Chaos, Evolution & Intelligent Design: A Discussion

[scott]

I've been thinking about the development of life on this planet as seen by the scientific community vs. biblical creationist accounts, specifically Intelligent Design or Creator theories.

Upon reading the book Chaos, by James Gleick, and other books, it has become apparent to me that chaotic processes are everywhere. Simply looking out the window, everything you lay eyes on exhibits fractal patterns, the signiture of the chaotic process. Even man-made objects, when viewed from certain microscopic frames of reference exhibit fractal patterns. (i.e., the hood of a car looks smooth, but on a microscopic level it is bumpy and fractal)

It seems plausible to me that at some point in the Earth's history, some chemical reaction occurred, and formed simple amino acids. These simple amino acids began to reproduce, or reiterate upon themselves over and over. Very small differences in any of these iterations would eventually lead to divergent strains of the amino acids.

Some of those strains' structures would be well suited to their enviornment and would continue reproducing, and others would not, and would die out.

Over a period of billions of years, as the reiterative process has continued to evolve, these amino acids have developed into cellular organisms with greater and greater complexity. So today, you can look out the window and be astounded by the vast complexity of the world outside.

To me this is a much more plausible and defensible history of life than the absurd, contradiction-riddled biblical scriptures.

Are there any serious scientific inquiries into this line of thinking? I know that Chaos theory is often viewed as a red-headed stepchild by classical physicists and other scientists. Yet this idea seems so powerful. What do you think?

btw I hope this is in the right forum.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I certainly think that the part of Chais described by "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" has played its part in evolution, and O believe that work has been done on that.

A quick google on chaos and evolution found a bunch of musings and a couple of technical papers of which this one on virus evolution looked interesting.

 

[Pseudonym]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. You describe natural selection, and then you ask if there are any scientific inquiries into it? Or are you really asking how chaos theory relates to the theory of evolution?

Fractals rule! Does anyone here like Fractint but me?

on another note -

Originally posted by scott
To me this is a much more plausible and defensible history of life than the absurd, contradiction-riddled biblical scriptures.

Call me ignorant - but I've never found any contradictions in the Bible. If it's not too much trouble, could you list maybe 5 or so?

 

[scott]

Yes, I was asking about the role of Chaos in the process of evolution.

Contradictions? How about 1,119:

Contradictions in the Bible

 

[FZ+]

Googling unveils as an example:

http://www.santafe.edu/~jpc/EvDynAbstracts.html

Evolution as the Unfolding of Phenotypic State Space
Erik van Nimwegen and James P. Crutchfield
We describe evolutionary complexification as a process of dynamical symmetry breaking through which the macroscopic (phenotypic) state space unfolds into successively higher dimensions. During this, the population diffuses in a space of microscopic (genetic) degrees of freedom. This space is symmetric under the selection dynamics in the sense that the genetic variations that drive the diffusion are fitness-neutral.

In the general setting, however, the symmetry of the microscopic degrees of freedom is not complete. By visiting a small ``portal'' within the microscopic state space the symmetry can be dynamically broken. This leads to the appearance of a new macroscopic degree of freedom that then can be acted on by selection. Once such an innovation occurs, the population stabilizes in the new, higher dimensional macroscopic space until another portal in the microscopic space is discovered. The result is a dynamical picture of the evolutionary process as a series of epochs of stasis, punctuated by phenotypic innovations---a view that can be quantitatively analyzed in some detail

Ok, rather jargon heavy, but...

Biblical contradictions? Depends on your reading of it. I listed over 400 independently once.

 

[Fliption]

So when you were thinking about how life evolved on this planet, your choices were current natural selection theories intermingled with chaos theory VS. bible stories?

Doesn't seem like a real honest inquiry to me.

 

[scott]

I never claimed that those were the only possible choices, just that I was thinking particularly about those. If you have other plausible theories I'm open.

 

[Fliption]

Oh Ok. Your posts seemed as if it was either one or the other.

Unfortunately, I don't have any pet theories per se, but I know that there are many people who look at the world they exist in and cannot fathom it originating from mindless physical laws. These people may or may not have anything to do with the bible.

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by FZ+
Biblical contradictions? Depends on your reading of it. I listed over 400 independently once.

I must commend you for taking the time to examine something before writing it off as nonsense. However, I hope your list is more compelling than the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, whose link was provided by scott. The only thing compelling about their 'contradictions' is the sheer number of them. When I began to look closer, I found that they showed no professionalism in reading the Bible. They ignored basic principles of literary interpretation, forgetting the existence of idiom, hyperbole, symbolism, etc. One sentence or even half a sentence read without looking at the author or speaker's intent was seen as enough to justify a 'contradiction'. I don't want to hog the forum, so if you're interested, look at the attached text file, in which I think I've done a halfway decent job of refuting the first 25 'contradictions' they list.

The Bible must be read as you would read any work of literature.

 

[Pseudonym]

The following article is put out by a Christian research group, and I'd like to know where the flaw is in their reasoning.

Probability of Protein Synthesis

 

[scott]

Ok, I will admit that a lot of those "contradictions" are taken out of context and even I don't agree with many of them. However, Pseudonym, your explanations in refuting bring up a point.

Presumably, its important to God that we read His scriptures, as they contain basically instructions for us on how to live and behave, what to believe, etc .. and its very important to God that we follow Him and His word. Why then did he make the Bible so that it had to be "interpreted"? The very fact that we have to argue over what biblical words and sentences mean shows how unclear it is. And if you need proof that its unclear, simply look at the plethora of Christian sects. Their brands of Christianity all have different central themes and different rules by which members are to follow. I'm quite sure they all can recite biblical passages in support of their particluar claims. They can't all be right. Was God trying to confuse us?

Any technical writer will tell you if you write a set of instructions, for say, a toy train, you have to make them as simple and clear as possible so that the widest possible audience will understand their meaning. And yet the Bible, the most important set of instructions of all is so vague and ambigous, that we argue over what particular words and passages mean. Why? If God really wanted everyone to understand what the Bible was trying to say he certainly could have made it more clear. He can do anything he wants after all.
Some people have trouble reading a stop sign. Why did God make the Bible so that its lessons have to be "interpreted" and understood from reading between the lines?


Then you have things like physics equations.

If I give you a set of facts, say a ball, of a certain weight, a certain diameter is thrown into the air, at a certain velocity, in a certain direction, etc .. ask any physicist exactly where and when it will land, and you will get the same answer within a significant number of digits every time.

So God made physics so we can easily reduce it to equations and agree on simple equations and what they mean. But the lessons in the Bible, which I'd wager God sees as more important are as clear as mud. Ask 100 people what a Bible passage means and you'll get 100 different answers. Pseudonym, your refutations are a perfect example of that.

Anyway I've rambled on long enough. Thanks for the replies.

 

[scott]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
The following article is put out by a Christian research group, and I'd like to know where the flaw is in their reasoning.

Probability of Protein Synthesis

"All balk when asked to reverse-engineer a cell in the laboratory in spite of the fact that laboratories rival nature and reverse engineering is orders of magnitude easier than engineering an original design."

Chaotic processes cannot be "reverse engineered" you don't know where the process was when it started, you don't know where its going to end up. There is no "smooth curve" to follow backwards or forwards.

As for the statistical arguments, This is statistical foolishness, you cannot use probability to argue backwards. The probability that a student in a classroom has a particular birthday is 1/365; arguing this way, the probability that everyone in a class of 50 would have the birthdays they do is (1/365)50, and yet there the class sits.

 

[FZ+]

The following article is put out by a Christian research group, and I'd like to know where the flaw is in their reasoning.

Tick the typical errors:

1. Forgets whole concept of evolution by assuming a specific goal to attain. Evolution is not trying to make an exact item, but the general tendency of things to move along the survivaliablility gradient.

2. Uses an absolutely spurious example with the ink. Why not talk of polymerisation, for example?

3. Assumes amino acids join randomly. They do not, and certain conditions are known to aid their synthesis into certain types. Evolution is driven by chance yes, as life is driven by random reactions in the sun. But it is not random.

4. Misquotes Dawkins. Also tries to misrepresent the biological majority by characterising them as Dawkinists.

5. Does not realize possibilities of additional forms of life, and possibility of additional universes etc.

6. Failed to note that Dawkins immediately followed up that statement with the proposition that biological proteins do not spontaneously form, but undergoes chemical evolution. No minimal cell.

7. The entire thing is refuted, because proteins DO evolve and have been observed to evolve.

 

[Pseudonym]

Scott:
regarding God - If God is infinite, who are we, finite and corrupt, to try to guess His motives? However, I will say this. The world is not a perfect, Euclidean type of place. The Bible provides basic principles for life, example cases, and tips for application. What more could you want?

Man is corrupt, so he will put a spin on things to suit his own purposes. But I think the main reason there are so many interpretations of Scripture is that people aren't actually sitting down and READING it. One man takes one verse, puts his own perspective on it, frames the universe by it, people follow him, and wham! you've got a cult or sect or whatever you want to call it.

Also I might suggest that the Bible isn't as complicated as you make it sound. Part of the problem comes when people assume that an Old English translation of it is somehow more holy. A more modern translation is easier to read and understand. but anyway. . .

 

[Pseudonym]

As for the typical birthday example: You are correct that the probability of any configuration of birthdays occurring is 1. But a protein is not just atoms in any configuration. Look at this rendering of hemoglobin - http://www.math.smith.edu/~vvouille/GAL/1vhbsol.gif
A protein is a complex structure optimized to perform a task. It is dynamic. Its structure may change when it is involved in some operation. It seems implausible to me that the first proteins would randomly spring from a mixture of the right molecules. However, if 'chemical evolution' takes place. . .

On protein evolution -
I looked for online examples of protein evolution. I came across the outline for a lecture at Duke on molecular evolution. It provided one example of molecular evolution at the top of the page.
Molecular Evolution
The example given, however, did not show that molecular evolution had actually been observed. One enzyme with different amino acid configurations across species was taken as enough to prove that molecular evolution had, in fact, taken place. If someone could enlighten me by providing an observed example I would appreciate it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Proteins are, in the first instance, produced by RNA, which in turn is produced by DNA. So if you want protein to evolve, you have to have RNA and DNA evolve. By the same token you don't have to have hemoglobin create itself out of nothing, since its amino acid backbone is specified at the DNA level, and the cell has machinery for assembling the molecule..

 

[Nachtwolf]

I used to be in exactly the same position you're in, Pseudonym, and I, too, scoffed at Biblical "Contradictions." The problem is simple: Most atheists don't know jack about religion. There are contradictions in the Bible, but you have to have a thorough and open mind to actually find them, or, better, start off as a Christian to begin with.

Here is one of the important contradictions that I am aware of. I am quoting it from Hawk's Book of Millennium, and I personally checked it (and all the others he reports) while I was still a Christian. Hawk writes using the NIV.


Consider first the genealogy of Jesus which is given in the gospel of Matthew, Chapter 1, verses 6 through 16:

1. Jesus
2. Joseph
3. Jacob
4. Matthan
5. Eleazar
6. Eluid
7. Akim
8. Zadok
9. Azor
10. Eliakim
11. Abuid
12. Zerubbabel
13. Shealtiel
14. Jeconiah
15. Josiah
16. Amon
17. Manasseh
18. Hezekiah
19. Ahaz
20. Jotham
21. Uzziah
22. Jehoram
23. Jehosephat
24. Asa
25. Abijah
26. Rehoboam
27. Solomon
28. David

Matthew is very specific about the precise number of generations from Jesus to David and Abraham, saying in verse 17 "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile in Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to Christ." Now consider the genealogy given in Luke chapter 3, from verse 23 to verse 31:

1. Jesus
2. Joseph
3. Heli
4. Matthat
5. Levi
6. Melki
7. Jannai
8. Joseph
9. Mattathia
10. Amos
11. Nahum
12. Esli
13. Naggai
14. Maath
15. Mattathias
16. Semein
17. Josech
18. Joda
19. Joanan
20. Rhesa
21. Zerubbabel
22. Shealtiel
23. Neri
24. Melki
25. Addi
26. Cosam
27. Elmadam
28. Er
29. Joshua
30. Eliezer
31. Jorim
32. Matthat
33. Levvi
34. Simeon
35. Judah
36. Joseph
37. Jonam
38. Eliakim
39. Melea
40. Menna
41. Mattatha
42. Nathan
43. David

The two lists diverge immediately upon leaving Joseph. Each traces a completely different set of ancestors who differ from each other not only in their names, but in their numbers.

This is clearly not a problem of literary interpretation. These lists are not idiomatic. They are obviously not examples of hyperbole or symbolism. Bear in mind that if there were any way this contradiction, and the others in the Bible of which I am now aware, could be resolved, I would still be a Christian right now.

What you choose to do with this information is entirely up to you. If you would like to see more contradictions, I will provide them for you.


--Mark

 

[Canute]

I'd be interested to know whether anyone has analysed the current scientific model for contradictions. It certainly isn't free of them.

There doesn't seem to be any argument that biological/evolutionary systems are dynamic, even non-linear. The question is why are they dynamic. It's not as obvious as it seems.

“There’s a price top pay in becoming more complex; the system is more likely to break, for instance. We need a reason why biological systems become more complex through time. It must be very simple and it must be very deep.” Stuart Kauffman

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by scott
[BThe probability that a student in a classroom has a particular birthday is 1/365; arguing this way, the probability that everyone in a class of 50 would have the birthdays they do is (1/365)50, and yet there the class sits. [/B]

I see this response a lot and I don't understand why people can't see the obvious. The best example is a lottery. Whether something is statistically significant depends on the question you ask. The question "What is the chance that I will win the lottery?" has an answer of 1 in 75,000,000. Not very good odds. BUT... if we ask the question "What is the chance that someone will win the lottery?" the answer is closer to 100%. Because of this fact, no one that wins the lottery can claim a miracle based on the 1 in 75M odds.

The birthday example is just like this. These 50 students all must have a birthday. There's 100% chance of that.

None of these examples resemble the topic of abiogensis.

 

[olde drunk]

why is it so important to debate how we got here?

we ARE here.

traditional religious groups have an economic and power base to protect. science has it's need to break everything down. when these arguments are viewed from that perspective they lose any value within 'philosophy'.

let's use modern science to understand and prepare for tomorrow. sorry, the bible isn't very useful. just a work of literature and should be put on the book shelf. god doesn't care. he just wants us to be the best we can be in the present moment.

peace,

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Fliption
None of these examples resemble the topic of abiogensis.

Actually, I think the point is that we are specifying what we are testing for by the actual outcomes. In the case of abiogenesis, our view of what life is depends on this random choice. To go on about probabilities, we must first draw a special significance to this particular set of proteins, or this particular concept of life that is universal, and not merely subjective. The probability argument is valid if we look at the universe as a lottery, trying to win a certain set of numbers. But the counter to this is that it is not a lottery, or that the numbers are chosen afterwards.

 

[Pseudonym]

Biblical contradictions

Nightwolf: I find it nearly impossible to believe that an error of the magnitude you describe would be ignored or overlooked by the early church - especially Jews, whose geneological records are far more accurate and complete than others in the ancient world. I'll summarize what Gleason Archer says about these passages in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.

In Mt.1:16, attention is called to Joseph - "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." The verses following trace Joseph's ancestral line.

The passage in Luke seems to detail Mary's geneology. Vs.23 of chp.3 calls attention to the fact that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, as was commonly assumed. Luke then traces the line of Mary, the only human biological parent of Jesus. Mary's line came through Nathan, son of Bathsheba, wife of King David. Archer then states, "Therefore, Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon."

Please provide more contradictions, because this one doesn't seem to hold water.

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by FZ+
The probability argument is valid if we look at the universe as a lottery, trying to win a certain set of numbers. But the counter to this is that it is not a lottery, or that the numbers are chosen afterwards.

Scott and FZ: You seem to be following the exact line of reasoning detailed in another ICR paper - Probability
I would appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Nachtwolf]

The passage in Luke seems to detail Mary's geneology

No, it doesn't seem to do that. Luke quite obviously details Joseph's geneology, when he writes "He (Jesus) was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli..."

It simply does not say "Mary, the daughter of Heli." It says "Joseph, the son of Heli." There is no sense in pretending that the words "Joseph" and "son" really mean "Mary" and "daughter." This is quite clearly a genuine contradiction, and no amount of outside sources or literary re-interpretation will make it go away.

Please provide more contradictions, because this one doesn't seem to hold water

Let's settle this one first, shall we? I think it holds more than just water.


--Mark

 

[FZ+]

I would appreciate your thoughts.

That article is a joke.

Superficially, this claim may seem logical, even though we immediately sense that something is wrong with it. We know intuitively, as well as experimentally, that ordered arrangements are much less probable than unordered arrangements.

This is the punchline.

 

[Canute]

Funny how ordered arrangements are much more common that unordered ones but are much less probable. Surely it isn't order that is improbable, but specific instances of order in specific contexts.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Canute
Funny how ordered arrangements are much more common that unordered ones but are much less probable. Surely it isn't order that is improbable, but specific instances of order in specific contexts.

Order isn't really common, it's just noticable. The most common orderly systems on our planet are the bacteria, by either count or mass. But the mass of all living things is trivial compared to the mass of mountains being ground into sand and crustal plates being subducted into magma. In other words the mass of stuff that is passively enduring the increase of entropy greatly exceeds the mass of stuff - open systems far from equilibrium - that is fighting entropy.

 

[scott]

Which brings us back to the whole notion of Chaos, in that order comes from disorder through a process of recursive reiteration. On the earth, in the primordial soup, some sort of chemical reaction occurred when lightning, volcanic activity, meteor impact, or something similar created enough heat to form a new chemical compound. Somehow, some kind of recursive loop was started. That's the real question, how did that loop get started and why? But once it did, it continued, and spread, and evolved into the plethora of complexity before us now (just theory of course, but plausible in my eyes).


It is clear that very high temperatures such as those found in supernovas and in lightning can forge chemical elements and compounds. I don't think its such a stretch to imagine that the conditions were just right for this to happen on the Earth because of its proximity to the sun.

As for "random mutations" involved in evolution. Again, using the Chaos idea, very small differences can cause large differences over time through the reiterative process.

Is it possible that the "very small differences" could have actually been fluctuations at the quantum level, i.e., quantum mechanics, which we know is filled with uncertainty? Maybe the large evolutionary differences we see are manifestations of uncertainty at the quantum level? Quantum fluctuations at the sub-atomic level could, through a reiterative process cause lines to "branch off" as is a typical pattern in chaotic processes, i.e. tree branch patterns, population growth bifurcations, etc ...

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Order isn't really common, it's just noticable. The most common orderly systems on our planet are the bacteria, by either count or mass. But the mass of all living things is trivial compared to the mass of mountains being ground into sand and crustal plates being subducted into magma. In other words the mass of stuff that is passively enduring the increase of entropy greatly exceeds the mass of stuff - open systems far from equilibrium - that is fighting entropy.

Mountains and crustal plates may not fight against entropy on purpose, but they are not examples of matter in a disordered state. The 'classical' world is ordered by definition.

 

[FZ+]

Funny how ordered arrangements are much more common that unordered ones but are much less probable. Surely it isn't order that is improbable, but specific instances of order in specific contexts.

This is somewhat my point - causality tells us that all things have some sort of order. Even chance itself is not utterly disordered, but merely complex. I was attacking the woolly and subjective way the notion of order is used in the article, the lack of awareness the degree of subjectivity it is using, the failure to understand probability - if order is common, then it must be probable, and the use of "intuition" against a logical argument.

The article fails to recognise the key point, that the probabilistic argument is only worthwhile when you have justified life as a specific goal in a specific context in an objective way. The design argument amounts to a circular statement.

 

[Canute]

i agree about the article, it's logically ridiculous. I'd hate to have the writer arguing on my side.

In his example with the ten cards he should really have used a ten piece jigsaw puzzle. Then each piece in turn is tried until it fits, and in no time at all it's complete.

Even so there does seem to be something odd about the evolution of biological complexity. I don't go in for creatonism but I find it hard to believe that it all happened by accident.

 

[Pseudonym]

contradiction

Mark, I did a little more research on the problem you explained. There is disagreement between scholars, but the phrase "as was supposed" in the original language may have had more the meaning "as is written," or that which was in the public records and could be easily verified. Again I find it hard to believe that early Christians would die for truths set out in books that were so blatantly opposed.

The word "son" in the series of "son of"s is not in the original manuscript, or so I think upon reading some material. The passage might better read that Jesus was the son of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, . . . of Adam, of God.

If there isn't any more evidence that this is a contradiction, then I'd say that the case for it being one is pretty tenuous, although it doesn't appear this way on the surface.

 

[Pseudonym]

chaos and order

to everyone in general -

How do you define or characterize order?

 

[FZ+]

The standard way of quantifying disorder is entropy, but that does not fit into life very well - high complexity chemically often corresponds to high disorder - the fusion of hydrogen increases entropy. And life is more of a process than a closed system.

Another way is to use Sharon information theory - evaluate the shortest program required to generate the sequence. Then, the author is correct in saying that the sequenced cards are different, having less information than the apparently random one. But that is still useless for arguing for design, as low information entities are in fact more common in the classical universe. His "random" cards are much harder to generate as an output from a real system, and so less probable.

I would argue that order in the context of life is solely a matter of subjective application. To use it in a probabilistic argument is to ignore an important component - yourself.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
Actually, I think the point is that we are specifying what we are testing for by the actual outcomes. In the case of abiogenesis, our view of what life is depends on this random choice. To go on about probabilities, we must first draw a special significance to this particular set of proteins, or this particular concept of life that is universal, and not merely subjective. The probability argument is valid if we look at the universe as a lottery, trying to win a certain set of numbers. But the counter to this is that it is not a lottery, or that the numbers are chosen afterwards.

To view the universe like a lottery is to claim that there is close to 100% chance that life will evolve somewhere, in some way. This alone is a big assumption that many people would disagree with. Unlike a lottery.

Even if it were true, you're suggesting that there is the possibility of a different lifeform originating that would be arguably, statistically more likely than life forms as we know them. But I'm not sure it matters what "proteins" you talk about, I still think, regardless of the lifeform, you will always have the fundamental complexities of things we call "life" to deal with statistically.

There is nothing subjective about the fact that you cannot engineer a single life form from non-life, using any protein or substance of your choosing, even with the intent to do so. Let alone relying on chance to do it.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Scott and FZ: You seem to be following the exact line of reasoning detailed in another ICR paper - Probability
I would appreciate your thoughts.

This article makes the same mistake I pointed out earlier. No conclusions can be made based on the odds of something occurring when the odds of all the alternates are exactly the same.

From here, this is where FZ and I disagree. We have discussed this next portion at length and I think just agreed to disagree. But I think there ARE practical situations where the case can be made that the odds of an event or arrangement are LESS than the alternatives. Yes, arguments can be made that this involves subjectivity to establish the uniqueness but this argument, when taken to the extreme, would have us denouncing the most obvious, practical things. So while the line may be hard to draw, it isn't practical to just pretend it doesn't exists.

 

[FZ+]

There is nothing subjective about the fact that you cannot engineer a single life form from non-life, using any protein or substance of your choosing, even with the intent to do so.

I disagree strongly. Each case of cellular mitosis is a case of this in action. But as you correctly stated, this has been argued before.

Guess the answer to this is just subjective, no?

 

[Pseudonym]

I would argue that although the universe is governed by certain rules, these rules themselves do not result in ordered structures. Causality, yes. But the universe is tending toward chaos from an ordered beginning, not the other way around. I know you'll profoundly disagree with me on my simplistic view of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I call 'em how I see 'em.

Also, has a beneficial mutation ever been observed? How often does a mutation take place?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
I disagree strongly. Each case of cellular mitosis is a case of this in action. But as you correctly stated, this has been argued before.

Guess the answer to this is just subjective, no?

So you're saying we can generate complex life forms with non-life particles? The odds of "cellular mitosis" is the same as the odds of humans? In order for the lottery analogy to work, you have to have alternatives of equal odds. And you haven't even established that life of some kind must originate in the universe. Without this as an assumption, abiogensis is nothing like the lottery example.

I just find it interesting that science is based on emperical evidence which when verified becomes accepted theory/law with some level of uncertainty. Yet we cannot use this evidence to make a determination on something being less likely than it's alternatives simply because we can't be 100% certain that we have the right perspective. This view just seems extreme and downright dishonest to me.

 

[FZ+]

So you're saying we can generate complex life forms with non-life particles?

At risk of spawning another argument, yes. Since amino acids, glucose etc are constantly being assembled to make cells, and we recognise whole cells as being alive.

In order for the lottery analogy to work, you have to have alternatives of equal odds.

As I had stated, the lottery example is an illustration of the incorrectness of probabilistic arguments. Specifically, abiogenesis is not a lottery, as there are no predefined alternatives, or winning combinations.

But the universe is tending toward chaos from an ordered beginning, not the other way around. I know you'll profoundly disagree with me on my simplistic view of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I call 'em how I see 'em.

But this is blatantly incorrect, for if it was, life itself, let alone evolution, cannot occur. In fact, nothing at all can occur. The sun will not fuse, chemicals will not react... If that was the second law, it would have been immediately falsified.

Also, has a beneficial mutation ever been observed?

The condition known as sickle cell anemia has some benefits against malaria, for example. Bacteria and viruses constantly mutate to escape our anti-virals/anti-biotics. The rate of mutation varies from species to species, cell to cell. But it is more than sufficient.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
At risk of spawning another argument, yes. Since amino acids, glucose etc are constantly being assembled to make cells, and we recognise whole cells as being alive.

I won't get into this with you. It's safe to say that there are many people who disagree with this. My only point was to show that for the lottery analogy to hold, other alternatives of equal probability have to exists. We cannot even completely explain the lifeforms we know of. Let alone what these 'just as likely' alternatives might be.

As I had stated, the lottery example is an illustration of the incorrectness of probabilistic arguments. Specifically, abiogenesis is not a lottery, as there are no predefined alternatives, or winning combinations.

This doesn't seem relevant. Associating the word "winner" with lottery is just a distraction. We're not talking about winners. We're talking about the odds of one thing being selected over all other alternatives. Whether we call this selection a winner or not is not relevant. If all alternatives have the same odds for being selected and one must be selected, then there is nothing miraclous about which ever one we end up with. This is a lottery. And I am suggesting that Abiogensis is not like this because: There is no reason to believe that anything should have been selected at all.

This may very well be wrong but we don't currently have the knowledge to assume it is, so we have to assess the facts as they are.

I post these things because I keep seeing people attempt to use analogies like the lottery or birthdays to prove something about abiogensis and it just isn't the same.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
There is disagreement between scholars, but the phrase "as was supposed" in the original language may have had more the meaning "as is written," or that which was in the public records and could be easily verified.

Firstly, I wish to remind you that, while what you suggest may be true, we are not discussing what actually happened - we are discussing what the Bible says. The Bible tells us that Joseph has two different fathers. You explain this by saying that the Bible authors were misinformed or misled by inaccurate records. Your explanation is admittedly interesting, but it does not make the contradiction go away - it merely tells us why the contradiction exists.

Secondly, your explanation leads to another question - if "as is written" is the better translation, why does it never appear that way in any Bible? How many scholars consider "as is written" the best interpretation? In case you doubt me, here are several translations from different Bibles, some common, some obscure, all showing the standard NIV interpretation.

KJV: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"

ASV: "And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,"

YLT (Young's Literal Translation): "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph,"

DAR (Darby Translation): "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli,"

WYC (Wycliffe New Testament): And Jesus himself was beginning as of thirty years, that he was guessed the son of Joseph, which was of Heli,

Again I find it hard to believe that early Christians would die for truths set out in books that were so blatantly opposed.

Again, this is peripheral to the actual issue, which is contradictions in the Bible. The early Christians had no Bible. But I should ask you - how many of the early Christians had both Matthew and Luke? And how many of them could read both Gospels?

Most modern Christians are ignorant of this Biblical contradiction, and they are steeped in Bible verses from a young age. The early Christians lacked our benefits, and their "scripture" was very likely a series of unconnected letters and books, suplemented with snippets and scraps passed by word of mouth. They would have not have been in a position to examine two separate books and carefully check their individual lists.

If there isn't any more evidence that this is a contradiction, then I'd say that the case for it being one is pretty tenuous, although it doesn't appear this way on the surface.

I will be frank in telling you that I have had disturbing experiences with Christians telling me that black is white. While the above contradiction does not disprove the divinity of Jesus Christ (this is not what I intended to show), it is a contradiction in the Bible, and until you concede this fact, I will be uncomfortable with providing more information. So as not to seem miserly, however, I will give you one more contradiction. This one involves the other two gospels.

Mark 16: 2 "Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body."

John 20: 1 "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb."

John fails to mention Mary the mother of James and Salome, though it does not exclude their presence and thus this is not a contradiction, despite what atheists often like to say. (Atheists will make such statements about the sign above Jesus' head, which has different wording in each Gospel.) Note however these two phrases:

"after sunrise"

"while it was still dark"


So, when did they go to visit the tomb? Was it before sunrise? Or after sunrise?


--Mark

 

[selfAdjoint]

If you're a late sleeper, you might not know that it's often still pretty dark "just after sunrise".

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Mark 16: 2 "Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body."

John 20: 1 "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb."

John fails to mention Mary the mother of James and Salome, though it does not exclude their presence and thus this is not a contradiction, despite what atheists often like to say. (Atheists will make such statements about the sign above Jesus' head, which has different wording in each Gospel.) Note however these two phrases:

"after sunrise"

"while it was still dark"


So, when did they go to visit the tomb? Was it before sunrise? Or after sunrise?

The first quote doesn't say anything about going to the tomb. It says they "bought spices" so that they might annoint the body. Are you suggestng that they went to the tomb to buy spices?

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
The Bible tells us that Joseph has two different fathers. You explain this by saying that the Bible authors were misinformed or misled by inaccurate records

This is not what I said at all. The records were there, and agreed with each other. Matthew chose to list Jesus' male ancestors from Joseph's line, while Luke listed Jesus' male ancestors from Mary's line. The geneologies are not there just for kicks; the authors make different points using them. Matthew and Luke's intents can easily be seen by carefully reading the respective passages in their entirety.

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
if "as is written" is the better translation, why does it never appear that way in any Bible? How many scholars consider "as is written" the best interpretation?

I didn't mean that "as is written" was the better literal translation of the words, but that it might possibly better convey what the original readers would have understood. I am not certain of this, not being a Greek scholar, but as to your second question: Matthew Henry, for one.

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Most modern Christians are ignorant of this Biblical contradiction, and they are steeped in Bible verses from a young age.

Sadly, yes. You don't see kids who actually have a knowledge of the truth they blindly trust.

Your second contradiction I will examine, but I'll be busy for a few days, so don't expect a response for a little while.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by Fliption
The first quote doesn't say anything about going to the tomb. It says they "bought spices" so that they might annoint the body. Are you suggestng that they went to the tomb to buy spices?

Mark records that Mary and her friends bought the spices after sunrise (presumably at a market) so they couldn't have gone to the tomb until later, even, than that.

But John tells us that Mary went to the tomb while it was still dark.

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
If you're a late sleeper, you might not know that it's often still pretty dark "just after sunrise".

Appreciated; that was one of my first thoughts as well upon hearing about this. But these were agriculturists and herders we are reading about here, people who didn't need the same light levels that moderners require (mostly for reading). They wouldn't have considered the few minutes of dim light following or preceding sunrise to be "dark," especially in comparison with their night-time which was a truly dark condition in the era without streetlights. More even that this, I think that if we are to read this critically as a historical document, we need to imagine why John wrote "while it was still dark." The ambient lighting is an irrelevant detail, so why bother recording it - unless it is being used to let the reader know what time it is?

Originally posted by Pseudonym
This is not what I said at all. The records were there, and agreed with each other. Matthew chose to list Jesus' male ancestors from Joseph's line, while Luke listed Jesus' male ancestors from Mary's line.

No, Luke did not do any such thing. Luke lists Joseph as the father of Jesus. Luke gives the genealogy of Joseph. Luke says very specifically, "he was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph." Luke does not mention Mary. The name "Mary" does not even appear in the entire third chapter of his book. It is absolutely incredible to me that not only do you want to read the word "Mary" where it is clearly not written, and that, not only do you want to ignore the word "Joseph" where it clearly is written, but that on top of all this you have the audacity to attempt to convince me to abandon all reason and join you in this hallucinatory exercise!


--Mark

 

[selfAdjoint]

Appreciated; that was one of my first thoughts as well upon hearing about this. But these were agriculturists and herders we are reading about here, people who didn't need the same light levels that moderners require (mostly for reading).

Mary Magdalen was a herder? I think you're stretching. There are enough contradictions in the Bible without trying to make them up.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Mark records that Mary and her friends bought the spices after sunrise (presumably at a market) so they couldn't have gone to the tomb until later, even, than that.

But John tells us that Mary went to the tomb while it was still dark.

Ahh yes I see. I'm certain the bible has contradictions, but this one seems weak. This could easily be due to an error of translation.

 

[TENYEARS]

Flipton, I clicked on this topic saw you at the bottom, and though I would like you to know, today I have found the path for what I must do if indeed it is that which I will do. How it will manifest itself I do not know, only that it will be.

Your responses were truthful with specific points in mind. I wonder of some of the readers who were to busy vieing for the trophy noticed them. Will they now run and search out your words to assimlate them for better positioning for the future.

Contraditions in the bible? If a person wants to truly understand something, no false words, no deception can stand in their way. There are words in the bible that will be understood by a person who is searching to understand. It will not require that Jesus have rised from the dead or that Mary had the immaculate conception or any specific so called perceived miracle. One who is hungry would know this. The same understandings which are in the bible can be found in other places. One who is hungry knows this.

For fools of you on the forum who speak of contradictions, would you not understand that in order for the word contradiction to cease, you have to close your mouths.

Note: I consider myself a fool for I am also human, when I no longer consider myself, a fool in the relative, I run from myself, when I no longer consider, I will become what I am. Do any of you understand these words?

 

[Nachtwolf]

Mary Magdalen was a herder? I think you're stretching.

Uh, the only stretch I'm seeing here is the Straw Man you've created, selfAdjoint. I never said Mary was a herder. But the society in which she was living was primarily composed of herders and agriculturalists, was it not? Jesus performed miracles involving such herders, and many of his parables have to do with agriculture. These were people who wouldn't have thought that it was dark once the sun was up.

There are enough contradictions in the Bible without trying to make them up.

That was worth an eye roll.

Ahh yes I see. I'm certain the bible has contradictions, but this one seems weak. This could easily be due to an error of translation.

If this is an error in translation - and it may well be - then you've explained why the contradiction exists but you have not made it disappear. (You'll recall that I said the same thing to Pseudonym earlier, although he seems to think I wasn't understanding him.)

What it really comes down to is this - what's the best explanation? Sure, it could be an error in translation, and fine, John could have thought that daylight in the Holy Land was dark. But the gospels were written fourty years after Christ's death, and correct me if I'm wrong, but John wrote his gospel last, sometime around 100 A.D., seventy years after these events. John wasn't there; he wasn't even alive at the time. For us to assume that he knew exactly what happened is probably the biggest stretch of all.

For fools of you on the forum who speak of contradictions, would you not understand that in order for the word contradiction to cease, you have to close your mouths.

Note: I consider myself a fool for I am also human, when I no longer consider myself, a fool in the relative, I run from myself, when I no longer consider, I will become what I am. Do any of you understand these words?

Yes, TENYEARS, I understand your words, and once again I'll suggest that maybe you should lay off the dope.[/size]


--Mark