wrong ones.

The odds then would be 14 million to one.

The problem is for all those living in the fantasy world of only 6 mutations required and only 49 possible mutations is that the number of consecutive mutations is far greater than 6 and the possible mutations including the wrong mutations at any stage are millions not 49!!!

How come I understand the maths and somehow no one else can come anywhere near the reality of the combined mutliplication of even the simple odds?

What I am getting here is me giving simplistic numbers and no one else using any actual numbers at all, it is a swept under the carpet senario of you only need a few fish and everything is dinky doo.

jesus wept.

If you do not understand permutaions you should not even try to reason this out as it requires some basic understanding of permutations.

The fish does mutate the fin to a perfect copy of a leaf and must have done within the lifespan of the species that is fact.

This is put down to chance mutations with any benefitial mutation kept and all bad mutations being eliminated.

Because this happens no one seems to have done the calcuations I am asking for and simply accepted it happens by chance without weighing up the odds at all.

I on the other hand have a strong interest in calculations regarding games of chance and have a fine understanding of odds and chance.

Before the fact I am telling you if you had placed a bet on a fish mutating its tail fin to copy a sea plant leaf perfectly 4 1/2 billion years ago the odds would far exceed 4 1/2 billion.

Not that it could not happen, the odds on it happening are probably in the trillions.

That is the fact of the matter and since no one can grasp permutaions and no one has exact odds then I rest my case.

john
alexkidd On February 07, 2012
Captain Awesome!


Deleted



in a bog, Ireland
#86New Post! Mar 21, 2009 @ 23:22:35
@jck 200 Said

alex,

It has nothing to do with simplistic basic evolution as you keep going on about.

The wrong direction is pointed at the right direction calculations not the wrong direction following the wrong direction.

Look, from a million fish take just oneok?

Right now this one specimen gets a chance mutation that affects the fin...what are the odds on that being in the right direction compared to the billions of wrong directions?

Still the mutation for the one specimen gets it right ok?

See we are not talking about the millions who get it wrong first time so stop going on about them.

The odds against that one fish getting a right mutation to the fin is billions to one.

If you think it is an even money chance then all is lost.

So, you tell me what the correct odds are that this one specimen mutates a single gene to affect the tail in the right direction>

It does so that is not the problem.

The problem is it is a billion to one against it getting the mutation right at even the first stage.

Now, same fish must mutate again as the first flimsy mutation gives no benefit at all because the fin still looks like the original fin apart from a minor alteration.

You don`t think a single mutation for a single fish would cause the fin to turn into a perfect copy of a leaf do you?

Then for the single fish to mutate again in the right direction towards the leaf it is another million to one but that has to be multiplied by the first million to give the odds on two consecutive mutations in one correct direction.

Start multiplying the odds when they are in the millions to one and very soon you get odds of billions to one.

Look getting six numbers out of seven on the lottery is seven combinations and odds of one in seven but add one more number to make eight and any six from eight is twenty eight combinations and from then on it escalates.

Any six from 49 is close to 14 million combinations.

Let us say there are only 6 consecutive mutations required to get a fin to make a perfect copy of a certain plant.

Let us say there are only 49 possible mutations including wrong ones.

The odds then would be 14 million to one.

The problem is for all those living in the fantasy world of only 6 mutations required and only 49 possible mutations is that the number of consecutive mutations is far greater than 6 and the possible mutations including the wrong mutations at any stage are millions not 49!!!

How come I understand the maths and somehow no one else can come anywhere near the reality of the combined multiplication of even the simple odds?

What I am getting here is me giving simplistic numbers and no one else using any actual numbers at all, it is a swept under the carpet scenario of you only need a few fish and everything is dinky doo.

jesus wept.

If you do not understand permutations you should not even try to reason this out as it requires some basic understanding of permutations.

The fish does mutate the fin to a perfect copy of a leaf and must have done within the lifespan of the species that is fact.

This is put down to chance mutations with any beneficial mutation kept and all bad mutations being eliminated.

Because this happens no one seems to have done the calculations I am asking for and simply accepted it happens by chance without weighing up the odds at all.

I on the other hand have a strong interest in calculations regarding games of chance and have a fine understanding of odds and chance.

Before the fact I am telling you if you had placed a bet on a fish mutating its tail fin to copy a sea plant leaf perfectly 4 1/2 billion years ago the odds would far exceed 4 1/2 billion.

Not that it could not happen, the odds on it happening are probably in the trillions.

That is the fact of the matter and since no one can grasp permutations and no one has exact odds then I rest my case.

john



Calculations of chance have no relevance because evolution ..
IS NOT GOVERNED BY CHANCE.

You talk of a single fish, but a single fish can't mutate any more than i can.
It's his offspring who will have mutations away from his own genes.
There is no 'direction' these happen fairly randomly and there IS NO DESIRE OR GOAL.
So first of in considering what i say next ask you to disregard all notion of attaining a perfect copy of a leaf, before that happens.........

The mutations occuring will be beneficial or it will be detrimental or it will be neutral.

What that means is it will either help it survive, hinder its survival or not affect its survival.

The ones that help it survive, even if it's only a a little bit will be carried out through the species and increase exponentially as the fish carrying it live longer and have more kids and the ones without it die sooner and have less by comparison.

So say a mutation occures that changes the shade of a fish's fin,
It is slightly less noticable and so helps its survival.
so thats ok.
This process repeats.

The statistical chance of these mutations occuring are quite small, but you're looking at it from the wrong direction.

If i asked you to walk onto the beach and pick up a grain of sand, what would be the chance of you picking up any particular grain of sand?
1 in a billion? a trillion? more?

by this logic any thing that has ever happened is so unlikely as to be impossible. this logic is flawed.

mutations occur, they can't help but occur, they could be multiple kinds and spread over the entire population and over many millions of years a dizzying array of mutation will occur.
those that benefit will be carried on and those that don't will not.

stacking of these benefits can lead to interesting results,
Camouflage, mimicry...hell everything, hair, wings, eyes, brains, empathy. morality etc etc etc.
jck200 On April 22, 2009




cardiff, United Kingdom
#87New Post! Apr 01, 2009 @ 17:26:45
To obtain perfect copy requires that the sequence of mutations are correct at each point, if not it is like placing a jigsaw piece in the wrong place the resulting completed jigsaw will be a mess.

Any 6 from 49 is roughly 14 million combinations but to get the 6 numbers in the correct order resuslts in any 6 numbers having 720 combinations in any order then you multiply that 720 x 14,000,000 to get the correct odds.

The fin turns into a perfect copy of a leaf so the sequence happens and is not the point in question but to willy nilly ignore the odds on such a sequence happening means the odds are not calculated at all.

Particularly alarming is the notion that the first mutations are benefitial when they are obviously useless and more likely to make such mutated fins stand out even more before the copy of the leaf is attained.

To have anyone think that mutation is not chance and there are no odds to calculate seems a rather sugar coated view of things.

john
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#88New Post! Apr 01, 2009 @ 17:27:33
Please show us one example of a "perfect copy" of something in nature.

One example. Just one.
skottie On September 23, 2009

Deleted



, Texas
#89New Post! Apr 01, 2009 @ 17:30:49
@jonnythan Said

Please show us one example of a "perfect copy" of something in nature.

One example. Just one.



snow flakes...... oh never mind.
sugarflyguy On March 15, 2010
Pro-Pho-tographer


Deleted



Leaving TFS today:), United Ki
#90New Post! Apr 01, 2009 @ 17:32:09
@jck200 Said

I am not particularly interested in evolution and for the most part am happy with the main contentions but every so often I see something on a science programme that causes me some grief.

It is the absolute staggering detail in the most humble of insects and flowers that allows for a perfect solution to the very problem it has overcome.

Flowers in some respects cause more problems than insects because flowers have no idea what the problem is.

The total time needed to create these evolutions which must start with a very minor change to one or a few flowers and then needing a miracle for those few to survive and create the next slight change exactly in the right direction when blinded to the task in hand does not add up mathematically.

Like i said it is not just one flower or one insect it is millions.

Each one performing an incredible procedure for survival that defies belief and the road that has had to take to get to that position before going extinct creates a monumental obstacle to the claim it is pure chance.

This is just my observation, if someone simply wants to regeretate standard evolutionary theory then that is rather pointless as my views go far beyond simpky accepting this.

john



If you add 2 and 2, and it makes 5, then you are correct, it doesn't add up
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Science
Sat Jan 14, 2012 @ 15:40
9 1714
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Wed Sep 04, 2013 @ 01:00
2417 117972
New posts   Biology
Thu Oct 08, 2009 @ 16:38
17 2959
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Fri Jun 19, 2009 @ 04:42
25 1241
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Fri Oct 10, 2008 @ 12:00
131 4152