Assistance request

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

I'm just cc'ing this to the list, in case anyone else is also interested in
this information/his questions. But this is the last - anything else I
write will go private.




You're best bet is to visit www.talkorigins.org for more info. There is a
*lot* here, and you could spend days reading all the material. I suggest
browing for relevant info, downloading it to your machine and then printing
it out for closer study. It's often easier to read closely and thoughtfully
on paper than on screen, IMHO.

You can also go to the newsgroup talk.origins for specific questions. You
could also ask me, but the more technical ones should go there. I'm a
dilettante, not an expert.


>1) Math shows evolution to be impossible


I assume he is talking about the mathematical unliklihood of "chance"
producing life. Here's my own rebuttal to this argument, copied from a
message I sent to someone else making that claim:


>What are the chances that all functional proteins necessary for life

>might form in one place by random events? Hoyle and Wickramasinghe

>calculated the odds at 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power, a number far

>removed from the realm of finite possibilities.


Fraudulent calculations. To figure out how likely a rolled die (assuming it
is not loaded) will come up on any one side, you *have* to know how many
sides there are. In other words, you need to know how many different,
equally probably, possibilities exist. If there are 6 sides, the chance of
any one side is 1 in 6. The above calculation states 1 in 10 to the 40,000
power? That would then indicate a 10 to the 40,000 different, equally
probable possibilities. Where did they come by that number? Basically, they
made it up. It is impossible to know with any confidence just how many
possibilities existed at the time. Not knowing that means that is is
impossible to calculate those odds. Statisticians understand this.

Then there is that tricky phrase "equally probably." If the die is loaded,
not all sides are equally probable. Many, if not most, things in science
are "loaded." Hold a ball in the air: how many possible directions are
there for it to travel once you let go? Nearly an infinite number. Are they
all equally probable? No, only one is probable: down. That's the way things
work. Similarly, chemical process are "loaded" in that, given certain
conditions, some results are more likely than others. Did the people
offering/making the calculations take this into account? No, probably not.
If they did, do they have good evidence to know *what*, exactly, the more
probable results might have been and why? Not that I've ever seen reported.

Furthermore, the calculation to which you are refering (protein molecules
assembling) involves a complex molecule forming *all at once*. Who said it
did? Most realize that this sort of thing develops slowly, bit by bit.

Finally, the number of attempts is completely ignored. If I have a 6-sided
die and roll it 6 times, I have a good chance of getting #5. If 6 people
roll such a die once, we have a good chance of getting at least one #5 that
time. If there are a gazillion places on the planet where molecules are
forming up, the chances of getting a good, protein-producing formation, is
pretty good that day. Half a gazillion places? a couple of days. A quarter
of a gazillion places? Maybe a week. You see, if there are a lot of places
where the process is being played out, any possible result starts becoming
more likely.

Nope, one more point. If every possibility is equally likely, then it is
also true that every possibility is equally *unlikely*. The formation of a
protein molecule, then, is not *more* unlikely than any single instance of
a non-formation. It isn't more unlikely simply because the results were
good for us. Thus, if the attempted assembly only happened *once*, there
had to be *some* result - and the protein-forming result is just as likely
as any other. Somebody has to win the lottery - the fact that protein won
that lottery isn't any great mystery. If you buy a lottery ticket and your
chances are one in a million - and you win - is it an Act of God? Nope,
just good fortune...*for you*. Bad fortune for the others. That's how you'd
expect things in a non-created universe.

The same goes for the universe itself. Our result is not more unlikely than
any other single possible result.


A quote:

"The probabilistic teleological argument exploits the idea that it is
extremely improbable that the laws of the universe should be so balanced as
to permit the development of life unless we adopt the hypothesis that these
laws were fixed by a creator who desired the development of life. The
argument, however, faces the same kind of objection as the one we brought
against the cosmological argument in the previous chapter: it takes a
certain concept out of a context in which it is obviously applicable, and
applies it to a context in which that concept is not applicable.  In the
case of the cosmological argument, the crucial concept is that of
causation;  in the case of the teleological argument, it is statistical
probability.  Neither argument carries conviction because we can plausibly
deny that the concept in question can be extended to cover extraordinary
contexts." Robin Le Poidevin, Arguing for Atheism,  (New York: Routledge,
1996), p. 57.



>2) Genetics show evolution to be impossible


Actually, evolution has been reinforced with information from genetic
studies. Evolutionary relationships between various species can be *much*
more accurately described with genetic data than with physical fossils.
More info on the above web site.


>3) THERMODYNAMICS show evolution to be impossible


Basically, a misunderstanding of TD. The second law of TD stipulates that a
closed system will tend to show an increase in entropy (decrease in order)
over time. Evolution involves an increase in order, so it must violate TD,
right? Wrong:

1. The Earth is *not* a closed system - energy comes in from the outside.
The second law of TD doesn't apply to open systems like that.
2. A temporary increase in order, even in a closed system, is not ruled
out. Maybe all this is just temporary.

More info on the web site.


>4) Chemistry shows evolution to be impossible


Don't get that one.


>5) And last, the fossil record does not support any current model of

>evolution.


His burden to prove.

First, thought, demand that he explain what he thinks the current model(s)
of evolution are. Bet he does a lousy job of it! Most creations don't
understand what it is - so if you can show that, you've won half the
battle. Make sure you read up on what evolution is first, though.


Austin Cline; German Department; Princeton University
--- The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
      esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.

               - Nietzsche "The Dawn" (1881)

• Previous message: Assistance request
• Next message: Assistance request
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]