Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Fairy Tale of Evolution - Probability Tested
5 views
Skip to first unread message
BroilJAB
May 8, 2012, 7:52:53 PM5/8/12
to
Let's calculate comparative odds of happening.
Fairy Tales or Evolutionism
A cow jumping over the moon, could this happen?
Well, if a cow were to leap and at the same time
an asteroid streaked by low enough to pick up the
cow and transport her over the moon. That 'could'
happen, but very remote odds approaching 10^40.
Now, compare the known odds of even the very
first tiny step in Evolution: 10^4000.
So we see that even the most remote Fairy Tale
is many orders of magnitude MORE reasonable
than Evolution ever taking place.
Fairy Tales or Evolutionism
A cow jumping over the moon, could this happen?
Well, if a cow were to leap and at the same time
an asteroid streaked by low enough to pick up the
cow and transport her over the moon. That 'could'
happen, but very remote odds approaching 10^40.
Now, compare the known odds of even the very
first tiny step in Evolution: 10^4000.
So we see that even the most remote Fairy Tale
is many orders of magnitude MORE reasonable
than Evolution ever taking place.
Syd M.
May 8, 2012, 9:23:28 PM5/8/12
to
loser.
PDW
Devils Advocaat
May 9, 2012, 12:45:48 AM5/9/12
to
close enough to "pick up" said cow would actually bury itself, so your
odds for a cow jumping over the moon assisted by an asteroid are
wrong, the odds of that event happening are zero.
To correct you again on your mangled version of Dave's misquotation.
The late Sir Frederick Hoyle believed that there were 2,000 enzymes
essential for all living things. He calculated (and I use the term
loosely) that the odds of these 2,000 enzymes forming by chance alone
in a single trial were 1in 10^40,000
Remember he was an astronomer, not a biologist, so his knowledge in
matters of biological and chemical evolution would not have been as
extensive as his knowledge of astronomy.
But it makes me laugh when creationists hold up his calculation as
evidence of the impossibility of evolution, after all it was Hoyle
that coined the phrase "big bang" in an attempt to ridicule a
contemporary of his who proposed that the universe had a finite
beginning. Hoyle was a supporter of the steady state theory.
Uergil
May 9, 2012, 2:48:36 AM5/9/12
to
In article
<719d9bc3-a6f6-4616...@9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Evolution is supported by mountains of objective physical evidence.
Creationism is supported by absolutely no objective physical evidence.
So the odds favoring Evolution over Creationism are infinite.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
<719d9bc3-a6f6-4616...@9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Evolution is supported by mountains of objective physical evidence.
Creationism is supported by absolutely no objective physical evidence.
So the odds favoring Evolution over Creationism are infinite.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
Uergil
May 9, 2012, 2:53:40 AM5/9/12
to
In article
<b0837414-7544-4abe...@z17g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Even the most remotely unlikely Fairy Tale
> is immensely more probable than Evolution.
Evolution is supported by mountains of objective physical evidence and
opposed by absolutely no objective physical evidence.
Creationism is opposed by considerable amounts of objective physical
evidence and supported by absolutely no objective physical evidence.
So that the truth of Evolution's theories is infinitely more probable
than that of Creationism's.
<b0837414-7544-4abe...@z17g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Even the most remotely unlikely Fairy Tale
> is immensely more probable than Evolution.
Evolution is supported by mountains of objective physical evidence and
opposed by absolutely no objective physical evidence.
Creationism is opposed by considerable amounts of objective physical
evidence and supported by absolutely no objective physical evidence.
So that the truth of Evolution's theories is infinitely more probable
than that of Creationism's.
Mike Painter
May 10, 2012, 1:10:37 PM5/10/12
to
On 5/8/2012 9:45 PM, Devils Advocaat wrote:
<snip>
>
> To correct you again on your mangled version of Dave's misquotation.
>
> The late Sir Frederick Hoyle believed that there were 2,000 enzymes
> essential for all living things. He calculated (and I use the term
> loosely) that the odds of these 2,000 enzymes forming by chance alone
> in a single trial were 1in 10^40,000
The term "single trial" alone should be a clue to number.
"Hoyle promoted the theory that the first life on Earth began in
space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution
on earth is influenced by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Hoyle#Rejection_of_Earth-based_abiogenesis
>
> Remember he was an astronomer, not a biologist, so his knowledge in
> matters of biological and chemical evolution would not have been as
> extensive as his knowledge of astronomy.
>
> But it makes me laugh when creationists hold up his calculation as
> evidence of the impossibility of evolution, after all it was Hoyle
> that coined the phrase "big bang" in an attempt to ridicule a
> contemporary of his who proposed that the universe had a finite
> beginning. Hoyle was a supporter of the steady state theory.
And the steady state theory argued for "eternal and essentially unchanging"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang
<snip>
>
> To correct you again on your mangled version of Dave's misquotation.
>
> The late Sir Frederick Hoyle believed that there were 2,000 enzymes
> essential for all living things. He calculated (and I use the term
> loosely) that the odds of these 2,000 enzymes forming by chance alone
> in a single trial were 1in 10^40,000
"Hoyle promoted the theory that the first life on Earth began in
space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution
on earth is influenced by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Hoyle#Rejection_of_Earth-based_abiogenesis
>
> Remember he was an astronomer, not a biologist, so his knowledge in
> matters of biological and chemical evolution would not have been as
> extensive as his knowledge of astronomy.
>
> But it makes me laugh when creationists hold up his calculation as
> evidence of the impossibility of evolution, after all it was Hoyle
> that coined the phrase "big bang" in an attempt to ridicule a
> contemporary of his who proposed that the universe had a finite
> beginning. Hoyle was a supporter of the steady state theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang
Devils Advocaat
May 10, 2012, 1:36:32 PM5/10/12
to
On May 10, 6:10 pm, Mike Painter <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 9:45 PM, Devils Advocaat wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > To correct you again on your mangled version of Dave's misquotation.
>
> > The late Sir Frederick Hoyle believed that there were 2,000 enzymes
> > essential for all living things. He calculated (and I use the term
> > loosely) that the odds of these 2,000 enzymes forming by chance alone
> > in a single trial were 1in 10^40,000
>
> The term "single trial" alone should be a clue to number.
Indeed, and it's misleading.
> On 5/8/2012 9:45 PM, Devils Advocaat wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > To correct you again on your mangled version of Dave's misquotation.
>
> > The late Sir Frederick Hoyle believed that there were 2,000 enzymes
> > essential for all living things. He calculated (and I use the term
> > loosely) that the odds of these 2,000 enzymes forming by chance alone
> > in a single trial were 1in 10^40,000
>
> The term "single trial" alone should be a clue to number.
After all how many different "trials" with how many different
combinations of chemicals were occurring each moment across the
surface of this planet?
No one can say.
> "Hoyle promoted the theory that the first life on Earth began in
> space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution
Darwin123
May 11, 2012, 4:30:41 PM5/11/12
to
On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 12:45:48 AM UTC-4, Devils Advocaat wrote:
> On May 9, 2:23 am, "Syd M."
> On May 9, 2:23 am, "Syd M."
What were the assumptions to his calculation?
I suspect that the assumptions that he was making were
physically reasonable. However, unless I see what assumptions
he was making, then I can't prove them.
I read about pangenesis, Hoyle's biological theory. He makes several
errors, with regards to the biology. I don't think he knew biology at all.
I am not even sure why people think Hoyle was a great astronomer.
His steady state theory is basically wrong. I don't think there is a single
theory of his that has been proven correct by experiment or observation.
I know that he was highly regarded as an astronomer. Did he at least
make some valid observations through a telescope? As far as I can tell,
no hypothesis of his ever led to a fruitful line of research.
I read his comments concerning evolution, which were way wrong.
> Remember he was an astronomer, not a biologist, so his knowledge in
> matters of biological and chemical evolution would not have been as
> extensive as his knowledge of astronomy.
His biology was completely wrong. He imagines these heredity elements
> matters of biological and chemical evolution would not have been as
> extensive as his knowledge of astronomy.
floating in space, somehow influencing natural history. However, are
they supposed to cause nonrandom mutations in gametes? Do the grow
into new animals and plants by themselves? Do they cause slow changes
in organisms, large sudden changes? What sort of changes should scientists
being looking for today, that corresponds to his pangenesis? Or better:
How come these pangenesis elements floating around don't cause changes
today?
His theory of pangenesis isn't really a theory. He doesn't provide
experimentalists with any idea of what phenomena they are looking for.
Never mind whether it is true or false. It doesn't predict new phenomena.
It isn't quantitative. It doesn't explain any of the data collected by biologists, starting with Darwin.
Hoyle didn't even claim that the numbers were his own. I don't think
he even stated that 10^40,000 was his own calculation. There is no chain
of custody to that number. This is why no one seems interested in finding
any hard copy of that calculation. There seems to be this hypothesis that
something is authoritative only if it has no chain of custody. However, the
opposite is true.
>
> But it makes me laugh when creationists hold up his calculation as
> evidence of the impossibility of evolution, after all it was Hoyle
> that coined the phrase "big bang" in an attempt to ridicule a
> contemporary of his who proposed that the universe had a finite
> beginning. Hoyle was a supporter of the steady state theory.
Creationists may have inadvertently brought up a legitimate point.
> But it makes me laugh when creationists hold up his calculation as
> evidence of the impossibility of evolution, after all it was Hoyle
> that coined the phrase "big bang" in an attempt to ridicule a
> contemporary of his who proposed that the universe had a finite
> beginning. Hoyle was a supporter of the steady state theory.
I don't think it is valid for a scientist to make claims without a chain
of custody to those claims.
I would love to know how Hoyle came up with his theory of Pangenesis. I hope to see hard copy on his calculations, drawings he made showing what he meant, diagrams, and discussions with other scientists. Most of all, I want to
know how that probability (10^-40,000) was calculated.
I have done this with other scientists. I have read direct translations of Newton, and Carnot. I read several books by Darwin. I like to see how
scientists develop their ideas. I just don't read the ideas, I like to see
how they were developed. Did Hoyle provide any idea as to how his ideas
were developed? I find his craziest ideas passed around, but none of his
methodology.
Maybe I can ask something useful of Creationists. Can you guys
find the hard copy of those calculations Hoyle was supposed to have made?If the probability was calculated correctly, then maybe you have something.
Hoyle was an atheist, so I know that Creationists can get behind this.
Find me even one quantitative calculation by Hoyle.
0 new messages