I just read this in Noble’s book and it seemed to fit the present discussion
Think of a guitarist playing a tremolo piece or a pianist executing fast arpeggios: on all of those finger muscles millions of calcium ions are moving around very rapidly in small fractions of a second. From a single-atom viewpoint it is impossible to explain this.
The aleph-numbers are infinite cardinal numbers, so in that sense they are numbers, but they are essentially only definable as possible sizes of a set, and they have many properties which differ from finite numbers, so they are not numbers in the standard sense. It is possible to define an infinity of alephs by having a subsequent one after aleph-null be defined as the powerset (set of all subsets) of aleph-null, and then a subsequent one to that defined as the powerset of that second one, and so on. However, whether there are infinities between those is the essence of Cantorian versus non-Cantorian set theory. Larger known infinities include R and C, larger than those is the set of all curves in the plane, larger than that would be the set of all curves in any finite number of dimensions, etc.
An infinite number of events would be possible given a starting condition of infinite entities in the universe.
Where does n-dimensional geometry (that my older brother referenced on occasion) fit in? or does it?
That’s the same as what I was referencing.
They would need to produce an actual scientific model that demonstrates it isn’t random. They have yet to do that. Why would it be incorrect to say that they lack a scientific model when they lack a scientific model?
For that matter, people do win the lottery over and over and over. People will win the lottery several times this year in the US. No one is saying that this causes us to doubt the randomness of the lottery.
But I am assuming you doubt someone can win the lottery 5 times on a single day
No one has shown that such odds are needed in evolution. All they do is make empty assertions about these probabilities with no data to back it up.
Or they are accused of moving the target. “It happened, so it can’t be improbable.”
Usually it is painting the target around the bullet hole.
Using the lottery example, let’s say there is a 1 in 100 million chance of winning. For each drawing there is 100 million tickets sold, and for each drawing 1 person wins. The winners are 5 specific people: John, Mack, Susy, Leslie, and Pat. So what are the odds that those specific 5 people would win? That would be 100 million to the 5th power, or 1 in 10^40. That’s very low odds, and yet there is no reason to think this is anything other than a random outcome.
ID proponents do the same thing with evolution. They point to the mutations that did occur, and then assume these are the only mutations that could have occurred. They then back calculate the odds of those mutations happening in the same way that I calculated the odds of those 5 specific people winning the lottery.
You know if it wasnt for the fact i have over 1000 hours flying experience on paragliders i would agree with this, however, give that experience, i dont think i do.
The process of untangling lines on a paraglider follows a very logical sequence that is generally repeatable no matter how knotted they get…and i can tell you ive untangled some doozies in my time (particluarly from gliders that have ended up crashed in trees or the ocean).
The point is, the method of untangling is repeatable and not random.
Untangling humans that have crashed into trees presumably has its own particular challenges?
Untangling a tragically backlashed baitcaster ranks up there, but nothing ruins a trip worse than burying the hook in the person on the other side of the boat
Moving the goalposts fallacy.
Did you know about symbiogenesis? I was reading Noble and he was describing how some unicelluar organisms move by paddles called cilia. And these may have originated from ciliate bacteria. Donald Williamson has a theory on this that is highly controversial.
Btw, I am enjoying the book. Decided to buy the kindle version as it wasn’t avaliable with my library or hoopla. The footnotes are great as they often have a link to an internet source, which I can easily look up with a single swipe or click (don’t believe there’s a word for touching the screen)
This makes so much sense i havent a clue what you are talking about…which means its obviously hot air being wasted. Id suggest you stop wasting it so that pilots who need it for thermalling can reach cloudbase.
Can i just clarify…you take this as fact right?
Symbiogenesis (endosymbiotic theory, or serial endosymbiotic theory) is the leading evolutionary theory of the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic organisms.The theory holds that
Notice how the outcome of a coin being flipped uncontrollably has very predictable results as a large set of results. It is impossible to tell with true randomness whether unpredictable results will occur in very small or massively large scales.
Like what could happen with AI consciousness randomly flipping a coin it can control the outcome for.
You switched comparisons. That’s also called “dodging” or sometimes “straw man topic”, thought the last I find a bit confusing, or what Abraham Lincoln called “changing the definition midstream”.
Okay, biology types: am I recalling correctly that something was observed in the lab fairly recently which pretty much confirmed the concept?
That makes no sense. Why wouldn’t a truly random process produce a random distribution just like the flipping of coins, or the decay of unstable nuclei?
You also didn’t address the meat of the post. Truly random processes will produce extremely improbable outcomes. They are guaranteed to do so. Just shuffling a deck of cards will produce an order of cards with a 1 in 8x10^67 probability.
If it is randomly flipping a coin then the result should be the expected random distribution. If that is not the outcome then the flips weren’t random.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.