h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

muqtadee:

Our theory of 'Big Bang' did NOT say that the universe spawned from nothing, but instead came from a huge explosion from matter infinitely dense. There is a big difference there...

Excuse me for poking my nose in here, but I've read thru your thread, and another one with a similar name, and I feel I need to wade in, in the manner of a petulant school mistress .

I'm not happy with your work, and I expect you to do it properly, even if it means staying behind afterwards! I want to address these issues:

1) The approaches to this discussion

2) The continuing legacy of Social Darwinism in evolution thought and in society

3) The very naughty, improper use of 'probability', including reprehensible use of the idea of 'infinity'.

I will deal with the first for now, and come back to the others only after several cappuccinos.

Nailing my colors firmly to your mast, I am not convinced by either creation or evolution. I am in the middle somewhere. I am not proposing that as a superior position, it's just the one I happen to be in.

I see that Muqtadee has stuck his head above the creationist parapet, and as he's heavily outnumbered by fervent evolutionists, I feel a little sorry for him. But not sorry enough not to criticise your approach, young man. I'll give you 9/10 for doing your homework on evolution, but only 1/10 for your choice of approach (so on average, you're barely going to scrape a pass).

You have probed into some pertinent areas, but perhaps you should have started with the origins of life, and worked your way chronologically, pointing at each stage to the particular areas of difficulty brought to light by evolutionists. It is good that you refer to the work of evolutionists (though selectively, of course); but rather than, say, pointing out that Lucy has been unceremoniously dropped from the evolutionary tree, you should have concentrated your arguments of the nature of the gaps between ape and man and the scientific difficulties encountered in overcoming them.

And I think it unlikely that you'll prove, or rather convince, people in this thread to believe in your religion, so you might want to rethink about including quotations from your Quran.

As for the rest of you, I am very disappointed, and may have to put you on report! If Muqtadee says he believes in a creator who is God, and who has no beginning or end and was not created, what is the point of asking him who created God or what the mechanism of creation is? Such questions are meaningless, aren't they? If you find any internal inconsistency in his arguments, do point them out. As things stand, though, internal consistency seems to be more a problem on the evolutionary side of the thread. Your arguments must focus on evolution theory. And remember: you're not arguing with a Christian literalist who believes in the Genesis creation stories (for there are two stories) and an Earth a little over 6000 years old; so, you're not going to have it that easy!

I've seen very little in your arguments for evolution based on anything other than vague notions and speculation. It's as if all your thoughts were based on what you picked up from high school. Muqtadee is quoting evolutionists and their research - you should be too! In summary: not good enough, must try harder!

When I was young two things in particular puzzled me about the universe, and one thing about God. Only one of the three is clearer to me now. I used to wonder how the universe could have an edge, because what (or even 'where') would be outside. And if it were getting bigger, what was it expanding into? Now that we have a convincing 4-dimensional model of the universe, I'm happy that this has been resolved to my satisfaction.

I also wondered about the beginning. Where did it come from? What was before it? How could it just begin from nothing? I still don't know, and science hasn't been able to answer that yet. In this respect, those who believe in a God with no beginning or end are in a much stronger position, from the point of logic if not proof.

About God, I wondered why he didn't make it much clearer to me if he is really there - or not! I'm still wondering.

I was, until recently, quite enamoured by the idea of 'punctuated equilibrium', where evolution is a sequence of sudden, dramatic leaps rather than a smooth continuity. But the scientific basis for this idea is looking increasingly unsound and unsustainable.

A genius with a 3rd idea, a novel approach no one ever considered, would be most welcome at this point!

I will come back for items 2 and 3 on my list.

*bows head in shame*
Yes, mistress. Of course, mistress. I will, mistress.
(To my defence; I have only just graduated high-school, so using high-school knowledge to argue my cause really is the best I feel obliged to... allthough I will try and be better...)
I agree that a 3rd theory would be very much appreciated, as long as it explained more than the two allready proposed.
To me Creationism explains nearto nothing, but that might have to do with my absolute lack of faith in God.
Evolution seems the better theory, as it's explanatory power is greater, and it is based on observations. As soon as Creationism amasses observations that directly support the theory, a mass of data that surpasses that of Evolution, I will in the name of objectivness alter my attitudes.
It might be high time for a scientific revolution, but there will be none as long as a third theory is not proposed.

Please let me pass, I need the credit!

Yes, beat me too, I like it that way! Maybe you haven't read the other thread in the god forum (there's a cute story of Adam the First Cell in it and good science reports from Lucinda)? http://www.h2g2.com/F58051?thread=92151&latest=1 It *does* make sense to ask a creationist where God comes from! After all, we want to have an explanation where life comes from, don't we? We are not just doing child's talk, we are searching for an answer. And if there's a god, it may humbly be asked: and where does he come from? And what's the propability of a god emering out of nothing? Or is it an answer for you if you ask where the things come from on your computer screen: The are sent by the god of electricity and computers? For something entierly different, see http://www.h2g2.com/F58051?thread=93156

*Gulp!* So well ticked off, what can I say. Horrible memories of bad school days and awful school reports.

I think I'll skulk around in the corridor until it's safe to come back in.

I didn't start at the 'beginning', because I'm still learning about amino acids, proteins and cells, and have some loose ends to tie up.

I will try harder, Miss.

Very interesting!

Please sit on this couch.

So let me see we now have a self elected regulator who is balanced on a small white picket fence, explaining how evidence copied selectively out of context constitutes good ground for open discussion.

I suspect dillusions of granduer below which lies a basic case of inferiority complex combined with an Oedipus complex

Tell me about your mother....
S.F.

Wonko, you can't insist on absolutely everything having a beginning. You need to be a little more broadminded about that! Now, where was I...

2) The continuing legacy of Social Darwinism in evolution thought and in society

It is quite wrong assert that Social Darwinism has been left behind in the awful depths of the twentieth century. It is very much alive and continues to influence people's thoughts about evolution.

I was blissfully unaware of this until I had an unexpected conversation with a good friend earlier this year. The friend in question is the only Aborigine I have ever known, and he was keen to claim that he was the most Aborigine of Aborigines! We were having a pleasant cappuccino in a book shop, talking about so many things. The subject of racism crept into the conversation, when suddenly he paused, then asked "Do you think I'm more primitive than you?" No, of course not, I replied firmly. "Do you think Aborigines are less evolved? Be honest!" No, I said, less convincingly. He always argued like a damn lawyer, and made me say things the way I didn't want to.

Then he told me to go and get any book about human evolution with illustrations. After protesting, I went and found three. He flicked thru them, and in two he found what he was looking for - illustrations showing the progression from ape to man. He pointed in each case to the man at the end, observing how 'white European' they looked. Then he asked me to look at the previous step in the evolution: "Don't they look like me?"

Well, I knew where he was coming from, so I said something about how they weren't dark enough and I'd never seen him with no clothes on! And we were all smiles. But we sat there for a long time, talking about this, and we didn't leave before checking out the section on school text books, where the story was just the same.

I spent a lot of time reading about this. So much has been discovered in the last few decades, it's so difficult to keep theory up-to-date. Fragments of bones, particularly skull fragments, had often been put together in the wrong way, usually because of the preconceptions of the person doing it. Older, i.e. more primitive, human remains deserved a 'fuller' jaw, kinda like an aborigines. But in recent years, especially the last two decades, more reliable and accurate techniques had shown up past errors, and resulted in new thinking. Modern man was much older than previously thought, some 'human' remains were just plain apes, and some more 'primitive' humans were actually more recent than their supposed successors.

But how many text books have changed?

And how can 'political correctness' dictate history? If the evolution of man from ape as we know it today is true, we can't believe that all humans today - Europeans, Africans, Aborigines, Inuits, Pygmies - are all equally evolved or intelligent.

The legacy of Social Darwinism, then, remains:

a) pictures etched in millions of minds of evolutionary stages that do not reflect the evidence uncovered;

b) a predisposition to interpret evidence in a prejudicial manner;

c) and, as a 'PC' reaction, a wariness to consider where living human races fit in to the 'big picture'.

I record with sadness that John died some weeks after that in a car accident. And he never told me what he believed to be correct.

A few points,

1)

How many of those books are written by white people
How many of those books were bought by white people

The fact is that if you had been sitting in a chinese school reading a book printed in China the same books would have had a chinese face.

2)

So what if he is less evolved? Sharks are much less evolved they have hardly changed in centuries. Why change a good design. You evolve to your environment. It is possible for species to evolve to a lower the level of intelligence weaker structure but faster reproductive capability. (a potential theory for the disapperance of the Neanderthals)

3)

This is not the thread for discussing racial prejudice.
We have already agreed that the people in this thread do not aprove of Social Darwinism.

4)

I am not white.

I believe that there is still some social darwinism in America. That country can hardly be called a society by my standards. But considering that it is also the country where so few believe in Evolution, I don´t think it has anything to do with it.

About wether the different races are equally evolved or intelligent. Of course not. What are the probabilities for that? Biologically they have evolved to around the same state, not much difference there. But if you look at the technological evolution, you will find that there are some races that haven´t gone very far. Many are still in the stone age. And since technology is a great tool for adapting, the ones that aren´t technologically advanced are not as evolved. Because they will not be able to so quickly adapt to new surroundings.

This is all when you look at it biologically, but this does not mean that you should treat people differently after what race they are. All men are not equal, but they should be treated equal none the less. But still I will probably be flamed and called a racist for this un-PC remark

{omnipresent, sipping her eternal cosmicpolitan }

...yet another loop thrown in...man, I like them curveballs!
As far as creation mythos, there are lots. Goddesses, Gods (one of whom, Enluki, if memory serves me right, ate his own seed, became pregnant, and threw up the human race, while also urinating out what became the Euphrates), all sorts. So to ask if creation as a single act was something believable, well, that would depend on your point of view.
Also, social Darwinism is a lot different than Darwin's original origin of species, which, admittedly, needed a lot of help. But I agree with our resident Islamist (is that a real word?! Goodness, it's late); if God is God, then God can have no beginning, middle or end. And there you have a whole nother ball of wax.

(Proper Ganda, you're not a creationist masquerading as an evolutionist, are you?)

3) The very naughty, improper use of 'probability', including reprehensible use of the idea of 'infinity'.

Some strange things have been written, both here and in a similar thread, regarding probability. There are some proper mathematicians around h2g2, perhaps they should set up a vigilante group to challenge some of the trash that gets put around.

Is 1 in 10^50 (ten to the power fifty, i.e. 1 followed by 50 0s) effectively a zero probability? Of course, it depends. No doubt, if that's the probability of a single event, it is incredibly unlikely. But what if there were 10^51 events? Not quite as unlikely after all. (cf. Chance of two protons colliding in a nuclear reaction in heart of sun is very unlikely, but so very many protons, there's enough nuclear reactions to keep us warm!)

But 10^50 is a number whose size is difficult to grasp. Perhaps the largest number that we can give any physical meaning to is 10^79, which has been *estimated* as the number of electrons in the universe.

So, when people start to talk about probabilities of the order of 1 in 10^150 or more in respect to the random formation of proteins under ideal conditions, it's no wonder scientists start looking for alternative hypotheses, because such probabilities are effectively zero. They would not be accepted in *any* area of science. It doesn't mean "if you get that low probability, then creation must be true". It just means "if you get that low probability, you need a new theory".

There have been lots of theories about how life began in evolutionary terms, but we are still waiting for a theory that overcomes the probability problem. Which is, of course, why researchers in this field are still researching! As things stand, the difficulties here seem insurmountable. Something radically new is required (unless you prefer the creation solution).

Now, some naughty people have been misusing 'infinity'. It does *not* mean 'everything'. Infinity is a complicated idea, there are different 'sizes' of infinity (only the smallest of which is 'countable'), and mathematicians are very careful how they deal with infinity as it quite often produces results that run counter to intuition. (Someone on h2g2 has given a taste in an article about the Cantor set, but I don't have the link.)

So, even if there are an infinite number of universes, it has no bearing whatsoever on the chance formation of proteins, firstly because the probability of the event is *independent* of this (just as tossing a coin is not affected by however many universes you may believe there are), and secondly because an infinite number of universes, an infinite length of time, an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters do not make it at all probable that Shakespeare's works will be plagiarised!

Turning round statements on me, like I've been turning them on Muqtadee very amusing. Is this because of the gag about your mother or your socially disadvantaged friend?


Back to the thread.

I'm sorry are you trying to explain infinity using FINITE numbers?

Secondly probablity cannot be applied to this in this way. If you use probability to calculate the odds of you winning a card game you will find that the deck is not always shuffled the way you expected.

'countable' 'infinity'

You start counting now and I will stop you when you get to infinity.

We seem to be confused about
what we are talking about
These are the beliefs I think have
been surjested.
1.Belif that evolution can and dose explain
everything about the creation of life.
2.Belif that evolution fits with the creation
of life but that there are so many complex
characteristics that it cant be know exactly
why we evolved like we did.(chaos theory)
3.Belif that evolution created life but that
god organised the universe so evolution would
create life.
4.Belif that evolution can not explain the
creation of life and there for some thing else
is needed
5.Belif God must have created every new creature
as they came along.
6.Belif in the Creation myth i.e. Adam and eve

Personally I subscribe to 2 as I dont think God
is a meaningful idea but that is a different
conversation (or is it?)
With out discrediting God We can not discredit
5 but 6 how ever is a different matter the belief
in the literal creation myth has more holes then
a colander.
a. Life has been shown to predate Eden
b. The order God creates the animal is not
the order in which the lived on earth
c. Dose not explain mans similarity to apes
d. dose not mention neanderfals or are Adam and
Eve neanderfalls?

"Wonko, you can't insist on absolutely everything having a beginning. You need to be a little more broadminded about that!"

No, I am not. No no no. This thread is about beginning of life. So, if you toss in a god in the chain of life, that's ok with me. But, say something about the beginning of god. Be the first creationist to take a step.


"Chance of two protons colliding in a nuclear reaction in heart of sun is very unlikely, but so very many protons, there's enough nuclear reactions to keep us warm!"

So, what's the difference of many protons, some colliding, and many universes, some giving birth to life ??? Ha, got you!

And, these threads have already pointed out that the probability level is lower then 10^-50.


Do you have a problem with naughty people? Then you have a BIG problem with me!

Proper Ganda: "I'm sorry are you trying to explain infinity using FINITE numbers?" "'countable' 'infinity'"

My dear, I'm going to try not to be *too* patronising, but if you keep make comments about subjects you haven't studied, you're asking for it!

There are different 'types' of infinities - they come in different 'sizes'. The 'smallest' infinity is called countable, because it can be ordered in a one-to-one relationship with natural numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, ...). The sets of all integers and of all rationals are countably infinite. However, the set of all real numbers is not countable. This is the kind of foundation maths you might do for a degree course, but I'm sure there must be good explanations on the internet.

I think your weakness in mathematics is matched by your scant knowledge of evolution theory. That's why your arguments don't stand up against Muqtadee's. It doesn't mean he's right, it's just that it's clear he knows what he's talking about, and it's equally clear that you don't.

Wonko-the-Sane: "So, what's the difference of many protons, some colliding, and many universes, some giving birth to life ??? Ha, got you!"

You seem to be much more coherent than Proper Ganda. But you're miles off on the probability issue. They key here is whether events are dependent or independent, which refers very much to the context of what you're looking at. There are some good books about evolution written by evolutionists that explain this much better than I can. You could try your 'many universes' idea at your local bookmaker, and see if he'll give you better odds!

For you, God has to have a beginning, which is strange, because you don't believe in him. But the people who believe in him say he doesn't.

I don't have a problem with naughty people, because I keep them out of reach! I suspect I'm not the kinda woman you think I am.

So you are saying absolutely nothing except trying to get Propa Ganda and me up against each other.

Propa Ganda, what you have been writing impresses me and does make sense to me.

See, didn't work.

The propability thing is the same as in a lottery: the more play, the higher the propability of one winning. Don't need no book for that. (Yes, this ain't no good English. I know that. Besides, I'm German.)

I know what kind of woman you are. I've met them before. I was just trying to ease the conversation.

I am not sure if you have noticed but your arrogance in judgment holds no authority in a discussion group. We are all equal (with the exception, as always, of the administrators). Your rather loose acusations of mathematic superiority leaves me rather irritated. You approach this thread as a judge of all threads and then banter your ridiculous qualifications.

I don't know you.
You don't know me.
There is no referee.

I should be a poet. H2g2 haiku. I am definately not stupid enough to assume that you are even female. Although I can tell that you are lacking your charisma chromosone and perhaps you have an over developed ego.

I think, then, I should leave you to it before it becomes any more unpleasant, and leave others to reflect on the relative merits of what has been said.

People people
carm down this is a disuction
group not a brothel!
Can we please just all define
what we are arguing about?
Were not all equal some one with
a degree in maths obouisly knows
more about maths then some one without
but the point is to teach not
critercise. If God needs no beginning
then the univerce needs none ethier it
has all ways existed as 'before' it there was
no time.