Our overall knowledge of physics and chemistry is severely limited in the grand scheme of things. If we really understood how and why matter can arrange and react we would never need to experiment again. Ah, the Greeks would be proud.

Could basic physical laws direct evolution (for lack of a better term) at the molecular level? So things are more likely than random chance.

Tyrannical wrote::ask:
Our overall knowledge of physics and chemistry is severely limited in the grand scheme of things. If we really understood how and why matter can arrange and react we would never need to experiment again. Ah, the Greeks would be proud.

Could basic physical laws direct evolution (for lack of a better term) at the molecular level? So things are more likely than random chance.

Maybe with respect to abiogenesis, but given that environment is such a crucial factor in evolution, I think this kind of deterministic approach is wrong - look up stochastic processes instead.

Spearthrower wrote:

Tyrannical wrote::ask:
Our overall knowledge of physics and chemistry is severely limited in the grand scheme of things. If we really understood how and why matter can arrange and react we would never need to experiment again. Ah, the Greeks would be proud.

Could basic physical laws direct evolution (for lack of a better term) at the molecular level? So things are more likely than random chance.

Maybe with respect to abiogenesis, but given that environment is such a crucial factor in evolution, I think this kind of deterministic approach is wrong - look up stochastic processes instead.

Gee, only yesterday I read of a new physical property of molten iron under extremely high pressure. Who'd have guessed
And what a watse of money the LHC was when all you needed was better math skills to figure it all out. Patenting chemical compounds? Not when they can all just be mathematical defined and predicted by simple formulas.

Tyrannical wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Tyrannical wrote::ask:
Our overall knowledge of physics and chemistry is severely limited in the grand scheme of things. If we really understood how and why matter can arrange and react we would never need to experiment again. Ah, the Greeks would be proud.

Could basic physical laws direct evolution (for lack of a better term) at the molecular level? So things are more likely than random chance.

Maybe with respect to abiogenesis, but given that environment is such a crucial factor in evolution, I think this kind of deterministic approach is wrong - look up stochastic processes instead.

Gee, only yesterday I read of a new physical property of molten iron under extremely high pressure. Who'd have guessed
And what a watse of money the LHC was when all you needed was better math skills to figure it all out. Patenting chemical compounds? Not when they can all just be mathematical defined and predicted by simple formulas.

I hear that the price of fish has gone up too!

Still waiting for Clastie to point out the glaring mistakes being made in experimental evolution, the poor methodology, the things not considered by the scientists, something we don't already know. Can everyone access the google books version of Garland & Rose? Clastie, you got access to the book mate? Come on, give it to us, chapter and verse.

Atheistoclast wrote:One of the biggest problems associated with the theory of evolutionism is that it irrationally supposes that the highly specific gene sequences in DNA can be put together through a process of chance and necessity, namely random mutation and natural selection. It is a deeply flawed argument that has no theoretical or empirical basis whatsoever and yet is widely accepted.

Take a dart and throw it on a dartboard. The probability of hitting the place it hit was 0. Not just small, but 0. Still it happened and in fact, the probability for any particular place was 0. But it was certain that one of these almost impossible things would occur. In the case of sequences, we are looking at things that have higher probabilities than 0. And the mechanisms we do have ensure that the sequences we get tend to be functional. But that doesn´t imply that they are the only functional ones...

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Still waiting for Clastie to point out the glaring mistakes being made in experimental evolution, the poor methodology, the things not considered by the scientists, something we don't already know. Can everyone access the google books version of Garland & Rose? Clastie, you got access to the book mate? Come on, give it to us, chapter and verse.

The glaring problem with my example is that we cannot experiment to test whether evolutionary forces could have produced a single RNA gene. But some tests ought to give us an idea of the monumental improbability of it all.

Still persisting with the argument from incredulity, 'Clast?

You seem intelligent enough to understand the real theory of evolution, rather than peddling a creationist strawman. Why not give it a go?

LucidFlight wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:The glaring problem with my example is that we cannot experiment to test whether evolutionary forces could have produced a single RNA gene. But some tests ought to give us an idea of the monumental improbability of it all.

Maybe we should be testing for other forces that might have produced a single RNA gene. Any suggestions?

Well, Tyrannical has suggested that there may be self-organizing forces at work. Certainly this is true for how proteins fold given the possible number of conformations available. The trouble with all research into all "origins" stuff is that it is difficult to know where to begin.

Made of Stars wrote:Still persisting with the argument from incredulity, 'Clast?

You seem intelligent enough to understand the real theory of evolution, rather than peddling a creationist strawman. Why not give it a go?

Engineers always factor in arguments from extreme improbability into their equations. I am making the case that chance and differential reproduction are not valid mechanisms to explain the specific arrangement of nucleotides in gene sequences.

Atheistoclast wrote:Engineers always factor in arguments from extreme improbability into their equations.

I refer you to my post above and would ask you to rigorously define "extreme improbability". There are a lot of events with a probability of 0 that do occur and in fact it is certain that such events occur regularly. Does that not invalidate any position that holds that there is a probability p, so that we can rule out events with a probability <p?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Made of Stars wrote:Still persisting with the argument from incredulity, 'Clast?

You seem intelligent enough to understand the real theory of evolution, rather than peddling a creationist strawman. Why not give it a go?

Engineers always factor in arguments from extreme improbability into their equations. I am making the case that chance and differential reproduction are not valid mechanisms to explain the specific arrangement of nucleotides in gene sequences.

It's difficult to gauge exactly what you mean with such a statement, among other things because in a certain sense it's right, but it might not be for reasons you mean to imply. There are specific physico-chemical circumstances that play a role in all of this, of course, which is what I tried to allude to earlier when I was talking about binding receptors and that to which they bind.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Made of Stars wrote:Still persisting with the argument from incredulity, 'Clast?

You seem intelligent enough to understand the real theory of evolution, rather than peddling a creationist strawman. Why not give it a go?

... I am making the case that chance and differential reproduction are not valid mechanisms to explain the specific arrangement of nucleotides in gene sequences.

You're not making a case, you're asserting that something 'extremely improbable' can't happen. This ignores the fact that extremely improbable things happen routinely every day, and the astronomical number of opportunities for things to happen each day. It's a moot point anyway, and a numbers game. A way of restating this is that whatever the improbability of any event in history happening before it happened, the probability of things happening exactly as they did is precisely 1.

Not so much a case of 'shit happens', as 'shit happened'.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Still waiting for Clastie to point out the glaring mistakes being made in experimental evolution, the poor methodology, the things not considered by the scientists, something we don't already know. Can everyone access the google books version of Garland & Rose? Clastie, you got access to the book mate? Come on, give it to us, chapter and verse.

The glaring problem with my example is that we cannot experiment to test whether evolutionary forces could have produced a single RNA gene. But some tests ought to give us an idea of the monumental improbability of it all.

Don't change the subject Joe. You implied before that evolutionary biologists seemed unaware of the differences between experimental evolution experiments and reality. Please show me exactly where, in Garland & Rose [which is an excellent manual of evolutionary experimental methodology ] are these scientists are showing their alledged ignorance and/or incompetance.

Atheistoclast wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:The glaring problem with my example is that we cannot experiment to test whether evolutionary forces could have produced a single RNA gene. But some tests ought to give us an idea of the monumental improbability of it all.

Maybe we should be testing for other forces that might have produced a single RNA gene. Any suggestions?

Well, Tyrannical has suggested that there may be self-organizing forces at work. Certainly this is true for how proteins fold given the possible number of conformations available. The trouble with all research into all "origins" stuff is that it is difficult to know where to begin.

Do me a favor and make a declaration of exactly how you think life happened. Are you you trying to tell us that there is some intelligent designer out there that oversaw the process of designing and assembling life or that matter/energy possess an intelligence that governs their actions?

Merry Christ in mass to all.

Spearthrower wrote:

More wibble.

Yo Spear, you just dismiss yet you don't even know what I'm talking about. Without religions dreaming their dreams what would there be to question? Well alot actually, but give them their due - right or wrong their religious dogma is the bone you zealous skeptics chew on, without them who'd you have to bitch at.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

@ Clastie and Templeton:-
A good book for you both to read, before you go any further is

Interesting, and thanks, although I certainly didn't make time to to more than just peruse. I wonder what objection you had with my post to toss me in with Clastie (No offense Clastie, just don't agree with alot of what you say)
A fluid genetics is the working part of evolution. All somatic change, both behavioral and physiological, comes from the chemical programs in our genetic makeup. When a genetic expression is changed (adapts) it changes the chemical program. The program changes us - behaviorally then physiologically down the line (generationally) Not sure what is here to disagree with. Maybe because I prefer to see the shortest distance between two lines.

Gotta run, Daddy Daughter day, and Christmas to boot. Merry X-Mass all.

Templeton wrote:Merry Christ in mass to all.

Spearthrower wrote:

More wibble.

Yo Spear, you just dismiss yet you don't even know what I'm talking about. Without religions dreaming their dreams what would there be to question? Well alot actually, but give them their due - right or wrong their religious dogma is the bone you zealous skeptics chew on, without them who'd you have to bitch at.

More wibble, and especially ignorant wibble at that.

But I'll forgive you - it's Christmas after all, and you must have had quite few glasses of Jesus blood before posting that nonsense.