0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Simplest cliff notes version. If there is a 1 in billion chance to mutate something specifically, say the heart. If you need just six things with these odds to mutate simultaneously to function usefully to create the cardiovascular system. The odds of this happening become 1:10^54 that this would truly accidentally happen, which vastly exceeds the opportunities it had to happen due to the amount of life that existed previously on earth.
If evolution is truly random,
It is a billion multiplied six times over. (10^9)^6
Each of them must of occurred simultaneously because if you lacked any of them you would die.
Quote from: thebrain13 on 28/03/2022 01:50:13It is a billion multiplied six times over. (10^9)^6And where did the billion come from?Quote from: thebrain13 on 28/03/2022 01:50:13Each of them must of occurred simultaneously because if you lacked any of them you would die.That's not how evolution works. A human being might need all of those simultaneously in order to live, but that doesn't mean all ancestral forms had to have them all at the same time. Small, primitive aquatic creatures obviously wouldn't need lungs, and open circulatory systems don't need veins. Minor innovations over time allow for the colonization of new niches, increasing overall complexity and larger size.
Either propose the math that you would use to suggest the emergence of the cardiovascular system OR admit that the math of evolution doesn't exist,
making evolution 100% un-falsifiable.
Quote from: thebrain13 on 28/03/2022 02:05:19Either propose the math that you would use to suggest the emergence of the cardiovascular system OR admit that the math of evolution doesn't exist,Math involved in evolution does indeed exist (Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, for example), but I'm not aware of any way to reliably calculate the probability of the emergence of the cardiovascular system.Quote from: thebrain13 on 28/03/2022 02:05:19making evolution 100% un-falsifiable.The math you ask for isn't needed to falsify evolution. I gave you some examples above of things that would falsify evolution. Other things that could have falsified evolution (but have since been passed) would have been the non-existence of mutations, the inability to pass mutations to the next generation, or the non-existence of beneficial mutations.
You can not disprove any argument based on randomness
If the math of randomness does not check out
it proves my theory because it is the only other option.
What other option is there than the one I proposed?
No ducking that last question, think about it!!!!
that would STILL be superior to random chance.
Quote from: thebrain13 on 28/03/2022 02:47:10You can not disprove any argument based on randomnessWho has an argument based on randomness?Quote from: thebrain13 on 28/03/2022 02:47:10If the math of randomness does not check outEvolution isn't random, so I hope that's not what you're talking about.Quote from: thebrain13 on 28/03/2022 02:47:10it proves my theory because it is the only other option.Quote from: thebrain13 on 28/03/2022 02:47:10What other option is there than the one I proposed?False dichotomy. There could always be another model (one that doesn't involve living organisms encoding genetic information in photons, for example) that explains the world better than either your model or contemporary evolution.Quote from: thebrain13 on 28/03/2022 02:47:10No ducking that last question, think about it!!!!No need to yell about it.Quote from: thebrain13 on 28/03/2022 02:47:10that would STILL be superior to random chance. I wish you'd quit implying that evolution is random chance. That's a straw-man argument.
So what else is there besides my theory. There must be at least three. What is it?
Quote from: thebrain13 on 28/03/2022 05:30:20So what else is there besides my theory. There must be at least three. What is it?There have probably been a lot of minor such theories (or better, hypotheses) posted in the various forums across the Internet like this one. For that reason, they are unlikely to have appeared in popular scientific publications and thus for me to know about them. Of course, you've always got intelligent design in its many forms (alien-based, simulation-based or God-based, usually). Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic fields" might also count.
Do you have any arguments against my theory besides what YOU consider the proper pace of evolution based on a mathematics you can't define?
Sorry, I don't think that is a strawman
So, what is your best point, without using anything resembling what is or is not permissible with chance? Seriously, do your worst. Keep it scientific please. But what is your best idea that simultaneously proves me wrong that shows support of your theory? Evidence of huge jumps is totally dependent on YOUR concept of what is or is not a proper jump. But there are a ton of arguments that don't rely on that to differentiate the concepts. What is your point that makes you so confident?
Yes absolutely I think there is a common ancestor for people and chimpanzees. Whatever is the normal tree of life and lineage, I have no reason to doubt that.
For instance, there is something called carcinization where basically a bunch of different crustaceans all turn into crabs. This is called convergent evolution. I'm suggesting phenomena like convergent evolution may be due to more factors than simply natural selection and environment, but by photons from crabs causing crab like mutations slowly over time.
Quote from: thebrain13 on 28/03/2022 09:59:44Yes absolutely I think there is a common ancestor for people and chimpanzees. Whatever is the normal tree of life and lineage, I have no reason to doubt that.So... you believe that the common ancestor evolved into humans and chimps, but you don't believe in evolution.That's "special".
We can certainly dismiss the idea that the cause is photons carrying genetic information.
Explain to me exactly why that is impossible.