I see so many creationists argue against this law of nature, as if they actually know what it is. Just to clarify something for theists the 2nd law of thermodynamics is based on probability considerations. It's in some respects more a law of mathematics than physics: It's easy to throw a coffee cup into pieces (1), but the other way around, throwing the pieces back into a whole cup (2) is virtually impossible. But the latter isn't any harder than throwing a cup twice in exactly the same pieces scattered exactly in the same way (3). The difference between (1) and (2, 3) is that all end results count in (1) while only a single end result counts in (2, 3) so the first has a much higher probability. So, yes, evolution needs luck and thus many tries. That's why it took a billion years with the first very simple steps taking most of the time. The 2nd law is also often the center of (vague) philosophical discussions about the "arrow of time" often overlooking the probability aspects. Also, Speaking of probabilities and likelihoods... The odds of drawing any particular 5-card poker hand are smaller 1 in a hundred million. But every time I'm dealt a hand, I don't marvel at the extremely low likelihood of my getting dealt that hand; and I don't dismiss the reality of my holding that hand just because the odds of my getting it are so low. And to take this a step further, the odds of being dealt a specific hand is independent of the hand - any particular royal flush is just as likely as any specific arbitrary hand. Now, that royal flush looks highly ordered, but that doesn't make it less likely to get than any other particular hand. Another thing I want to discuss is the time-evolution of a sytem. Darwinian Evolution Theory requires a mechanism whereby certain specific outcomes evolve differently from other outcomes. In other words, all outcomes do not evolve identically, and this "selection" helps improve the odds of having complexity evolve from simpler things. Here's an example to illustrate this selection : Take a big box and fill it with two sizes of balls - 1 inch marbles and 5 inch balls. Chuck all these balls randomly into the box. Now, continuously tap the box (gently), so the balls can rearrange themselves. Slowly, you'll see the smaller balls settle to the bottom, with the big ones above them. Given enough time, all the little balls will form into a lower tier, and the big ones into an upper tier - a perfectly ordered state ! What caused this ordering is that some balls - the little ones - are better than others - the big ones - at finding their way through openings and getting to the bottom. If it were equally easy for both kinds of balls to head for the bottom, the probability of arriving at this ordered state would be incredibly small. But because of this mechanism of selectivity, this ordered state is virtually a certainty in the long run. So the very notion of an event's (nonzero) probability presupposes that the event can occur. If, for some reason, the event cannot occur, then, surprise, the probability of the event is zero. To suggest that very low probability events cannot occur without some form of intervention is disengenuous at best; dishonest at worst, and is just plain wrong to the core. ID? Who want's such a pessimistic -- life's too complex; just give up trying to understand -- spin centered doctrine? 1. How "unlikely" is the evolution into our present form? I have seen several estimates (and they ARE estimates in the roughest sense) of the chances of DNA's forming into its current form. Sure, the probability is very small. However, would anyone like to look at the probability of finding the top quark at the Tevatron several years ago? Let's see, they found... what, 8 events out of how many gazillion, gazillion events? And this is not counting those that are vetoed outright. Particle collider experiments are the MOST demanding scenario in terms of data acquisition, storage, and processing speed because of the mind-boggling quantity of data being gathered in just a fraction of a second. Someone should show these ID'ers the probability of finding a "positive" event out of all of these gazillion interactions and COMPARE that number with the numbers they're putting out for the DNA formation. Why this hasn't been done, I don't have a clue. The main point here is that just because the probability "order of magnitude" appears to be miniscule doesn't mean we have not seen such occurence already, even within our lifetime. When the probability for something to occur is small, but there are a gazillion candidates, the phase space for that to occur is still reasonable enough that it CAN (and has) happened. 2. Often, the calculation of such probability itself is highly dubious. It assume that one starts off already knowing the final phase space that one has to end up with. Let me give an example. Let's say I start off with 4 letters, A, B, C, and D. I have 10 slots to fill this letters with (repetition is allowed). I want to know what is the probability that, after a random selection, I end up with a sequence that such as BBDBDAEDDA One can do the straightforward calculation there. One can accurately argue that the phase space (or probability) of getting such a sequence is small. However, is this really what is going on with the evolution process? I would make a definite claim that it isn't. First of all, the formation of our DNA doesn't not happen all at once at the beginning of the evolutionary process. Natural selection dictates that based on the external ecological pressures, there will be traits that will be more favorable than others. Now unless I slept through reading the formation of our universe and earth, the earth a LONG TIME ago is not the same earth that's here today. There is just a different ecological pressures when it is mainly water/molten rocks/etc. Our current forms are just not "favorable" back then! As the environment changed, so does the external pressures, and different traits became more favorable. In other words, the DNA selection changes gradually. So maybe, using my example above, you have filled only the first 5 sequence of BBDBD_____. Now, the probability phase space to end up with BBDBDAEDDA is no longer as large as in the beginning. You have already established the first 5. It's like flipping a coin 4 times and asking for the probability that you end up with 4 heads. While the probability at the start is of course (1/2)^4, if you have already obtained 3 heads, then the probability of getting all 4 heads is just 1/2. For some reason, I haven't seen this argument put forth convincingly to people who are being seduced into believing in this probability game. 3. There is also the major assumption that ending up with BBDBDAEDDA sequence is the ONLY possible option. I mean, at the very beginning of the selection, how do we know that BBDBDAEDDA is the ONLY sequence that would produce anything worthwhile? Now, if we question that, then let's play this game.... Let's say I end up with ABACCAEDBB. There! I just got a sequence! Now, if we look at it AFTER THE FACT, someone can say "WHOA! The probability of getting that sequence is VERY low. How'd you do that?" I can just walk around and say "Oh, I'm very good at this" or "Well, I'm just a very lucky person". Yet, I didn't plan on getting that sequence. It just came up randomly. Obviously, someone who looks at it AFTER the fact, thinks I'm very lucky because it is VERY highly unlikely to get that sequence. In fact, ABACCAEDBB could be a new creature capable of producing anti-graviational effects via zero-point fluctuations! Remember, evolution never had a "final design" in mind. It is simply a trait being selected at that given moment due to all the external pressures and the available nitches in the ecology. So the sequence could easily be something else if our earth made a right instead of a left turn at Albuquerque.

Post edited by: vincent, at: 2007/01/23 22:16

[quote]It's easy to throw a coffee cup into pieces (1), but the other way around, throwing the pieces back into a whole cup (2) is virtually impossible. But the latter isn't any harder than throwing a cup twice in exactly the same pieces scattered exactly in the same way (3).[/quote] Actually, 3 is easier than 2. With three, you could record the mathematics of the first throw and repeat it in the second throw. Difficult, yes. Virtually impossible, no. I'm not going to post anything terribly relevant (you can accuse me of being a cop-out/typical creationist/etcetera) so I'll just leave you with this fact for now: your opening analogy is faulty.

>ID? Who want's such a pessimistic -- life's too complex; just give up trying to understand -- spin centered doctrine? I'm pretty sure that's not Intelligent Design's point, and I'm equally sure ID is not a doctrine at all. >How "unlikely" is the evolution into our present form? First, let's ask is it possible? I don't know it to be impossible, but as far as I know, we've never seen a random mutation that made the genetic code more complex, as would be necessary for evolution to occur. It seems to take code out, transpose it, etc.. If you can establish that random mutation can account for generating new genetic code, then evolutionary origin can be considered theoretically possible. >Often, the calculation of such probability itself is highly dubious. I say always. It's kinda pointless to try. Everybody has an opinion, and you can't "calculate" something like that without assuming a great deal, so how could it ever be possible to estimate accurately, regardless of whose estimates you believe?

[quote][b]MattBob_SquarePants wrote:[/b] I'm pretty sure that's not Intelligent Design's point, and I'm equally sure ID is not a doctrine at all. [/quote] ID was shot down in courts after it was proven that all it was is an attempt to get Christianity brought back into public schools, which is a violation of Separation of Church and state. Perhaps my wording was too haste in labeling it as a "doctrine". I can admit that i was wrong on that part. However my main point still stands and that ID/creationism is deceitful and dishonest. It seeks to find facts to support the conclusions, if it is science then it would come to a conclusion to support the facts. [quote] First, let's ask is it possible? I don't know it to be impossible, but as far as I know, we've never seen a random mutation that made the genetic code more complex, as would be necessary for evolution to occur. It seems to take code out, transpose it, etc.. If you can establish that random mutation can account for generating new genetic code, then evolutionary origin can be considered theoretically possible. [/quote] Did you actually read the entire section? Mutations aren't random and i shown why, they are subject to external pressures in a given environment, they don't occur at the initial onset, you're expecting a "pokemon" type event to take place, in which a cow will give birth to a half cow-half walrus animal. A common misconception on the part of theists who support the false agenda that is creationism. [quote]I say always. It's kinda pointless to try. Everybody has an opinion, and you can't "calculate" something like that without assuming a great deal, so how could it ever be possible to estimate accurately, regardless of whose estimates you believe?[/quote] And you know this because you've actually studied biology?

>I dont assume Christians are weak minded that would be faulty of me, a majority of the great thinkers, past and present are and have been Christians. So you say HERE. in Post 1, you said >I see so many creationists argue against this law of nature, as if they actually know what it is And plenty of other things, but this one popped out at me, and is insulting to the intelligence (or knowledge, if you prefer) of creationists, Christians included. >ID was shot down in courts... And... what, you find courts to be the legitimate authority over all things philosophical and religious? The courts say a lot. They managed to twist like 4 different non-applicable rights into a Constitutionally non-existant right to an abortion. I don't think you're going to convince many Christians to change their mind based on what the court of man decides. >However my main point still stands and that ID/creationism is deceitful and dishonest. It seeks to find facts to support the conclusions, if it is science then it would come to a conclusion to support the facts. That's the BASIS of scientific inquiry! Biogenesis was researched after someone came up with a THEORY and set about to test it. Cells, and DNA were discovered after someone THEORIZED their existence, and set out to prove it. Try finding research grants when all you can tell your potential investors is "We don't really know WHAT we're gonna find." You think evolutionary origin theory came about any differently? >Did you actually read the entire section? Probably not. As I've stated elsewhere, I do have a life. Besides which, the entire debate has no relevance on my day to day life. As an antitheist, I was concerned with such things as how we all came to be in this time and place that we find ourselves, in a vain attempt to find or insert some meaning into my selfish lifestyle. But now, none of that matters to me. What matters is what G-d wants me to do with my life. And this has absolutely nothing to do with that. >Mutations aren't random and i shown why, they are subject to external pressures in a given environment, they don't occur at the initial onset, you're expecting a "pokemon" type event to take place Did I say that's what I was expecting? I think I pointed out that (to my knowledge) we have never observed NEW genetic code being generated via mutation, whether you want to call it random or not. If it's NOT random, I see no other option than to call it intelligent design, personally. <ME>I say always. It's kinda pointless to try. Everybody has an opinion, and you can't "calculate" something like that without assuming a great deal, so how could it ever be possible to estimate accurately, regardless of whose estimates you believe? >And you know this because you've actually studied biology? What does biology have to do with statistics and probabilities? My point was that any statistics "proving" the likelihood or unlikelihood of abiogenesis are inherently biased and flawed. They cannot be trusted, because each assumption is magnified by the immense (alleged) length of time we're dealing with, creating a margin of error (if the researchers are honest) that makes all the data useless.