|
I'm not going to get involved in the detailed discussion about Evolution, because I know it's not gonna get anywhere. However I'd like to point out that contrary to popular belief Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and whilst it's a probable and convincing theory, it has its share of flaws and loopholes. I personally don't believe in Darwin's theory, not necessarily because I'm a Christian, but because it does not explain the origin of matters, and they seem to confuse variation with mutation.
The natural selection is the process of DNA mutating on a rare occasions so it strengthens a creature's ability to survive, which lead to increasing the chance of reproduction. That is evolution's only way to making new creatures. The car engine itself does not run simply by process of cylinder pistons moving up and down, it requires Ignition system, spark, Compression, fuel system, Carburetor and fuel pump etc.
When you talk about living creatures, You don't understand the nature of irreducibly complex biological systems. It's about million times more complicated than of a car engine, parts of living creatures are consisted of intricate components with connecting parts that is co-linked together essential for the operation, controlled by many genes that have to act in logical sequence. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, This means all the right mutations must happen at the same time by pure chance. If you look at systems such as in cell organelles, removal of one element will cause the whole system to cease functioning. The chance of that happening is less than Lulker mutating into Zealot, less than 1 in billions.
To resolve this unexplainable matter, Darwin has conveniently applied 'infinite amount of time', and while this is not entirely impossible, how is this a not a 'theory' but a 'fact?'
And to all Christians who conveniently claim to believe in theistic evolution, please call yourself something else rather than Christian if you're going to translate every bible verses to suit your taste. I think you're a wuss. It's OK to be Christian and be laughed at. In fact, bible says on numerous occasions that you will be scoffed at for your faith.
I see the same problem with Christians endorsing homosexuality, when they see an uncomfortable verse or philosophy that conflict with political correctness, they simply translate them to the way they want and try to get in their comfort zone. I applaud Miss California Carrie Prejean for the way she confidently expressed her belief, even though it costed her crown. It's not that Christians should discriminate or hate homosexuals but rather not support the idea, which is two different things. You should still love them and care for them.
How do you explain Adam and Eve? How is formation of Eve explained? She was created out of one of Adam's ribs. God also explicitly said that he made them male and female. Not a bacteria without sex. The bible says the origin of all sin is from the first Human God has ever created, and it carries significant weight throughout the entire bible, whether Old or New Testament. Do you regard every verses in Old Testament as parables? God also said he created human beings in the image of God. Does bacteria possess the characteristics of God?
Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
|
Sorry to interrupt your philosophical debate, but back to the point of the thread...
There is a problem with choosing sides on a political manner for any large company, as it will alienate a large group of people for a very long time, and if it isn't cost effective, it's just a wrong business move. Let's say Warner Brothers decides to distribute it in the US. They will be alienating a huge clump of people from watching many of their movies for a while, and a single movie will never, EVER stack up to a 10% drop in sales for a company of that size.
Smaller companies might do it, but other than sharing that (long-term) risk, the bigger companies either force them to be extremely small and ineffectual (limited resources and reach) or buy them. Sure, this might seem like a perfect movie for the company, but can they make it cost effective on a large scale?
Movies that have potential for making a some millions yet aren't blockbusters are problematic because distributing them on a large scale requires infrastructure small companies don't have, and if (just like in this case) they touch a controversial issue, the big companies stand a lot to lose by being a part of it.
As for the quantum vs. classic mechanics model: if you look at the math behind quantum mechanics, try to apply it to larger and larger scales, you will see that it will become a closer and closer approximation of Newton's. If you want to add a little zest to the argument, you can say that the same applies to Relativity (low speeds instead of bigger scales). But of course, Hawking found mathematical incongruities between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, meaning only one can be right (or both of them wrong). Of course, that's why we have string theory.... but in most ways that matter, Newton got it right. The physics teacher who lived during the time of discovery of the Quantum model would probably have been more annoyed with Goedel's proof that there are an infinite number of unprovable formulas out there which are still correct (yes, someone actually proved that mathematically... and yes, he was at least somewhat crazy).
Of course, none of these things explain the four mysterious, unexplainable forces at the base of physics, which, like God, are omnipresent, unprovable, and make everything happen (the small and large atomic forces, electromagnetism and gravity). Therefor attacking physics as a very illogical religion is easy using Occam's Razor - monotheistic religions only have one such force, God's will, while physics has four, and is therefor much less probable an explanation for why things happen. The answer to this is that Physics does leave room for the existence of God (the uncertainty principle leaves a possibility for seeming impossibilities to happen, is one such room), therefor these facts are not mutually exclusive and your argument is a moot point. The question of Darwin excluding religion and vice versa is more an issue of dogma. The Catholic church accepted the fact that the world was round sometime in the 90s. Sometimes it takes a while.
Popular science rant, over. Sorry about that.
Of course, all of these are irrelevant to the thread, which is phrased in a way to bait people into philosophical debate where it is clearly a financial matter. You got me, you clever, clever troll :D
|
On September 14 2009 14:35 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 11:37 Freyr wrote:On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote:
I did not read the article. Nevertheless, often people do not wish to have their most cherished beliefs challenged (all of us are like this). It's not just that dogmatic Christians refuse to consider the theory of evolution objectively, it is that they do not want to challenge the beliefs that guide their lives. Consider two analogous cases.
John was raised Catholic, and all his life he has lived by the teachings of Christ. He believes in God, that God is good, and that we ought to follow the Ten Commandments because if he doesn't he'll go to hell. So, John lives his life according to these beliefs. Darwin comes along and challenges the foundation of Christianity: maybe God didn't create the world, maybe we were evolved from the same ancestral organism. If this were true, it would mean John's whole life would've been lived under false beliefs. Psychologically: it's better to believe a lie than to feel like your whole life was lived for a lie.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
You are right that many different kinds of people face this sort of conundrum, but as others have pointed out your second example is not very good. Classical mechanics is not a belief, it is a way of describing and attempting to predict interactions. It is useful for some things, and less useful for others. Rarely, if ever, will you find a situation where a field in science is completely invalidated. Almost everything is build on top of previous ideas. Her whole life may have been in vain because, apparently, if she is thusly affected, she has failed to become a decent scientist. Further, if I understand it correctly, quantum mechanics is useless for predicting macroscopic phenomena - perhaps a better example would be general relativity. Also, I think it was Sadist who said they are both cowards, and I agree. This sort of behavior, while understandable and probably exhibited by many of us, should be something we try to eradicate. (Incidentally, AFAIK NASA still uses newtonian physics for engineering and mission planning and such rather than the newer, more "correct" general relativity. General relativity and non-relativistic gravity both seem to fail on a very large scale, which has brought about suspicion of the existence of dark matter (which could salvage the theories)- though we may just have gotten everything completely wrong.) GR doesn't "fail" at large scales, it fails where quantum effects are important. As for dark matter, there is a vast amount of observational and theoretical evidence for its existence SEPARATE from stellar velocity curves, etc.
Observational evidence? What observational evidence? As far as I know we only deduce the existence based on motion and gravitational lensing. This is indirect observational evidence based on the assumption that GR is correct. What exactly do you mean by theoretical evidence? I would imagine the only theoretical evidence is the discrepancy found when GR is used to calculate motion based on observed matter...which amounts to the same as above.
I'd be really interested to learn of additional evidence. I never said the possibility of dark matter shouldn't be investigated, but if we operate only based on observable evidence GR is wrong. This is all irrelevant to the thread, but it may be interesting to many people, because GR is often presented as being flawless (except, as you say, where quantum effects are significant) and dark matter presented as being a necessary consequence of GRs predictions.
I'd love if you PMed me for further discussion, to avoid interrupting the current discussion too much.
Unrelatedly, I'm really confused as to how you come up with the statement that consciousness is an empirical argument against evolution. I don't see why there is a problem with accepting that it might be the result of the accumulation of myriad genetic imperatives based on mechanistic stimuli (as you put it).
I don't really understand your bank robbery example either. Obviously there is an evolutionary imperative not to do things that will piss other people off, because you wind up in jail or dead, and thus unable to reproduce. Consequently we often have strong inhibitions relating to those kinds of actions, which may come up in the form of, for example, feeling sick when seeing someone seriously hurt. This is of course, before you even consider your prisoner's dilemma idea where we rationally deduce that it's not a good idea to rob the bank (why can't rational deduction also be a product of evolution). It seems so obvious so I guess I'm not fully understanding your example.
Edit: I read it again and you seem to be saying that if you accept evolution, there is no reason to behave in a moral fashion. Maybe I'm still misunderstanding, but the very fact that most people can't, or won't, override their inhibitions against theft, murder etc. seems to be evidence for what the quoted poster was saying. Yes there are rational reasons for me not to rob that bank, but assuming I can get away with it (somehow I have 100% certainty) I may still not because I am naturally inhibited.
|
Its kinda surprising something like this won't be distributed but something like religilous(spelling?) was allowed and even if you don't accept evolution you can allow the mans story to be told it seems so contridictory to let passion of the christ be played and not this what about aethiests and other religions that don't accept jesus as the son of god or have other beliefs and such kinda not fair to them (sorry am posting on a mobile not sure if this is fully coherent)
|
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
I'm not going to get involved in the detailed discussion about Evolution, because I know it's not gonna get anywhere. However I'd like to point out that contrary to popular belief Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and whilst it's a probable and convincing theory, it has its share of flaws and loopholes. I personally don't believe in Darwin's theory, not necessarily because I'm a Christian, but because it does not explain the origin of matter, and they seem to confuse variation with mutation.
Yes it is a scientific theory that explains the fact of evolution. Just like germ theory explains how we get decease or the theory of gravity explains how things fall to the ground. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of matter because it never set out to do so. The theory of gravity doesn't explain where gravity 'comes from' and the theory of plate tectonics doesn't explain how the earth was formed. Evolution doesn't even explain the origin of life, that question belongs to the field of Abiogenesis. There are no loopholes and no big gaps in the theory of evolution. Among the big scientific theories evolution is one of the first when it comes to amount of evidence.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
I agree with your conclusion but your reasoning is faulty. The vast majority of Christians don't regard the Bible as the literal word of God (in constrast to Muslims vis a vis the Koran), but the work of flawed human beings from a primitive society, attempting to transmit God's message as they best understand it. The vast majority of contemporary Christianity is not committed to the historical existence of Adam and Eve and Noah's ark, and the vast majority would outright reject the notion that God literally commanded the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites, including women and children.
On the other hand, it is undeniable that the Christian view of man is incompatible with the purely mechanistic conception of life, with its Darwinian imperatives, and that in the West, the advent of Darwinian evolution has overthrown traditional justifications for morality. One can either come up with new justifications that are compatable with Darwinism, or attempt to show that Darwinism is false (let's term these positions as belonging to the Darwinian camp and the anti-Darwinian camp). Many posters here obviously prefer the former approach while I prefer the latter (but am open to changing my mind by sufficiently compelling argumentation and evidence). So far, neither camp has largely succeeded. But the current Darwinian attempts to create a logical system of morality are exceedingly unpersuasive, and I think that the overthrow of the materialist view of life -- with the mind-body problem providing most of the evidence -- is not so unlikely.
|
O wow threads mad derailed xD
|
Considering the Beatles are bigger than Jesus and Chapter 23 got distribution, this will too. Just give it time.
|
On September 14 2009 17:12 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period. But the current Darwinian attempts to create a logical system of morality are exceedingly unpersuasive, and I think that the overthrow of the materialist view of life -- with the mind-body problem providing most of the evidence -- is not so unlikely.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? Why should a logical system of morality be the realm of biologists? The theory of evolution should have nothing to do with conceptions of morality (if indeed a concept of morality is really necessary). Evolution is not a worldview or a proposition as to how people should live - it only attempts to explain the genesis of life as it is today. Sorry if you've discussed this already, I seem to have missed it.
On September 14 2009 17:12 Sad[Panda] wrote:
O wow threads mad derailed xD
Yeah but it's more interesting now.
|
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
I'm not going to get involved in the detailed discussion about Evolution, because I know it's not gonna get anywhere. However I'd like to point out that contrary to popular belief Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and whilst it's a probable and convincing theory, it has its share of flaws and loopholes. I personally don't believe in Darwin's theory, not necessarily because I'm a Christian, but because it does not explain the origin of matters, and they seem to confuse variation with mutation.
This is a straw man, theory > fact in scientific meaning of the words.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
The natural selection is the process of DNA mutating on a rare occasions so it strengthens a creature's ability to survive, which lead to increasing the chance of reproduction. That is evolution's only way to making new creatures. The car engine itself does not run simply by process of cylinder pistons moving up and down, it requires Ignition system, spark, Compression, fuel system, Carburetor and fuel pump etc.
1st Blatantly false, natural selection is the force that makes certain traits more probible to reproduce. Those traits may be results from mutations or differenent climate conditions etc.
2nd The anology with a enigne is a straw man because the enigne cant reproduce.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
When you talk about living creatures, You don't understand the nature of irreducibly complex biological systems. It's about million times more complicated than of a car engine, parts of living creatures are consisted of intricate components with connecting parts that is co-linked together essential for the operation, controlled by many genes that have to act in logical sequence. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, This means all the right mutations must happen at the same time by pure chance. If you look at systems such as in cell organelles, removal of one element will cause the whole system to cease functioning. The chance of that happening is less than Lulker mutating into Zealot, less than 1 in billions.
Irriducible complex in its most miss used form is straw man, how ever so far no traits has been shown to be irriducible complex.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
That's your opinion(based on faulty logic and wrong definitions), before making such statements please get some education on what evolution is and how it works.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
Freyr, I overstated the case for dark matter, since it is true that all observational evidence thus far assumes that GR is correct, and that, although there are a lot of possible dark matter candidates, the only kind that was detected is massive neutrinos, which cannot make up all the dark matter which is believed to exist.
Regarding evolution, you need to reread my postings here on this subject from the last couple of pages, since if I were to elaborate I would be repeating myself. Much of your comments here show that you misread what I actually said (eg, in my robbery example I specifically stipulated that "you know you can get away with it"). However, in the very post you quote, I say this:
"One can either come up with new justifications that are compatable with Darwinism, or attempt to show that Darwinism is false (let's term these positions as belonging to the Darwinian camp and the anti-Darwinian camp)."
In other words, I explicitly define the "Darwinians" as I use it in the post above as those who are attempting to construct a theory of morality which is compatible with Darwinian evolution -- and they are emphatically not necessarily biologists (this group would include Daniel Dennett and many others).
|
Hi,
You're right, I completely missed the detail that it had to do specifically with compatibility of Christianity and evolution. Thanks for your patience.
I still take issue with a statement you made that seems to indicate consciousness is an argument against evolution. At this point, as far as I know, we don't even do a very good job of explaining consciousness, so how could it play a significant role in any scientific theory yet? That doesn't mean it never will, only that it doesn't currently. This is not an argument against evolution as I see it, more of a "to be continued..." area.
To clarify my position, it's not as though I think evolution is absolutely the description of what has happened with Earth's biology, I just don't think the above argument is legitimate (yet?). I'd be willing to accept many explanations given evidence. (So there were these guys called the Xel'Naga...)
Sorry for the misunderstandings, and once again thanks for your patience.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
The utter fatigue is now growing stronger than the insomnia, so I'm going back to bed after submitting this. 
My consciousness argument, as spelled out in the robot analogy above and associated follow-up posts, is roughly like this (please note that this is a highly simplified form):
1. Darwinian evolution does not use the fact that living things have consciousness. (A robot that is completely unaware of consciousness, that observes living things from a distance, can conceivably formulate something like Darwinian evolution.)
Alternatively, I begin with the premise (which I regard as very strong) that consciousness in living things cannot be logically deduced from external observation of behavior alone. Yet Darwinian evolution follows (in principle) from external observation of life alone.
2. Therefore, consciousness seems extraneous in the purely Darwinian view of life.
3. But consciousness clearly exists.
4. Therefore, the Darwinian-evolutionary view of life becomes less plausible.
This is more of a plausibility argument than a logically airtight argument, which is the only kind possible in the absence of complete information.
|
On September 14 2009 17:32 JacobDaKung wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
I'm not going to get involved in the detailed discussion about Evolution, because I know it's not gonna get anywhere. However I'd like to point out that contrary to popular belief Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and whilst it's a probable and convincing theory, it has its share of flaws and loopholes. I personally don't believe in Darwin's theory, not necessarily because I'm a Christian, but because it does not explain the origin of matters, and they seem to confuse variation with mutation. This is a straw man, theory > fact in scientific meaning of the words. Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
The natural selection is the process of DNA mutating on a rare occasions so it strengthens a creature's ability to survive, which lead to increasing the chance of reproduction. That is evolution's only way to making new creatures. The car engine itself does not run simply by process of cylinder pistons moving up and down, it requires Ignition system, spark, Compression, fuel system, Carburetor and fuel pump etc.
1st Blatantly false, natural selection is the force that makes certain traits more probible to reproduce. Those traits may be results from mutations or differenent climate conditions etc. 2nd The anology with a enigne is a straw man because the enigne cant reproduce. Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
When you talk about living creatures, You don't understand the nature of irreducibly complex biological systems. It's about million times more complicated than of a car engine, parts of living creatures are consisted of intricate components with connecting parts that is co-linked together essential for the operation, controlled by many genes that have to act in logical sequence. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, This means all the right mutations must happen at the same time by pure chance. If you look at systems such as in cell organelles, removal of one element will cause the whole system to cease functioning. The chance of that happening is less than Lulker mutating into Zealot, less than 1 in billions.
Irriducible complex in its most miss used form is straw man, how ever so far no traits has been shown to be irriducible complex. Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
That's your opinion(based on faulty logic and wrong definitions), before making such statements please get some education on what evolution is and how it works.
On September 14 2009 17:32 JacobDaKung wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
I'm not going to get involved in the detailed discussion about Evolution, because I know it's not gonna get anywhere. However I'd like to point out that contrary to popular belief Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and whilst it's a probable and convincing theory, it has its share of flaws and loopholes. I personally don't believe in Darwin's theory, not necessarily because I'm a Christian, but because it does not explain the origin of matters, and they seem to confuse variation with mutation. This is a straw man, theory > fact in scientific meaning of the words. Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
The natural selection is the process of DNA mutating on a rare occasions so it strengthens a creature's ability to survive, which lead to increasing the chance of reproduction. That is evolution's only way to making new creatures. The car engine itself does not run simply by process of cylinder pistons moving up and down, it requires Ignition system, spark, Compression, fuel system, Carburetor and fuel pump etc.
1st Blatantly false, natural selection is the force that makes certain traits more probible to reproduce. Those traits may be results from mutations or differenent climate conditions etc. 2nd The anology with a enigne is a straw man because the enigne cant reproduce. Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
When you talk about living creatures, You don't understand the nature of irreducibly complex biological systems. It's about million times more complicated than of a car engine, parts of living creatures are consisted of intricate components with connecting parts that is co-linked together essential for the operation, controlled by many genes that have to act in logical sequence. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, This means all the right mutations must happen at the same time by pure chance. If you look at systems such as in cell organelles, removal of one element will cause the whole system to cease functioning. The chance of that happening is less than Lulker mutating into Zealot, less than 1 in billions.
Irriducible complex in its most miss used form is straw man, how ever so far no traits has been shown to be irriducible complex. Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote:
Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
That's your opinion(based on faulty logic and wrong definitions), before making such statements please get some education on what evolution is and how it works.
I won't go into the debate, but how is my definition incorrect? You are the one who needs education on this matter.
Natural selection is [quote] 'the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population.'
If a new species is to have new features, this require new variations. In the modern version of Darwin’s theory, these come from DNA mutations.
The rate of mutation is central to evolution. Mutations are required for adaptation, and most mutations with phenotypic effects are harmful. hence why they're eliminated through natural selection.
Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities. If you calculate this, one in 107 x 107, or 1014. A hundred trillion. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion. What would you get for 4 mutations? 5?
I used the car engine example not to draw any comparison to reproduction, but merely to demonstrate the complexity of the composition involved.
|
(to HnR)hT, 1tym sort of snuck in there while I was typing)
Evolution does not require consciousness, but it doesn't require lack of it either. Evolution allows for the perpetuation of extraneous phenomena so long as they are not detrimental. Even if we agree that this extra bit of neutral information loosens the evidence for evolution just a bit (again this is all debatable anyway), I don't think it approaches being an argument against evolution, even if we restrict ourselves to discussion of plausibility.
I suppose you might argue that consciousness could interfere with natural selection, but even then this only challenges evolution after the point consciousness arose. As you point out we can't identify consciousness as a third party, so we don't know exactly when this is, but I think most would agree that it didn't happen at least for the first billion years or so of life on Earth.
It's interesting, I was wondering the other day how much modern human life interferes with the concept of natural selection. I think to a significant extent it just involves a different set of criteria for fitness.
Night.
|
On September 14 2009 18:10 HnR)hT wrote:The utter fatigue is now growing stronger than the insomnia, so I'm going back to bed after submitting this. My consciousness argument, as spelled out in the robot analogy above and associated follow-up posts, is roughly like this (please note that this is a highly simplified form): 1. Darwinian evolution does not use the fact that living things have consciousness. (A robot that is completely unaware of consciousness, that observes living things from a distance, can conceivably formulate something like Darwinian evolution.) Alternatively, I begin with the premise (which I regard as very strong) that consciousness in living things cannot be logically deduced from external observation of behavior alone. Yet Darwinian evolution follows (in principle) from external observation of life alone. 2. Therefore, consciousness seems extraneous in the purely Darwinian view of life. 3. But consciousness clearly exists. 4. Therefore, the Darwinian-evolutionary view of life becomes less plausible. This is more of a plausibility argument than a logically airtight argument, which is the only kind possible in the absence of complete information.
^
"I begin with the premise that something I can't explain is happening because I don't understand...therefore I assert your theory is shaky without providing a suitable alternative hence confounding my position of ignorance."
You have to find a logical alternative to inform your understanding. Otherwise you're just failing to believe anything.
The problem with all of this is that religious people already have an alternative (even though it makes no sense at all). They perceive this alternative as truth and that shapes their perspective of everything else.
In truth of course Evolution is a MUCH MUCH better explanation of why the world is like it is than anything else. There is NO decent alternative.
|
Im not even going to say anything.
Well okay, maybe the movie is just so bad?
|
Holy shit you can't be serious.
Any movie with sex, violence, drugs, or some radical political ideology is ok for general release, but film about a scientist is not? Hell, this isn't even about some highly controversial theory like those people who insist that current climate change is not severe. This is about a guy whose theories are accepted in every higher institute of learning, even across America.
Also, do any of these movie distributors not realize that 40% of the market share is still pretty big, especially considering that many seem to be reluctant to pick it up?
(I haven't had time to read the rest of the thread, so apologies for repeating anything)
|
On September 14 2009 18:21 1tym wrote:
. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities. If you calculate this, one in 107 x 107, or 1014. A hundred trillion. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion. What would you get for 4 mutations? 5?
Your assumptions are wrong, you are completely throwing out the natural selection aspect from you calculations. You don't have one organism with mutation x that need mutation y to progress. You have mutation x that gives advantage in natural environment, and with time will be in almost all members of the specie. Then most have mutation x, and mutation y have about the same chance to happen* as x had it is not
(chance of x) * (chance of y).
*mutation y can happen before most have x, it just gets more likely as more have x.
|
United States42695 Posts
1tym, evolution of species can be simulated by putting the known information into a program and telling it to extrapolate forwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
