Evidence for God from Science

Ah! chaos theory

BeGood,

I don't want to get drawn into a big argument on this thread. I'm spending enough time on the other one. I did want to ask you to add one more dimension to your example though.

You've got the probability down and I agree with you there. Could you add into your example the number of chances for the occurance? Example:

I have a possibility with a probability of occurrance of roughly 1 in 9*10^162. If I look just at the probability I might say "no chance." But there's more. It will have roughly 9*10^163 chances. In spite of the odds, this probably will eventually occur. Don't hold your breath, but given time for all chances to expire it's a safe bet. In fact, it should happen about ten times!

If on the other hand I have odds of 1 in 9*10^162 and I only have four chances, while still technically possible I might call that statistically improbable to the point of being practically (though not literally) impossible.

To put it even simpler, someone will probably win the lottery, but it probably won't be me.

Wall-dog wrote:BeGood,

I don't want to get drawn into a big argument on this thread. I'm spending enough time on the other one. I did want to ask you to add one more dimension to your example though.

You've got the probability down and I agree with you there. Could you add into your example the number of chances for the occurance? Example:

I have a possibility with a probability of occurrance of roughly 1 in 9*10^162. If I look just at the probability I might say "no chance." But there's more. It will have roughly 9*10^163 chances. In spite of the odds, this probably will eventually occur. Don't hold your breath, but given time for all chances to expire it's a safe bet. In fact, it should happen about ten times!

If on the other hand I have odds of 1 in 9*10^162 and I only have four chances, while still technically possible I might call that statistically improbable to the point of being practically (though not literally) impossible.

To put it even simpler, someone will probably win the lottery, but it probably won't be me.

I completely agree.

But the real question is how this ties into the natural sciences. When dealing with evolution it is like the first example you gave, most of the possibilities and combinations will likely occur.

However when dealing with the origin of life, it seems more like winning the lottery.

But to know for sure we need to pin down the variables involved. Until then we cannot know wheather it was an eventuallity or pure luck that life occurred.

As it now stands the origin of life remains a very unlikely occurance, and therefore remains a scientific mystery. For many organic chemists the nature of DNA and the questions of the origin of life lead one to a personal hunch that they are evidence for God.

What one must keep in mind though, is that personal evidence is not the same as scientific evidence. The rigours of science require that hypothesis be testable.

=)

Wall-dog wrote:BeGood,

I don't want to get drawn into a big argument on this thread. I'm spending enough time on the other one. I did want to ask you to add one more dimension to your example though.

You've got the probability down and I agree with you there. Could you add into your example the number of chances for the occurance? Example:

I have a possibility with a probability of occurrance of roughly 1 in 9*10^162. If I look just at the probability I might say "no chance." But there's more. It will have roughly 9*10^163 chances. In spite of the odds, this probably will eventually occur. Don't hold your breath, but given time for all chances to expire it's a safe bet. In fact, it should happen about ten times!

If on the other hand I have odds of 1 in 9*10^162 and I only have four chances, while still technically possible I might call that statistically improbable to the point of being practically (though not literally) impossible.

To put it even simpler, someone will probably win the lottery, but it probably won't be me.

Evolutionists are able to make the same kind of Argument... If Evolution occurred it does not matter how many times or chances it is basically 1:1 (100%) Why is that so because Evolutionists believe it HAS occurred therefore the probability is 100% of it occurring

Bzzt,

Saying that the probability that it could have occurred is 100% on the basis that it did occur is a circular argument.

BeGood,

It would be interesting, based on what we know about microevolution, to develop statistical models of evolutionary change based on population levels and time to and see, from a purely mathmatical perspective, what the probabilities of evolution explaining something like going from early primate to man really is, given the true number of chances for the microevolutionary changes to occur.

Wall-dog wrote:Bzzt,

Saying that the probability that it could have occurred is 100% on the basis that it did occur is a circular argument.

BeGood,

It would be interesting, based on what we know about microevolution, to develop statistical models of evolutionary change based on population levels and time to and see, from a purely mathmatical perspective, what the probabilities of evolution explaining something like going from early primate to man really is, given the true number of chances for the microevolutionary changes to occur.

The probability is still small, given that microevolution idoes not appear to be directed in the sense that the outcome is not predetermined.

However statistical analysis of mutations rates can be done.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/14/8119

Regarding population size.
Current population size does not matter as much as initial population size.

Current population size does not matter as much as initial population size.

I would think that since a larger population create more opportunities for mutation, then the size of the population throughout the process would be important. Periods of higher population should lead to periods of more rapid mutation. Is that right?

Wall-dog wrote:

Current population size does not matter as much as initial population size.

I would think that since a larger population create more opportunities for mutation, then the size of the population throughout the process would be important. Periods of higher population should lead to periods of more rapid mutation. Is that right?

Yes, but initial population has more of an effect than the recent population boom.

Large populations do however lead to more mutations being added to the gene pool. But do not lead higher mutation rates directly.

Lets say for instance that A and B both have 2 mutations.

Child ab will have anywhere from 0-4 of their mutations. It doesn't matter that C,D,and E also exist. However the variation within the population as a whole is effected. Variation goes up, while mutation rate is minimally effected at first. If the population remains large over several generations, then mutation rates will begin to increase as recombination will mix several generations of mutations together.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297

However mutation rates when determining divergence times are generally measured using the mitochondrial DNA, which cannot recombine. As the information comes only from mitochondria found in an egg cell. It is passed down from mother to child directly. No matter what the population size is the mutation rate of the mitochondria is unaffected. Since the mother produces eggs as a baby in the womb, the maturation time is the only effect on mutation rates.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/16/6196

IRQ Conflict wrote:Ah! chaos theory

You likes!?!

=)

bizzt wrote: Evolutionists are able to make the same kind of Argument... If Evolution occurred it does not matter how many times or chances it is basically 1:1 (100%) Why is that so because Evolutionists believe it HAS occurred therefore the probability is 100% of it occurring

Well yes and no.
=)

The observations seem to show that it has occurred.
IE only life begets life.

But the probability of a specifically a butterfly evolving as opposed to something else is still seen as small.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

IRQ Conflict wrote:Ah! chaos theory

You likes!?!

=)

No, my mind doesn't like numbers when they seem to make sense let alone when you start that chaos thing in there.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

IRQ Conflict wrote:Ah! chaos theory

You likes!?!

=)

No, my mind doesn't like numbers when they seem to make sense let alone when you start that chaos thing in there.

Math is the ultimate form of logic. You can have imaginary proofs to imaginary problems, it is much more to prove things empircally.

This is why many choose to be theoretical physicists rather than experimental physicists. You get more done.

BeGood,

Isn't there something that says that it is impossible to remove all the variables because the process of observation inherently changes the results?

Wall-dog wrote:BeGood,

Isn't there something that says that it is impossible to remove all the variables because the process of observation inherently changes the results?

Yes that's a probem with quantum physics.

It's part of the philosophical interpretation built around the heisenberg uncertainty principal.

So we can never know all the variables.