How do you explain self organisation in nature?

[sweynforkbeard]

Self organisation in nature? Name me one group of marmosets who have successfully founded a supermarket chain or even run a car boot stall or a single guillemot who is the CEO of a profitable limited company.

 

[eagle]

Or you could show me how I am wrong.

You were shown a long time ago, the rest has just been a face saving exercise for you.

 

[ElanJo]

Or you could show me how I am wrong.

You were shown a long time ago, the rest has just been a face saving exercise for you.

That's amazing since Mammutley hasn't even give us a probablity figure for his claim, never mind described how the figure was arrived at!

Quite a feat.

 

[mammutly]

Probability theory has been used to challenge evolutionary theory for many, many years. Most scholars would agree that the as the mathematical modelling of biological systems has developed, the question has become more complex and is a long way from being decided.

But alas, Elanjo asserts that it is not so, and that an analysis of probability cannot relate to past events.

I suppose there had to be a definitive answer at some point. Never thought it would arrive via BM, but then I supose it was always destined to be so.


bugger.

I am aware that creationists have tried to use probablity to undermine evolution however I am also aware why they are fallacious.

You cite "many scholars" so let's hear them. List them and their findings.
You've already declined to give an actual probablity to evolution happening tho so I dare say you will decline to cite your sources in this instance also. Prove me wrong.

I havent' baselessly asserted anything. You're not the first to bring up probablity and evolution to me. I don't know about you but I look into people's claims... and when they turn out to be flawed I will gladly tell them why they are so. Once again, just like eagle, you resort to sarcasm and silly cheap shots.

-- Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:37 pm --

We could view the conclusion as one of Elanjo's commandments. I have not yet counted Elanjo's commandments to be able to assign this one a number.

Or you could show me how I am wrong.

This week, slacker that I am, I have also declined to prove that the square root of 2 is a perfect number.

As for sources, try your uncle google, mate.

For now, I'll repeat my observation that for you, your assumptions are your own personal facts. You are very welcome to them.

 

[ElanJo]

I am aware that creationists have tried to use probablity to undermine evolution however I am also aware why they are fallacious.

You cite "many scholars" so let's hear them. List them and their findings.
You've already declined to give an actual probablity to evolution happening tho so I dare say you will decline to cite your sources in this instance also. Prove me wrong.

I havent' baselessly asserted anything. You're not the first to bring up probablity and evolution to me. I don't know about you but I look into people's claims... and when they turn out to be flawed I will gladly tell them why they are so. Once again, just like eagle, you resort to sarcasm and silly cheap shots.

-- Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:37 pm --



Or you could show me how I am wrong.

This week, slacker that I am, I have also declined to prove that the square root of 2 is a perfect number.

As for sources, try your uncle google, mate.

For now, I'll repeat my observation that for you, your assumptions are your own personal facts. You are very welcome to them.

You're definitely not a slacker when it comes to making claims that you can't back up. Your levels of evasion surely must take some considerable effort.

I already have an idea of where you get your skewed view of probablity and evolution. There are a few websites like the Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society etc. that peddle this kind of BS in the hope of persuading the scientifically unsophisticated, such as yourself. Probablity is a favourite of the I.D movement because the large probablity figures they throw around bamboozle even the most switched on of people (until they look at how these figures were arrived at that is)

I'd welcome you telling me what my assumptions and personal facts are btw, but it goes without saying by now that I won't be holding my breath.

 

[mammutly]

Alas ! I shall have to cancel my clinics and resign my position!

My lack of scientific sophistication has rendered me useless.


:-(

 

[ElanJo]

Alas ! I shall have to cancel my clinics and resign my position!

My lack of scientific sophistication has rendered me useless.


:-(

And what do you prescribe for your patients? leeches and 20 lashes?

Whatever the case may be, you're clearly unsophisticated when it comes to probablity and evolution.
You don't need to close your clinic. You just need to stop making stupid baseless claims.

 

[mammutly]

Alas ! I shall have to cancel my clinics and resign my position!

My lack of scientific sophistication has rendered me useless.


:-(

And what do you prescribe for your patients? leeches and 20 lashes?

Whatever the case may be, you're clearly unsophisticated when it comes to probablity and evolution.
You don't need to close your clinic. You just need to stop making stupid baseless claims.

Given that this is a public forum, I am quite happy for them to decide who between us is making 'baseless claims'.

As I said, you are welcome to your personal acts.

If you get bored, you can work out how to put a figure on how you arrived at them.


;-)




Peace brother.

 

[ElanJo]

And what do you prescribe for your patients? leeches and 20 lashes?

Whatever the case may be, you're clearly unsophisticated when it comes to probablity and evolution.
You don't need to close your clinic. You just need to stop making stupid baseless claims.

Given that this is a public forum, I am quite happy for them to decide who between us is making 'baseless claims'.

As I said, you are welcome to your personal acts.

If you get bored, you can work out how to put a figure on how you arrived at them.


;-)




Peace brother.

I'm happy for others to make up their own minds also but with all respect to these 'others' I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in you giving your reasoning, and, considering you brought up probablity theory, and with such confidence, probablity figures and formulas for the following statements:

"God having created the natural world is actually more possible that it having evolved via millions upon millions of random events, some of which had more longevity than others. Simple probability theory will tell you that."

"The probability of life evolving accidently is less than the probability of it being created."

I have repeatedly asked you to do this and yet - nothing. All you can muster is "google it". You won't disclose any details of how you came to these conclusions because if you did you'd be made to look like a fool.

I'm a fool for allowing you to waste my time.

 

[mammutly]

You are asking me to put a figure on the probability of intelligent design over evolution in the creation of life?

Are you a builder by any chance?

Even if you are not, you will appreciate that I am now inhaling sharply through my teeth and scratching my chin.

Difficult estimate that. A lot to consider. a lot of unknowns.

In fact, I can't. I can't give you a number. The problem is you see that even if I give you a number, then you will say it's wrong ( for a whole host of reasons) and I will tell you it is right ( for a whole host of resaons) and we will very quickly be back to the pre -figure debate.

Seeing as it's you, I'll give you a couple of references. This is now an old paper, but one I read with great interest at the time:

<a class="postlink" href="http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/fitelsoon%20and%20sober%20on%20plantinga.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/fitels ... ntinga.pdf</a>


Here you will find links to the abstracts from 1000's of articles in which scientists discuss probability and evolution. The actual page I'm giving you refers to the likelihood of parallel evolution having occurred, based upon an acceptance of natural selection processes:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15792240" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15792240</a>


Now, Elanjo, I have to work. But if you'd care to read some of he above and come back with a properly constructed ( ie answerable) question, then I'll pick it up later.

If you don't want to that's fine, but perhaps you'd be good enough to quantify why for me. Cheers.