Mathematics, common sense and the origin of man.

On top of this there's things like Boltzmann Brains which are randomly occurring arrangements of particles that happen in space, are conscious beings and don't require planets, habitats, food or anything like that and are far more likely to outnumber Earthlike planet based lifeforms as a Universe gets older: theratchet.ca...

Ooo, i like this idea. Reminds me a little of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose's theory of units of conciousness. That rather than a concious observer collapsing a wavefunction and fixing quantum states is instead wavefunctions collapsing spontaneously to CREATE moments of conciousness. The brain is then a collection of molecules able to make these moments coherent with each other.

This could also mean that conciousness is arising all the time within this universe, within stars and dynamic systems and conciousness then becomes the nature of 'things'. Coherent conciousness however needs to arise through the evolution of brains (and similar structures).

reply to post by Helious


Right mathematics, (along with common sense) rules out life creation by accident and the macro-evolution process. The mathematical impossibilities of life forming on its own, let alone a life permitting universe and planet, are beyond belief, yet the evolution believer claims this to be true by randomness. They don't talk about this in schools because the only alternative is admitting to God, and Bible, and Creation as being true, and they will never admit this. No matter how absurd the idea, and how oppose to real science, as long as it isn't God, its ok with the main stream secular view.
They will go to great lengths to deny God and his creation even if it is blatantly obvious.

Kaboose
reply to post by Helious

 

Right mathematics, (along with common sense) rules out life creation by accident and the macro-evolution process. The mathematical impossibilities of life forming on its own, let alone a life permitting universe and planet, are beyond belief, yet the evolution believer claims this to be true by randomness. They don't talk about this in schools because the only alternative is admitting to God, and Bible, and Creation as being true, and they will never admit this. No matter how absurd the idea, and how oppose to real science, as long as it isn't God, its ok with the main stream secular view.
They will go to great lengths to deny God and his creation even if it is blatantly obvious.

edit on 28-9-2013 by Kaboose because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2013 by Kaboose because: (no reason given)

Right mathematics, (along with common sense) rules out GOD creation by accident and the MIRACLES OF THE BIBLE. The mathematical impossibilities of GOD forming on its own, let alone a GOD permitting universe and planet, are beyond belief, yet the RELIGIOUS believer claims this to be true by some weird miracle, best not asktoo much though. They don't talk about this in CHURCH because the only alternative is admitting to SCIENCE as being true, and they will never admit this. No matter how absurd the idea, and how oppose to RELIGION, as long as it isn't SCIENCE, its ok with the main stream RELIGIOUS view.
They will go to great lengths to deny SCIENCE and POTENTIAL even if it is blatantly obvious.


Sorry, couldnt resist

reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly


The problem with all that is it's nonsense. The human brain isn't at, or near, absolute zero so the models they try to apply/create have no basis in reality. There's also the problem that evolving quantum mech would be far, far, far more complicated than chemical/electrical-based memories - plus it'd be in entirely the wrong environment for any evolutionary process in this area to even begin (as the brain isn't at absolute zero) let alone develop something as complex as the human brain's memory storage.

reply to post by Kaboose


You just failed all of maths (and common sense).

Ask yourself this. You have a dice/die
1) What are the chances of rolling a six with one roll?
2) What are the chances of rolling a six with one hundred rolls?

Hope you now see where you went wrong.

reply to post by bastion


With respect, I'm not sure you've fully grasped what he is saying, quantum fluctuations are the nature of measurable energy, (irrespective of temperature, absolute zero would stop fluctuations) it's a matter of holding several fluctuations together. Memory storage is a different matter (if you'll excuse the pun ) Actual conciousness (or the actual collapse) is seen as immediate, only existing in the moment.

I tried to watch the video in the OP.

I gave it my best shot, but after twenty minutes of watching all I could focus on was seeing that man's constant non stop 50 mph hand gestures front and center and everything else was a blur, including his voice. Too bad, it might have been an interesting video.

Having ignored all the so called brainiacs and such, I am responding to the original premise.
Mathematics as a tool to consider probability is either proved to be true (within our understanding of such) on this idea or breaks down in the face of fact: We exist, therefore the question makes no real sense.

Whatever the odds may have been when considering the possibility, the fact that we exist renders such an idea redundant.

Kaboose
Right mathematics, (along with common sense) rules out life creation by accident and the macro-evolution process.

If anything, mathematics, empirical evidence, and common sense rule out life creation by some supernatural agent.

reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly


True. I saw quantum, neuro and Pearson and jumped to the conclusion he was talking about memory storage/retrieval without watching the vid.

However, the point still stands though, nature shows us that simplest is best. The brain working in the way he describes is vastly 'over-engineered' (for want of a better phrase as I'm not a creationist nut) so unlikely to occur. There's also the problem that both quantum mech and the brain are in their infancy so it's far too early to assert this model as true. It's not a random stab in the dark, but it's not much better, it could be true but then again so could thousands of other explanations, so probability is this one is wrong (but non the less interesting and I'm sure research in this area will come up with hundreds of new and exciting theories, inventions etc.. in the effort to test the theory).

Until understanding in both these fields are improved then it's safest to stick with the current Scientific opinion that he's wrong.

reply to post by Helious


Im just saying this Creation does Come from something that Came from Evolution

but as this World brings out Life ! from a Cycle !! to Recycle ...


Some Entity Divinity has Cause Something

when you disbelief of something like a Civ type 3 or 2 aka Known as Gods! to Some ...

That Helped this BIO BALL

From Camouflage on Animals

To meat eating plants

to Tails on Hoofed Animals that sole Purpose to Swat Fly's ! ????


New Constant Species Specially that pop up out of no where
in place that has been observed for decades !

The Question of God / Divinity is !

What you ( us humans ) Eat is mostly Hand Held Fruit and Vegetables ( Naturally)

Now what Purpose of Plants having this to Feed Us !!

but the Biggest Question is How can the Cells of an Animal learn to Adapt to its Surroundings of Survival
and imbed this Adaption within the DNA Code !! without help within it self...

like for example How can The Stripes on a Tiger or plain tannish color of a Lion Blends in Plains Fields of Africa or India Russia so Easily as the stripes blend in the Flora!! of the Fields just on of Many !! On A Mammal Well can Science Explain that ??


Something Out there that is Helping Spiritual Divinity

Helious
Greetings,

First, let me apologize in advance for some of my shortcomings in the very specific science that is associated with evolution. I am not a grad student at the top of my class in biological science but I do possess a very healthy knowledge of the subject matter.

Very simply, what I would like to know is if anyone here on ATS that is promoting evolution as the means for which the human species is in existence on this planet knows the mathematical odds of that happening. Further, if they do have those statistics, do they further understand the mathematical odds that would be necessary for the creation of our universe through the big bang and subsequently responsible for the physics necessary for life to even be possible to evolve.

Entropy is tricky, how exactly do those who insist on the big bang and evolution explain away the impossible numbers that the math seems to dictate happened to achieve those scenarios?

Physics and Chemistry are not random. There is some randomness in the evolutionary process; however, statistical probability is based on complete randomness and evolution in particular does not qualify. So the numbers mean absolutely nothing.

Wolfenz
to Tails on Hoofed Animals that sole Purpose to Swat Fly's ! ????

Thanks! That's the funniest thing I've read this year! Well done.

TerraLiga

Wolfenz
to Tails on Hoofed Animals that sole Purpose to Swat Fly's ! ????

Thanks! That's the funniest thing I've read this year! Well done.

Really !! lol thanks !!

tell me why then the purpose ?? The Tails are Not for Balance that for sure ... Right !!!

Tail (horse)
en.wikipedia.org...(horse)

The tail is used by the horse and other equidae to keep away biting insects, and the position and movement of the tail may provide clues to the animal's physical or emotional state.

Still Laughing ????

Helious
Greetings,

Very simply, what I would like to know is if anyone here on ATS that is promoting evolution as the means for which the human species is in existence on this planet knows the mathematical odds of that happening.

Greetings to you too.

Going by the fact that it obviously did happen and after a quick look around just to double check that we are really here (and this wasn't a trick question), seems to indicate a 100% certainty in this particular instance, with an error factor of +/- 0%.

Not sure what the odds would be within such a species of developing an imagination unbridled enough to give a fervent belief in a magical sky fairy though? That must be far less.

Wolfenz

TerraLiga

Wolfenz
to Tails on Hoofed Animals that sole Purpose to Swat Fly's ! ????

Thanks! That's the funniest thing I've read this year! Well done.

Really !! lol thanks !!

tell me why then the purpose ?? The Tails are Not for Balance that for sure ... Right !!!

Tail (horse)
en.wikipedia.org...(horse)

The tail is used by the horse and other equidae to keep away biting insects, and the position and movement of the tail may provide clues to the animal's physical or emotional state.

Still Laughing ????

Yes, absolutely I'm still laughing – at you. You originally suggested that the tail was 'invented' or 'designed' to brush away flies, and that was its sole purpose. This is a USE for a tail, not the reason it is there in the first place. Check out a human embryo – it has a tail too but there are no flies in the womb. Definitely still laughing. Haha! Thanks again.

TerraLiga

Wolfenz

TerraLiga

Wolfenz
to Tails on Hoofed Animals that sole Purpose to Swat Fly's ! ????

Thanks! That's the funniest thing I've read this year! Well done.

Really !! lol thanks !!

tell me why then the purpose ?? The Tails are Not for Balance that for sure ... Right !!!

Tail (horse)
en.wikipedia.org...(horse)

The tail is used by the horse and other equidae to keep away biting insects, and the position and movement of the tail may provide clues to the animal's physical or emotional state.

Still Laughing ????

Yes, absolutely I'm still laughing – at you. You originally suggested that the tail was 'invented' or 'designed' to brush away flies, and that was its sole purpose. This is a USE for a tail, not the reason it is there in the first place. Check out a human embryo – it has a tail too but there are no flies in the womb. Definitely still laughing. Haha! Thanks again.

LOL!!

yes we have development of tails but is halted stopped by certain chemical makeup that seizes in certain mammal

you know that Birds would have teeth too in the same process !

Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken


please explain to me a horse stub of a tail that has long thick hair then and what other use that it has
besides Keeping away insects and for Emotional State ...

Hmm I Wonder Why about the horses tail ! ! Sound Like a Purpose for Insects !!

HHHHMMM Evolution Creation both ?

Equissearch
www.equisearch.com...

On the exterior, the skin and hair of the tail actually are enhanced versions of the horse's fuzzy hide. For instance, at the point where the tail attaches to the buttocks, the skin is five-eighths of an inch thick--as much as a half-inch thicker than it is anywhere else on the horse. Thicker and coarser than any body hair, the strands of the tail are made entirely of hardened (keratinized) protein. A typical tail hair consists of three layers; an inner core (medulla); the middle cortex layer comprised of long, twisted protein strands; and a thin protective outer covering known as the cuticle. Through it appears smooth, the cuticle actually is made of overlapping horny scales.

by the Way I Owned a Horse ... a Mustang paint mix

bastion
reply to post by TerraLiga

 

Good points. i wasn't trying to claim it was perfect, just the closest model I'm aware of (personally don't like the original due to assumptions made). I thought the more recent revisions took into account the latter factors though.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

 

Please stop spouting utter drivel and read some books on this topic. No offence but you can't even get the basic terminology correct and that's before adding spiritual/religious claptrap into the mix. You're cheating yourself and others you preach to out of subject matter that is incredibly interesting and useful.

Helious
The big bang, best guess. String theory, best guess. Dark matter, best guess. The list goes on and on but I understand that your argument will be that science can't explain everything at any given time, it can only take the data it has and make the most logical path to the solution to form the accepted theory and I get it and that's fine. The thing is though, sometimes those accepted theories are no more a leap of faith than that of most "creationists".

Not quite. The key difference between the two is BB, ST, DM all have mountains of evidence to support them and nothing concrete to dismiss them, every prediction these models have made have so far fitted into new discoveries - It's still a guess, but it's a highly educated one.

Whereas a creationists leap of faith is based on no evidence whatsoever.

For a theory to be accepted all evidence must support it, it must be reproducible, make testable predictions that subsequent investigations prove right - otherwise it's thrown out/no longer accepted.

From my perspective it's incredibly frustrating because those that fit into the creationists camp are claiming something to be true simply 'because x told me' instead of learning about nature, the sciences, the theories (which are far more beautiful, interesting and intricate than any supernatural explanation) and trying to add to this wealth of knowledge.

edit on 27-9-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

Core samples from the ocean floor containing aeons of marine fossils have been studied.

Darwin proposed that future researchers study the fossil records for evidence of evolution. The fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appear and disappear abruptly and do not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. There is no evidence of gradual change between species. The evidence of the fossil record strongly supports creationism.

leostokes

Core samples from the ocean floor containing aeons of marine fossils have been studied.

Darwin proposed that future researchers study the fossil records for evidence of evolution. The fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appear and disappear abruptly and do not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. There is no evidence of gradual change between species. The evidence of the fossil record strongly supports creationism.

The fossil record can be used to study morphological changes over time. It does not support creationism.

Cypress

leostokes

Core samples from the ocean floor containing aeons of marine fossils have been studied.

Darwin proposed that future researchers study the fossil records for evidence of evolution. The fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appear and disappear abruptly and do not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. There is no evidence of gradual change between species. The evidence of the fossil record strongly supports creationism.

The fossil record can be used to study morphological changes over time. It does not support creationism.

Morphological changes do not define new species.

leostokes


Morphological changes do not define new species.

Morphological changes are evidence for evolution whether you want to acknowledge it or not (technically, morphological differences do add to the definition of new species and is the prime indicator differentiating extinct species). Predictions can be made by studying fossils between different eras as well as living species, and determining changes that would be expected to be seen in fossils that would be an intermediary between the two. We can examine what changes are found. Its not a hard concept.