Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is an argument for probability, and unlike the creationist argument in several key aspects.
The creationist points out that the development of life on earth is very unlikely, and in this they are absolutely correct. The chance of life developing on earth is infinitesimal. So why would I be comfortable with the idea that we beat such absurd odds against our existence? Because there is something on the general order of 10000000000000000000000 stars in the known universe (give or take a few orders of magnitude) and almost certainly more beyond our cosmic horizon. For all we know the universe could be infinite, which makes even the most unlikely event inevitable. So perhaps the chance of life evolving somewhere is quite high...and this must be the rare place that it happened, because here we are. But your hypothesis requires that this unlikely event occur not somewhere among a sextillion (or so) stars, but two or more times in the exact same place.
But creationists do more than simply ignore the number of trials we have for our unlikely outcome, they substitute a scenario that is more unlikely (the existence of an all-powerful creator) or at very least a scenario who's odds cannot be calculated. I, however, can substitute a more likely scenario (a single source of life) for your less likely scenario (multiple points of genisis on the same planet). Is your scenario less likely? It MUST be, and by a lot. Why? Because whatever odds you assign to the development of life, the odds of multiple developments must be exponentially smaller. Even if you thought that life was relatively likely...say 1 in 1,000,000...that makes the development of life on earth at three different locations 1 in 10000000000000000000. Then you can start factoring in the odds of convergence, which I could not even guess at.
Further, creationist arguments go against genetic and fossil evidence...rather like your hypothesis...while mine is in accord with it. There is no evidence of multiple convergent evolutionary tracks. Your best argument against this is that the fossil record is incomplete, and you're accusing me of sounding like a creationist?
To be honest, I'm struggling to understand how you could possibly believe that life began in more than one place on earth, setting off multiple evolutionary paths that somehow lead to the exact same place. It is more than impossibly unlikely...it is many, many orders of magnitude less likely than a single point of genisis. Heck, if yours was the prevailing opinion of evolutionists, I might just become a creationist myself...
It is an argument for probability, and unlike the creationist argument in several key aspects.
The creationist points out that the development of life on earth is very unlikely, and in this they are absolutely correct. The chance of life developing on earth is infinitesimal. So why would I be comfortable with the idea that we beat such absurd odds against our existence? Because there is something on the general order of 10000000000000000000000 stars in the known universe (give or take a few orders of magnitude) and almost certainly more beyond our cosmic horizon. For all we know the universe could be infinite, which makes even the most unlikely event inevitable. So perhaps the chance of life evolving somewhere is quite high...and this must be the rare place that it happened, because here we are. But your hypothesis requires that this unlikely event occur not somewhere among a sextillion (or so) stars, but two or more times in the exact same place.
But creationists do more than simply ignore the number of trials we have for our unlikely outcome, they substitute a scenario that is more unlikely (the existence of an all-powerful creator) or at very least a scenario who's odds cannot be calculated. I, however, can substitute a more likely scenario (a single source of life) for your less likely scenario (multiple points of genisis on the same planet). Is your scenario less likely? It MUST be, and by a lot. Why? Because whatever odds you assign to the development of life, the odds of multiple developments must be exponentially smaller. Even if you thought that life was relatively likely...say 1 in 1,000,000...that makes the development of life on earth at three different locations 1 in 10000000000000000000. Then you can start factoring in the odds of convergence, which I could not even guess at.
Further, creationist arguments go against genetic and fossil evidence...rather like your hypothesis...while mine is in accord with it. There is no evidence of multiple convergent evolutionary tracks. Your best argument against this is that the fossil record is incomplete, and you're accusing me of sounding like a creationist?
To be honest, I'm struggling to understand how you could possibly believe that life began in more than one place on earth, setting off multiple evolutionary paths that somehow lead to the exact same place. It is more than impossibly unlikely...it is many, many orders of magnitude less likely than a single point of genisis. Heck, if yours was the prevailing opinion of evolutionists, I might just become a creationist myself...
Thanks.
Excellent post Hyker. Can't offer you any reps so please accept a thumbs up instead
Actually, I DO feel a little better, although not because I feel superior or intellectual if that's what you're implying.
It makes me think of New York City. If on some evening you stand across the Hudson River in New Jersey (where I was born) and look out at Manhatten, it is just so many glittering lights. It looks very beautiful and almost serene. Pictures of Times Square or Central Park taken from carefully selected angles make it look rather organized, with every pedestrian held in place forever by the camera.
But it's only when you're really there...really walking down Broadway or through Greenwich Villiage that you get a sense of what New York City is about. People are bumping into each other, or swerving at the last moment to avoid collisions. The smell of the pizzeria on the corner mingles with aroma of the Thai restaurant next store and the odor of garbage bags piled up at the curb. There are homeless people asking you for spare change and street-corner preachers shouting through megaphones. New York City is noisy; it's chaotic.
My point? Scientific investigation is similar. Many of the non-religious or "liberal religious" folks on this board tout science as a means of understanding the world and the nature of existence. But when you're only reading about well-established concepts in books or watching scientific television programs in which theories are painstakingly simplified, it's like looking at New York from a distance. The scientific process seems very organized and harmonious. But that's not reality. Research involves a lot conjecture, some of which turns out to be based on coincidence or personal bias. There are contradictions and arguments and occasional inexplicable anomalies that arise from malfunctioning equipment or poorly designed experiments. Did I mention arguments? There are lots of arguments.
The scientific method is designed to weed out weak hypotheses, bias, anomalies, and coincidences to create a harmonious picture...but it's a messy process.
So this exchange has been like a tiny model of how the system works in reality. Hypothesis presented, counter argument presented, hypothesis defended, additional evidence brought into consideration, hypothesis rejected. That's how it's supposed to work. It's not pretty, but at the end of the day it gets the job done.
So yes, I feel a little better that we were able to go through this exercise together.
....but at the end of the day it gets the job done.
Not really bud. What pissed me off about your diatribe was the false accusation levied at me in your first reply. I clearly stated it was MY OPINION and I had nada to back it up. Sometimes musings can lead to a great dialogue however I see you are locked into the "preferred model" which I am not.
Perhaps it is an American thing? This side of the pond where most if not all of us had a strong Brit influence in our education, we simply do NOT accept the offerings of men in white coats and nerd glasses; we kinda got brownie points for orating our POV, showing that we are NOT mere conformists.
The concept of your idea of common origins, IOW, same pond slime -> diversity of human race leaves little to the imagination and IMO is little different to the biblical A&E scenario.
I have experience with misinformed Americans as to what it is like here in SA and Africa. One Texan contractor "expected" to see giraffes in the fields alongside the freeway after we picked him up from the airport; we did eventually take him to Kruger park and he got to see the big five.
That said, even the OOA model lends more credence to distant origins than what creationists have to offer. It is MY OPINION that many still seek a simple sound byte explanation even after deconversion; sadly life is a tad more complex than that - it also leads me to believe that folk buy into the pangea model expressed by creationists as a way to make their fludd myth plausible.
The way I see it, global conditions millennia ago would have statistically created the same ideal conditions and as time marched forward, cosmic global influences may or may not have had similar effects on evolution. The migration model north, only has credence when Neanderthals are included in the mix. Last time I looked, there were 3 species interbreeding to get us to where we are.
You really did not elucidate the statistical improbability of multiple origins. Based on known genetic constraints, we know single pairs cannot propagate a species. Knowing this factoid, we need to examine IMO the possibility of more parallel paths. Yes it is complex and yet it would explain the diversity. What really made us evolve from say a critter laying eggs to a mammal? Do we really have concrete answers OR are we simply exchanging one idea for another.
DNA opened up a whole new science and we are only scratching the surface. Yet we already utilise this for paternity tests and criminal forensic data amongst other things.
I also do NOT fact check everything, we all have a confirmation bias working in one way or another.
Not really bud. What pissed me off about your diatribe was the false accusation levied at me in your first reply. I clearly stated it was MY OPINION and I had nada to back it up. Sometimes musings can lead to a great dialogue however I see you are locked into the "preferred model" which I am not.
Perhaps it is an American thing? This side of the pond where most if not all of us had a strong Brit influence in our education, we simply do NOT accept the offerings of men in white coats and nerd glasses; we kinda got brownie points for orating our POV, showing that we are NOT mere conformists.
Hello again SeekerSA.
Well, so much for being gracious, I suppose.
There is a difference between bucking "conformity" and talking nonsense...and that's why you have "nada" to back up your "opinion," because there is nothing to support it. What should that tell you? Remember this exchange next time you're ripping on someone for believing in the Garden of Eden or a world-wide flood. Are they not also simply expressing an opinion? Yet you have no problem tearing into their god-belief.
You say you wanted "dialogue"...well that's what I offered you, starting with an explanation of why your hypothesis is deeply flawed. Is that not "dialogue?" But all you did was dig in your heels and take backhanded shots at me by saying my mind was blocked and I am "locked in." You didn't want dialogue, you wanted agreement. You wanted everyone to accept your hypothesis as a valid possibility even if everything we know goes against it.
Even if multiple points of genesis explained genetic diversity (and no one thinks we need it to) it creates a problem many times greater for explaining genetic similarity.
You didn't just offer your "opinion." Like a creationist, you posited a falsifiable hypothesis. I've explained why all of the evidence works against you. I'm sorry that this upsets you. Is it an "American thing" that I feel the need to present evidence that contradicts a nonsensical hypothesis? I don't know...maybe, but I've seen a Brit or two on this board arguing against untenable hypotheses, so maybe not.
Excellent post Hyker. Can't offer you any reps so please accept a thumbs up instead
Hello Cruithne.
Thanks for the kind words. I will say that when it comes to scientific matters, you are one of a relatively small group on this board whom I find highly reputable.
There is a difference between bucking "conformity" and talking nonsense...and that's why you have "nada" to back up your "opinion," because there is nothing to support it. What should that tell you? Remember this exchange next time you're ripping on someone for believing in the Garden of Eden or a world-wide flood. Are they not also simply expressing an opinion? Yet you have no problem tearing into their god-belief.
Seems like you are more of a judgemental pratt to me. All of my objections to the GoE and fludd myth has been backed by multiple scientific observations that repudiate their claims.
Quote:
You say you wanted "dialogue"...well that's what I offered you, starting with an explanation of why your hypothesis is deeply flawed. Is that not "dialogue?" But all you did was dig in your heels and take backhanded shots at me by saying my mind was blocked and I am "locked in." You didn't want dialogue, you wanted agreement. You wanted everyone to accept your hypothesis as a valid possibility even if everything we know goes against it.
All you offered was a statement that it was statistically impossible. When asked why you offered no sound explanation. I personally do not think you are able to.
Quote:
Even if multiple points of genesis explained genetic diversity (and no one thinks we need it to) it creates a problem many times greater for explaining genetic similarity.
Again WHY? Why does it NEED to originate from one point of origin? This is my primary objection to the OOA or OOAus models or OOanywhere models. All I see is an exchange of the A&E idea for a more secular version of the self same concept.
Quote:
You didn't just offer your "opinion." Like a creationist, you posited a falsifiable hypothesis. I've explained why all of the evidence works against you. I'm sorry that this upsets you. Is it an "American thing" that I feel the need to present evidence that contradicts a nonsensical hypothesis? I don't know...maybe, but I've seen a Brit or two on this board arguing against untenable hypotheses, so maybe not.
I hardly call what I think happened a hypothesis.
You have failed to convince me or anyone else that the OOA model is sound science, it is popular yes, but that IMO is all it has going for it.
Do you really believe science has it all figured out in a mere 40-50 years since we started studying and using DNA? I don't.
The mDNA/RNA project ignores a lot of questions concerning diversity. It IMO gets a lot right but ignores subtle questions regarding diversity. I am not looking to get published so I do not post here using the wonderful internet to back up salient points I try and make, I have enough of a scientific background to do this on the fly.
Bear in mind, "statistically" most of the global population are theists. Does that make them right?
My but we have a lot of ground to cover based on your last post...
Quote:
You really think you a "gracious"?
I do not think I was being "a gracious," but I do believe that I was behaving graciously. Certainly I opposed your hypothesis but I don't think I was overly aggressive about it, nor did I resort to any personal insults as you have done on several occasions throughout this exchange. In post #25 I even attempted to give you a fairly respectable way out of the debate, which you chose to decline. All of that said, if you have a specific complaint regarding anything I wrote prior to this quote, I am certainly willing to hear you out.
Quote:
Seems like you are more of a judgemental pratt to me.
There you go again with the personal insults. How unfortunate.
Quote:
All of my objections to the GoE and fludd myth has been backed by multiple scientific observations that repudiate their claims.
All you offered was a statement that it was statistically impossible. When asked why you offered no sound explanation. I personally do not think you are able to.
Of course you are going to think me unable to make an argument if you keep ignoring it. I can only type the words. Nonetheless, I'll go over it one more time...
1. The odds of life developing are low - I cannot (nor can anyone) say exactly how low, because in order to determine this experimentally we would need to observe the number of successful trials and compare that to the total number of trials. The problem of course is that except for the single successful trial that our existence implies, we have never observed a single successful trial. So I have no hard numbers on this, but I think it's pretty safe to conclude that something is unlikely based on the fact that you've never observed it, even when you were trying to make it happen (e.g. in a laboratory).
2. The odds of an event occurring multiple times must always be lower than the odds of it occurring once - This is not my opinion; it is not an hypothesis. It is pretty much as close as one can get to an undisputable mathematical fact. Unless you want to deny the entire field of probability, you have to accept this.
3. There is no evidence for multiple points of genesis - I'm going to go into this point in a little more detail, as I feel it is important to appreciate the implications. Comparative anatomy and comparative genomics are critical supports for the Theory of Evolution. Why? Because they imply common ancestry. The entire Theory of Evolution is based on common ancestry. You might want to take a moment to ponder this. Your hypothesis, at it's core, denies common ancestry, at least in a limited fashion. Which is to say, as evolutionary biologists work to build up the phenogenetic "tree of life," you want to separate parts out and plant them independently. Which parts you have not specified, but that's almost beside the point.
4. There is no evidence for parallel evolutionary tracks - This is closely related, but not exactly the same as point #3. Because if there were separate evolutionary tracks, we would expect to see evidence of this anatomically or genetically. Organisms should fall into two or more "types" depending on their point of genesis. We don't see that. Ironically, if we did see this, it could also be interpreted as supporting biblical "kinds." Fortunately we can avoid that controversy because there is no evidence for it.
5. Convergent evolution to the degree of accuracy required for interbreeding would be unbelievably unlikely, particularly assuming entirely different points of origin - Again I have no hard numbers since we cannot observe the convergence of species from different points of origin, largely because to our knowledge they don't exist. Nonetheless, what we do see is that organisms that diverged early in the evolutionary path are unable to interbreed and those that diverged recently are able to interbreed (e.g. your example of the great cats). So what would make you think that products from entirely different evolutionary starting points could possibly converge to the point of interbreeding? It doesn't even happen when we have the same but distant point of origin.
Quote:
Again WHY? Why does it NEED to originate from one point of origin? This is my primary objection to the OOA or OOAus models or OOanywhere models.
See above. Why you chose to ignore the same anatomical and genetic information now that you would use to support evolution on another occasion I do not know...
Quote:
All I see is an exchange of the A&E idea for a more secular version of the self same concept.
I don't see that at all. Divergence from a single point of origin and evolution (even with some small amount of convergence in the process) is nothing like a pair of fully-grown adults made out of dirt.
Quote:
I hardly call what I think happened a hypothesis.
I think it fits the definition...
hy·poth·e·sis
hīˈpäTHəsis/ noun
noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Quote:
You have failed to convince me or anyone else that the OOA model is sound science, it is popular yes, but that IMO is all it has going for it.
First of all, I am not arguing for OOA except insofar as it is our leading hypothesis at this time (see post #3). I am mainly arguing against your "multiple points of genesis" hypothesis.
Also...I have failed to convince you or anyone else? On what basis do you make that assertion? Clearly I have failed to convince you, but anyone else? I don't know if I've convinced anyone, but certainly there are folks who agree with me. My posts have been getting repped...other folks on the board have posted in support of my argument...so let's try to avoid speaking for "anyone else," shall we? Thanks.
Quote:
Do you really believe science has it all figured out in a mere 40-50 years since we started studying and using DNA? I don't.
Nice straw man...because that's exactly what I said, correct? I said that science has everything figured out. Except what I actually said in post #3 was...
Quote:
Human origin is a complex puzzle. Out-Of-Africa was, as hypothesies [sic] are, a best-guess. This article presents a different best-guess and makes an argument for its strengths and the competing theory's weaknesses. I can just about guarantee you that neither theory is the "final answer"...there are still too many unknowns.
Go ahead...look back and you'll see it right there in post #3.
That said, we don't need to have everything figured out in order to recognize and refute untenable hypotheses.
Quote:
The mDNA/RNA project ignores a lot of questions concerning diversity. It IMO gets a lot right but ignores subtle questions regarding diversity. I am not looking to get published so I do not post here using the wonderful internet to back up salient points I try and make, I have enough of a scientific background to do this on the fly.
Yes, there are many questions still unanswered. That doesn't make your hypothesis any more reasonable. As for showing off your "scientific background," I'm going to pass on commenting.
Quote:
Bear in mind, "statistically" most of the global population are theists. Does that make them right?
Are you being intentionally obtuse here, or do you really not see the difference between employing probability and making an argumentum ad populum? All the world can believe that a coin toss will come out heads, but the chances are still only 50/50.
Thanks.
Last edited by Hyker; 07-03-2014 at 05:09 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
