How do you explain self organisation in nature?

[Matty]

Surely any sane person realises that evolution is a myth, a magic man did it all, clearly.

 

[johnny crossan]

Surely any sane person realises that evolution is a myth, a magic man did it all, clearly.

Evidence of a total rout of the supporters of unreason - sadly they are only ones who fail will to see it.

Well done Mammutly!

 

[Matty]

Surely any sane person realises that evolution is a myth, a magic man did it all, clearly.

Evidence of a total rout of the supporters of unreason - sadly they are only ones who fail will to see it.

Well done Mammutly!

You do realise that throwing random words together doesn't actually make a coherant sentence yeah?

 

[johnny crossan]

Evidence of a total rout of the supporters of unreason - sadly they are only ones who fail will to see it.

Well done Mammutly!

You do realise that throwing random words together doesn't actually make a coherant sentence yeah?

coherent - you shouldn't use words you can't spell if you want to construct proper sentences

 

[Matty]

You do realise that throwing random words together doesn't actually make a coherant sentence yeah?

coherent - you shouldn't use words you can't spell if you want to construct proper sentences

I would suggest you look at the following sentence before attempting to pass judgement on others.....

"sadly they are only ones who fail will to see it"

 

[johnny crossan]

coherent - you shouldn't use words you can't spell if you want to construct proper sentences

I would suggest you look at the following sentence before attempting to pass judgement on others.....

"sadly they are only ones who fail will to see it"

touche

 

[ElanJo]

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.

Since you made the claim that one is more probable than the other, and with reference to probablity theory, you must have some kind of probablity figure for them, so yes I'm asking you for figures and how you arrived at them. If, as you say you can't then I'd advise you to be more careful how you frame your claims.

If you want to stick to your claim that god having made us is a better answer than evolution then that's slightly different but still a claim that I'd like to see you back up (so I suppose that can be my question to you)

As for Plantinga's argument against evolution and naturalism, that paper points out some problems with it, as have many others, all I'd add is that, whilst it's true that evolution doesn't necessarily create true beliefs it can easily be understood to need to produce cognitive senses that are reliable in conjuntion with the external world and once that occurs we have a starting point to weed out false beliefs (using the scientific method for example). That of course assumes that the external world is real. If we (or I - since you don't exist) were to not assume this then solipsism awaits.

With regards to the abstracts, I typed in "Probablity and evolution" and after a few pages of looking gave up. Are you sure there are 1000's? I found 2.<br /><br />-- Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:30 pm --<br /><br />

Surely any sane person realises that evolution is a myth, a magic man did it all, clearly.

Evidence of a total rout of the supporters of unreason - sadly they are only ones who fail will to see it.

Well done Mammutly!

Woohoo Johnny Christ has returned.

The end surely must be nigh

 

[mammutly]

whilst it's true that evolution doesn't necessarily create true beliefs it can easily be understood to need to produce cognitive senses that are reliable in conjuntion with the external world and once that occurs we have a starting point to weed out false beliefs (using the scientific method for example).

A minor light in the gloom!

congruence? Is that necessary for evolution, then?

The probability of evolution ( random mutations, naturally selected for their survival value) having produced cognitive mechanisms at all is remote in the extreme. But relaible & congruent beliefs?

In what context?

You'll be familiar with the notion of primitive Paul who lived in the time of very few people.

Paul who decides not to run from the fire but nevertheless, because of a multitude of interacting variables, survives, whilst the rest of his tribe perish. Paul is now , according to evolutionary theory, more fit to survive.

I actually don't have a problem with adaptive systems evolving over time. But the probability of a single molecule developing from scratch via random mutation and selection is millions of billions to one.

Evolutionary theory argues that the process is not entirely random. I accept that there are external conditions which favour certain outcomes. That reduces the odds to mere billions.

The second reposte to probability is that the sheer number of trials which occur in nature mean that eventually the right combination will occur.

If you have £100 and put £1 on 100 100/1 outsiders, it is almost certain that you will lose your money.

The chances of you not only making a profit, but stumbling upon a viable population of others who have similar extraordinary luck is very, very, very, very, low. Infact it's pretty much none.

But, if there was a plan, a design, that directed selection according to non random processes, a sign post if you like; the chances of punters loaded with dosh from unlikely bets stumbling across one another would be more credible.

This is why I say that an intelligent design ( God if you like) is more probable than a random ( albeit environmentally influenced) evolutionary theory to explain how life developed.

Evolution is a theory not a fact. If it claims to be a science, then by definition it has to potentially disprovable. It is a pity that so many of those who subscribe seem to forget that fact.

Please don't come back to me with spurious arguments about divine beings. Stick to the terms of reference. We are debating evolution here, not religion.

 

[sweynforkbeard]

whilst it's true that evolution doesn't necessarily create true beliefs it can easily be understood to need to produce cognitive senses that are reliable in conjuntion with the external world and once that occurs we have a starting point to weed out false beliefs (using the scientific method for example).

A minor light in the gloom!

congruence? Is that necessary for evolution, then?

The probability of evolution ( random mutations, naturally selected for their survival value) having produced cognitive mechanisms at all is remote in the extreme. But relaible & congruent beliefs?

In what context?

You'll be familiar with the notion of primitive Paul who lived in the time of very few people.

Paul who decides not to run from the fire but nevertheless, because of a multitude of interacting variables, survives, whilst the rest of his tribe perish. Paul is now , according to evolutionary theory, more fit to survive.

I actually don't have a problem with adaptive systems evolving over time. But the probability of a single molecule developing from scratch via random mutation and selection is millions of billions to one.

Evolutionary theory argues that the process is not entirely random. I accept that there are external conditions which favour certain outcomes. That reduces the odds to mere billions.

The second reposte to probability is that the sheer number of trials which occur in nature mean that eventually the right combination will occur.

/quoteIf you have £100 and put £1 on 100 100/1 outsiders, it is almost certain that you will lose your money.

The chances of you not only making a profit, but stumbling upon a viable population of others who have similar extraordinary luck is very, very, very, very, low. Infact it's pretty much none./quote

But, if there was a plan, a design, that directed selection according to non random processes, a sign post if you like; the chances of punters loaded with dosh from unlikely bets stumbling across one another would be more credible.

This is why I say that an intelligent design ( God if you like) is more probable than a random ( albeit environmentally influenced) evolutionary theory to explain how life developed.

Evolution is a theory not a fact. If it claims to be a science, then by definition it has to potentially disprovable. It is a pity that so many of those who subscribe seem to forget that fact.

Please don't come back to me with spurious arguments about divine beings. Stick to the terms of reference. We are debating evolution here, not religion.

Are you having a dig at Scotty's tips?

 

[mammutly]

Are you having a dig at Scotty's tips?

Not at all.

Scotty makes informed guesses, he doesn't do the random number thing.