25 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy
[b]Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequ ...[text shortened]... m to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”[/b]
The Instructor[/b]
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI was not really referring to Hoyle's junkyard tornado theory, but thanks for bring that up so I can add more fuel to the fire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy
According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving was about one-in-10 to the 40,000 power. However, now we know that the probability is even more unlikely than that.
He commented:
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
This is a reflection of his stance reported elsewhere:
Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?
The only fallacy in Hoyle's comments was that he did not know the extent of the problem for the evilutionists. Professor Stephen Hawking simply stated that the chance of something like DNA arising in the universe is extremely unlikely. However, astronomer Hugh Ross has attempted to calculate the probability as Hoyle did from what scientist know now and it would just take too many zeros for me to attempt to represent it on this post. I suspect in the future his figure will need even more zeros added so his figure will look like just as much an underestimate of the problem for the evolutionists that Hoyle's figure does for us today.
The possibility of figuring the probability of Humans arising without a bunch of miracles is not able to be calculated because we just don't have enough knowledge. So for all practical purposes we can only say that it is not possible without miracles.
Those claiming this is a fallacy say that natural selection can account for it over time. However, they overlook the fact that biological natural selection has to have something to naturally select. That takes us back to the question of how the information gets there. Don't try to tell me natural selection selects the information out of thin air. Or is magic okay if used in an effort to prove evilution?
The Instructor
26 Jul 13
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
I was not really referring to Hoyle's junkyard tornado theory, but thanks for bring that up so I can add more fuel to the fire.
According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving was about one-in-10 to the 40,000 power. However, now we know that the probability is even more unlikely than that.
He commented:
The chance that h of thin air. Or is magic okay if used in an effort to prove evilution?
The Instructor
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance ….
It would be extremely difficult if not impossible to rationally assess the probability of 'higher' lifeforms evolving from 'lower' lifeforms without other examples of it happening or failing to happen from 'lower' lifeforms elsewhere in the universe -which we haven't got.
Anyone who currently claims to have worked out the probability of 'higher' lifeforms evolving from 'lower' lifeforms is a moron and is talking crap because it currently just cannot be done. If you deny this, then please tell us all here how it can be done -show all your mathematical workings and actual numbers please....
Two rhetorical questions:
Exactly what equation did he use to work out the probability? Can you show his exact mathematical calculations?
-can't answer those question? that's because he cannot do that and he is talking crap.
Originally posted by humyThe [b]chancethat higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance ….
It would be extremely difficult if not impossible to rationally assess the probability of 'higher' lifeforms evolving from 'lower' lifeforms without other examples of it happening or failing to happen from 'lower' lifeforms elsewhe n't answer those question? that's because he cannot do that and he is talking crap.[/b]I don't think Hoyle was referring to higher life forms evolving from lower life forms. He was referring first to the low probability that life at the cell level would arise by chance. Then he takes that many steps further to think about how much more unlikely that a higher form of life, like humans, for example, could arise by this method of chance. He knew he did not have the knowledge to even attempt calculating that probability. And I stated that we still don't.
I have no idea what Hoyle used for his calculations of probability of life arising by chance. But as I pointed out, he left out a lot of factors as can be seen by his result compared to that of Hugh Ross, which you can find on his website Reasons to Believe.
The Instructor
26 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't think Hoyle was referring to higher life forms evolving from lower life forms. He was referring first to the low probability that life at the cell level would arise by chance. Then he takes that many steps further to think about how much more unlikely that a higher form of life, like humans, for example, could arise by this method of chance. He k ...[text shortened]... to that of Hugh Ross, which you can find on his website Reasons to Believe.
The Instructor
I don't think Hoyle was referring to higher life forms evolving from lower life forms. He was referring first to the low probability that life at the cell level would arise by chance.
-then my same argument still applies -we have no other examples of life arising this way given the right conditions therefore we cannot currently rationally asses the probability of life arising given those right conditions.
like humans, for example, could arise by this method of chance.
NO, evolution does NOT say that all life, therefore including humans, arise by pure chance.
He knew he did not have the knowledge to even attempt calculating that probability.
-which is why he is wrong.
I have no idea what Hoyle used for his calculations of probability of life arising by chance.
Abiogenesis may not require any pure chance for, for all we know, it may be inevitable given the right conditions. If he assumes that life could only arise “by chance” in an absence of a god or gods, then he is making a completely baseless and unintelligent assumption for there may be no such chance required.
26 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyApparently it is also highly unlikely that the right conditions for life would arise by a chance occurrence. It appears that those right conditions must also be pre-planned.I don't think Hoyle was referring to higher life forms evolving from lower life forms. He was referring first to the low probability that life at the cell level would arise by chance.
-then my same argument still applies -we have no other examples of life arising this way given the right conditions therefore we cannot currently rationally ...[text shortened]... ng a completely baseless and unintelligent assumption for there may be no such chance required.
The Instructor
27 Jul 13
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
Apparently it is also highly unlikely that the right conditions for life would arise by a chance occurrence. It appears that those right conditions must also be pre-planned.
The Instructor
Apparently it is also highly unlikely that the right conditions for life would arise by a chance occurrence.
“ Apparently” in what sense? -according to what evidence? -answer, none. You are just making this up.
And what ARE the right conditions for life to occur? -nobody can rationally know this yet.
And why would a “chance” occurrence be required rather than it being inevitable given the right condition? -Again, nobody can rationally know this yet. Until science gives us more answers, it is impassible to say one way or another if a strong element of chance required for abiogenesis or if abiogenesis is near-enough inevitable given the right conditions for it.
If you deny any of this, just tell us, what are the right conditions for abiogenesis, how do you know this, and why would it not be inevitable that life would arise given those right conditions?
It appears that those right conditions must also be pre-planned.
“appears” in what sense? According to which specific evidence? -answer, none. Again, you are just making this up.
No, no, no, it is just no good just making baseless assertions without stating any possible premise. You will have to do much better than that.
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyThe [b]chancethat higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance ….
It would be extremely difficult if not impossible to rationally assess the probability of 'higher' lifeforms evolving from 'lower' lifeforms without other examples of it happening or failing to happen from 'lower' lifeforms elsewhe ...[text shortened]... n't answer those question? that's because he cannot do that and he is talking crap.[/b]It's actually quite easy - since we know that complex lifeforms exist, evolution is happening and the possibility of complex lifeforms suddenly appearing is negligble, the probability of complex lifeforms evolving from simple ones is 1.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHeh.
It's actually quite easy - since we know that complex lifeforms exist, evolution is happening and the possibility of complex lifeforms suddenly appearing is negligble, the probability of complex lifeforms evolving from simple ones is 1.
Actually no, probability doesn't work like that.
The probability that it's POSSIBLE for complex life forms to evolve from
simple ones is (effectively) 1.
That doesn't mean the probability of complex lifeforms actually arising
from simple ones is 1.
For example, if you go out and buy a lottery ticket and then you win the
jackpot then the probability of winning the jackpot with a single ticket
doesn't suddenly become 1.
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeBut that's not really what's going on here - the question here is: if I won the lottery yesterday, what are the odds of me having won the lottery in the past? Answer: 1.
Heh.
Actually no, probability doesn't work like that.
The probability that it's POSSIBLE for complex life forms to evolve from
simple ones is (effectively) 1.
That doesn't mean the probability of complex lifeforms actually arising
from simple ones is 1.
For example, if you go out and buy a lottery ticket and then you win the
jackpot then the probability of winning the jackpot with a single ticket
doesn't suddenly become 1.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes. But that's not what you said and it's an important distinction.
But that's not really what's going on here - the question here is: if I won the lottery yesterday, what are the odds of me having won the lottery in the past? Answer: 1.
The fact that something has happened doesn't mean that the probability
of it happening was 1.
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeKazet is making the point that a priori probabilities are irrelevant once the dice have been rolled and the outcome decided. Getting a particular outcome may be unlikely, but if all outcomes are unlikely then since one has to happen then the fact it does is not surprising. What is spooky is that looked at from the point of view an alien visiting in the Hadean, humans are an unlikely outcome, but then so are all the outcomes, so we shouldn't sit around worrying about how unlikely they are.
Yes. But that's not what you said and it's an important distinction.
The fact that something has happened doesn't mean that the probability
of it happening was 1.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAnd that point is, in this case, wrong.
Kazet is making the point that a priori probabilities are irrelevant once the dice have been rolled and the outcome decided. Getting a particular outcome may be unlikely, but if all outcomes are unlikely then since one has to happen then the fact it does is not surprising. What is spooky is that looked at from the point of view an alien visiting in the ...[text shortened]... o are [b]all the outcomes, so we shouldn't sit around worrying about how unlikely they are.[/b]
When asking the question (and this is the question being asked)...
"How likely is it that simple life forms will evolve into complex life forms?"
Observing that there is at least one instance where simple life forms
evolved into complex ones simply means that the probability of it happening
is greater than 0.
If we are looking at competing explanations then the probability of each
explanation predicting the outcome observed 'a priori' is entirely relevant.
Because the 'god hypothesis' 'explains' everything and anything.
However where it fails is in predicting anything.
The god hypothesis assigns an a priori probability to any particular outcome
of 0+e where e is 1/infinity.
A non deistic intelligent designer however might have a higher probability.
And it is in comparing the relative probabilities that the different hypothesis
assign to the observed outcome a priori that we must judge them.
I think it is so much simpler and highly more likely, if we say we came about because the first man and woman was designed with the capability of reproduction by a super intelllect, rather than there were trillions and trillions and trillions of random occurrences like we won the lottery trillions and trillions and trillions of times in a row, therefore we are here. That also is a simpler explanation as to why we have the DNA language code that provides the instructions for reproduction of the proteins and cells of the body.
The instructor
Originally posted by RJHinds
I think it is so much simpler and highly more likely, if we say we came about because the first man and woman was designed with the capability of reproduction by a super intelllect, rather than there were trillions and trillions and trillions of random occurrences like we won the lottery trillions and trillions and trillions of times in a row, therefore we a ...[text shortened]... vides the instructions for reproduction of the proteins and cells of the body.
The instructor
rather than there were trillions and trillions and trillions of random occurrences like we won the lottery trillions and trillions and trillions of times in a row,
Why do you use this same moronic straw man over and over again? Do you think that just by repeating it a million times, it magically will foul us?
Natural selection is NOT purely random and we scientists know this and just pretending that it is purely random, no matter how often you do that, will NOT change this fact -have you finally got that into your thick skull now?