Not all natural selection is beneficial and leads to better traits. For example, an asteroid hitting the planet and wiping out all life is natural selection, but is highly undesirable from an evolutionary perspective.
And we imprison the innocent. Convicted on what we call evidence . Science has been said to move forward at the pace of tombstones. The very history of science is a history of change. What yields such certainty today can change. Yet some fields of sciencr .seem to forget this especially in biology. And any idea that is not based upon the assumption of philosophical materialism is rejected and to get funding for research is damn near impossible. I dont think chance and randomness is basic in evolution. I think there are other factors involved that replace that idea. Not talking about God or our images of that. I think it is information. Something along the line of what some physicists think about the nature of the atom. That one of the fundamentals involved in the existence of an atom is information . Information and energy. And so we had self replicating molecules to manifest from some kind of soup because of the existence of elements and information. Evolution of those self replicating molecules was possible due to information instead of dice and randomness. But information isnt material while the theory of evolution is grounded in matter being fundamental ..Throw in some dice, randomness and time and that is the recipe no matter the odds involved and the number of times these astronomical odds must be in favor. I think our universe is full of life because given an environmental parameter self replicating molecules will manifest because of information being present instead of randomness and chance. And inherit in those molecules is the probability of evolution due to information. But I am repeating myself.
The last one of note opened new niches for mammals to explore. Bad Idea? Unless you mean "all" life as in "all" life. Microbes included. Which is it? Speak clearly into the microphone please. And what of as evidence, Atavism Happens. Read Moi Now And Believe Moi LaterIn coming years, endangered species will be found bringing life to burnt out areas in California. Y'see that's how some biological ecology works. (biological vs political) Be Pro Evolution Let Natural Selection work! Moi BSc Biology
If the suspect's gun was found at the crime scene, he had scratch marks on his face, the DNA of the blood of the victim's nails were his, there was video footage of him breaking into the victim's home right before the murder, and of him running out of the house and throwing away the gun. Sorry, but thats pretty convincing even without an eyewitness. If some innocent people are imprisoned, then maybe we need to do a better job assessing the evidence, instead of throwing away the system. Science is at a completely different place in 2019 than it was in 1919. I don't know why you believe this. Yeah, but there are some facts that are so established they aren't going to change. They might be tweaked a bit or understood more thoroughly in a more complete light, but they are going to be basically true. For example, the earth is round, not flat. We did find it wasn't a perfect sphere, but we were basically right about it being round. What is philosophical materialism? That everything is just matter? Obviously not. There is energy, space, and time. Many scientists believe in more dimensions than just the ones we currently know. If we have actual evidence of other dimensions or spirit stuff, then it will be a part of science and be included. Scientists understand that there is more out there than we know currently, just look up string theory. Evolution isn't just chance. There is also natural selection, that selects good mutations. And maybe God has a hand in the process. But we need evidence first. There is no evidence that information has any physical reality that interacts with the material world and isn't anything more than an abstract concept. There is also no evidence that atoms are information. Actual scientists have to actually produce evidence for their theories and not just forever speculate with new-agey cool sounding words. Or maybe you throw around the dice enough times and eventually you get something. Throw in a bit of natural selection and now we are talking. Maybe there are a near infinite number of universes with a near infinite number of forces and environments. And in at least one little place, something special was bound to happen.
Or maybe if the asteroid hasn't hit, the dinosaurs would have evolved into something even more spectacular. or what about that asteroid that hit Siberia a few centuries back. Didn't really help anyone. Just destroyed stuff. In fact there was an volcanic event in Africa that almost wiped out early humanity. Definitely not good for evolution. And we really should be looking out for ourselves not hoping for some asteroid to wipe us out to pave the way to a superior species. Maybe we should preserve earth's biodiversity for our own benefit not evolution's.
With evolution you have natural selection so you don't have to completely depend on randomness. But for finding the right conditions for life and evolution, the universe is just so vast that we are bound to find at least one suitable planet. And if you had 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion monkeys plugging away for billions of years, you bet we'd see some results.
Never. The Gorn is about as close as you might get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorn and the most bestial of the multi species Xindi were the reptilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xindi_(Star_Trek)#Xindi-Reptilians YOU have better sources for your hypothesis or just green hills, unicorns skipping type philosophy. BTW I have more faith the reptilian and bird people would get along better than either with a mammal. I imagine the Reptilian / Dinosaur Brain more Bird Like. Is it really, a better brain? Like a better computer chip? What is the basis? By some standards insects do it for least. And what of a master cephelopod race. Octopus People? (my vote) And we can barely communicate with other mammalian life forms. Just never the Reptilians. And likewise, probably the Bird People too. Destroy On Sight.
I'm on team Xindi myself. You can't really know where evolution would have taken things, its really hard to predict one way or the other. If you were a Xindi scientist, would you ever think those disgusting little mammal mice would have evolved into modern humans?
Do you think any monkey is going to replace the paper in the carriage after it has been expelled? Why would he do so? Why wouldn't the supply of paper be crapped on and scattered about the enclosure(s)? Someone intelligent would have to inspect every piece of paper typed on by every monkey. The list of constraints and requirements is a very long one indeed, and serves to disprove whatever it was that Richard Dawkins and his followers thought they were affirming. 50 characters to the 100th power for a short sentence is hopelessly impossible, much less "The works of Shakespeare". And more time does not change the statistics one iota. A coin flip is heads one chance in two whether you toss it today or in 10,000 years.
The infinite monkey theorem is really a laughable, absurd offering, to illustrate the ridiculousness of a godless Cause. Yet to the indoctrinees in godlessness, the plausibility that infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters could produce all the classics gets them all nodding like bobbleheads. But the premise of a Creator brings howls of angry protest! 'Not possible!' 'There is no God!!' 'Bring back the monkeys!!'
One might say we're practicing anti evolution by eliminating environments too fast for adaptation, too.
But at least with the infinite monkey theorem, its mathematically sound. Given enough tries, even the most unlikely thing becomes certain. With the creator explanation, now you have to get into the whole mess of where the creator came from, and if you aren't proposing a creator for the creator, you will need to explain why this universe needs a creator but the creator doesn't. There is also a complete lack of evidence that this multidimensional being exists, besides assuming complexity = design, or God of the gaps.
If there is something in the experiment that will make it impossible for the monkey to ever complete the assignment then the probability = 0%. However, if the probability is something higher than zero, even if it is .0000000 .... 00001%, if it is tried enough times, it will eventually happen. In reality the probability of a monkey doing this successfully is actually zero, because a monkey simply isn't going to consistently type the keys, care for the machine, and change the paper without any kind of training. Its more of a theoretical thought experiment where the actor is a random typer and whether that random typing could produce Shakespeare. The monkey was just a colorful illustration of that.
Oh for heavens sake, that part of my post was an analogy, not a literal statement of fact. The argument posited by ChemEngineer was that the odds of a particularity complex protein 'evolving' were so remote as to be impossible.Which is fine if you are assume the whole process is occurring in a liner fashion, in isolation i.e. one molecule at a time. Which BTW is ridiculous. I simply pointed out the logical fallacy in his? argument by using the example of well understood principal from computer science. Which is that complex mathematical problems in computer science can and are processed in parallel not linearly. Thousands or millions of outputs are progressed simultaneously (not one at a time) to reduce the time needed to complete the operation in question. As should have been obvious from my post I simply pointed out that the chemical processes involved in producing the final protein he was fixated upon did NOT occur in isolation, in a single chain, one step at a time, one molecule at a time. If that was the case we would still be waiting for the evolution for that protein to arrive at the end of the universe. I simply pointed out as should have been obvious that the same chemical processes were being replicated trillions of time per second wherever conditions on the primordial Earth were suitable - across the entire surface of the planet. For example have you any idea how many molecules of alcohol there are in you favorite glass of beer? Neither do I. Point is an incredibly small volume of space can hold an incredibly large number of complex molecules (way more complex than alcohol). And all those molecules of 'beer' came into existence in tandem. So no, I was not suggesting God was a computer. (If he was I would probably call the IT Department about all the problems I am having in life - whereupon they would ask me if I had tried turning 'God' off and on again). Although come to think of it, looking at the world today I am beginning to suspect the Universe may be 'running' on an Eastern European knockoff copy of Windows Vista - that would explain a lot.
Nevertheless, the BELIEF that 'with infinite possibility, anything could happen!', is not scientific evidence. It is wishful thinking, or an argument of plausibility, at best. It is still a fallacy, and has no empirical evidence to support it. If there is 'infinite possibility!', then a Creator could also have arisen.. what are the odds of that? Or do you take the irrational position: 1. Creator? Impossible! 2. Random Chance? Possible! Why? There is no evidence for random chance, in a godless universe, forming the unbelievably complex conditions on earth, and life itself. That is a leap of faith greater than any premise of intelligent design.
I see....So you expect science to create life in 100 years but are Okay accepting a "God" not found in 2000?
I agree that odds do no more than support (or fail to support) plausibility. The more basic problem here is that there is no scientific evidence concerning god. Period. I would suggest that odds calculations on aboiogenesis in this universe are weak at best as we don't know the possible processes (which could greatly affect odds), have a lot to learn about places that could support life in this uiverse, and know essentially nothing about the larger environment in which our big bang occurred. I agree that there is a philosophical "first cause" problem, but I believe science on odds of abiogenesis has little to nothing to offer on that issue - at least today. Religion and sciece are still separate.
