Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Also the are plenty of single cells organisms and there and plenty of multicellular organisms but there are no two or three cell organisms, why not. If life started with a one cell organisms and they still exist surely they didn't just go straight to complex multicellular life. Surely they had to evolve into two and then three cells etc. Where are they now, why aren't single cell organisms still evolving into more complex two and three cell organisms. Logic tells you there should be multitudes of two cell life forms. Surely a logical mind would ask the question why not, where are they. It doesn't make sense in an evolutionary model of life does it.

Interested to hear your logic about those two evolutionary problems.

Why are there zebras but not the precursors to zebras? Why are there humans but not the proto-humans before them? Essentially because they change as a group and the previous versions become the newer versions.

What advantage does a 2 cell organism give that a single cell organism doesn't? Why then stop at 2 cells? Why not just go on until you reach a point where anymore is not adding any benefit?

I think in summary that a 1 cell organism is simple and doesn't derive any benefit from being a 2 cell organism, until at some point the multi-cell organism gains some benefit. I suspect that if you can double cells, then you can just keep adding them.

Does the mechanism that causes a single cell organism to double somehow magically stop at one or does it keep dividing until it can't anymore?

I don't think scientists know how life started, otherwise they would simulate it. I don't think scientists all believe in gods, and they definitely can't simulate that.

^^^ A quick question to Professor Google gets the answer that there are actual 2 cell organisms called Desmids that are a group among the cocci
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_cellular_morphologies#Diplococci
Diplococci are pairs of cocci. Examples of gram-negative diplococci are Neisseria spp. and Moraxella catarrhalis. Examples of gram-positive diplococci are Streptococcus pneumoniae and Enterococcus spp.[10][11] Presumably, diplococcus has been implicated in encephalitis lethargica.[12] The genus Neisseria belongs to the family Neisseriaceae. This genus, Neisseria, is divided into more than ten different species, but most of them are gram negative and coccoid. The gram-negative, coccoid species include: Neisseria cinerea, N. gonorrhoeae, N. polysaccharea, N. lactamica, N. meningitidis, N. mucosa, N. oralis and N. subflava. The most common of these species are the pathogenic N. meningitidis and N. gonorrhoeae.[13]The genus Moraxella belongs to the family Moraxellaceae. This genus, Moraxellaceae, comprises gram-negative coccobacilli bacteria: Moraxella lacunata, M. atlantae, M. boevrei, M. bovis, M. canis, M. caprae, M. caviae, M. cuniculi, M. equi, M. lincolnii, M. nonliquefaciens, M. osloensis, M. ovis, M. saccharolytica, and M. pluranimalium.[14] However, only one has a morphology of diplococcus, M. catarrhalis, a salient pathogen contributing to infections in the human body.[15]The species Streptococcus pneumoniae belongs to the genus Streptococcus and the family Streptococcaceae. The genus Streptococcus has around 129 species and 23 subspecies[16] that benefit many microbiomes on the human body. There are many species that show non-pathogenic characteristics; however, there are some, like S. pneumoniae, that exhibit pathogenic characteristics in the human body.[17][11]The genus Enterococcus belongs to the family Enterococcaceae. This genus is divided into 58 species and two subspecies.[18] These gram-positive, coccoid bacteria were once thought to be harmless to the human body. However, within the last ten years, there has been an influx of nosocomial pathogens originating from Enterococcus bacteria.[19][11]

Why not, if it happened in the mud a billion years ago why cant it happen now in a lab,

It hasn't happened yet, imagine assuming that we can easily replicate exactly what happened back then in a lab today?
How long have scientists been working on this? How big are the labs they're working in?

Then compare that to the entirety of a planet (or even only small portions) being available for this to occur over immense periods of time?

Apparently we're getting closer, with precursor molecules etc.
But if we manage it before the middle of the century, that would be so close to a miracle that I'd almost believe intelligent design was behind it!

Cool, I can google too, and to my surprise it helps me understand.

Taken from Quora:

"
So any multi-cellular life form with 2 cells or 5 cells or any other small number is very young and hasn't yet been able to grow larger than that. To my knowledge, there are no living things on Earth whose maximum adult size is 2 cells, or 5 cells, or any number less than about a thousand.

Being multi-cellular has both advantages and disadvantages, and the advantages only outweigh the disadvantages if your body has a thousand cells or more. Any organism with just a handful of cells sticking together is at a significant disadvantage compared to both single-celled organisms and larger organisms, and so it tries as hard as it can to eat and grow until it is large enough to be successful. And as far as we know, that threshold is about 1000 cells."


I think that answers why there are no (hardly any?) two celled organisms. I have no idea of the author's qualifications, but they're sure to be a lot better than mine, and they sound like they know what they are talking about.

Problem solved! (and to my surprise, my answer from before seems to be rite/wright/right)

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
...Therefore the author propose there is something other than random mutations driving the diversity of life. They propose intelligent designs.

19 minutes and 17 seconds of tosh is my critical take on it.

So many places to start.

Surely something intelligent enough to create life is less likely to occur than the lesser forms of life it designs ?

If their argument is life as we know it didn't simply 'just happen' as it is too statistcally unlikely, then how do they also propose something of a massively higher intelligence and capability did 'just happen' ? I guess the benefit of the way they frame the argument is that they don't have to.

They expect you to just believe God just is, that God just happened without the same analysis (no matter how flawed) they use to argue that complexity can't happen without something above it. So much like what holds up the tortoises supporting the flat earth, is it just Gods all the way up, no more questions required ?

Select to expand quote

I think that answers why there are no (hardly any?) two celled organisms...

Pretty sure there have been more than one seabreeze.com.au forum posters who have had less than five brain cells.

Is there only one God ?

Why isn't there two God, or five Gods. Or 1,000 Gods. Is it one or a thousand, but nothing inbetween ?

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..>> Why isn't there two God, or five Gods. Or 1,000 Gods. Is it one or a thousand, but nothing inbetween ?

Way to simplistic, forget about commonsense, reality isn't constrained by commonsense.

A "creation" implies that there was time before creation, but it appears spacetime started with the bigbang. so there was no time before creation.
If you can get your head around numbers before there was time, go for it.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

cammd said..
...Therefore the author propose there is something other than random mutations driving the diversity of life. They propose intelligent designs.

19 minutes and 17 seconds of tosh is my critical take on it.

So many places to start.

Surely something intelligent enough to create life is less likely to occur than the lesser forms of life it designs ?

If their argument is life as we know it didn't simply 'just happen' as it is too statistcally unlikely, then how do they also propose something of a massively higher intelligence and capability did 'just happen' ? I guess the benefit of the way they frame the argument is that they don't have to.

They expect you to just believe God just is, that God just happened without the same analysis (no matter how flawed) they use to argue that complexity can't happen without something above it. So much like what holds up the tortoises supporting the flat earth, is it just Gods all the way up, no more questions required ?

Demonstrating a mathematical problem with one theory doesn't automatically prove or disprove another.

The argument put forward is mathematical not religious. Sure the video proposes an intelligent design rather than random selection but the core of the argument is the maths doesnt support the theory of evolution in its current form . Your just ignoring that and doing the usual sky fairy argument.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

Carantoc said..>> Why isn't there two God, or five Gods. Or 1,000 Gods. Is it one or a thousand, but nothing inbetween ?

Way to simplistic, forget about commonsense, reality isn't constrained by commonsense.

A "creation" implies that there was time before creation, but it appears spacetime started with the bigbang. so there was no time before creation.
If you can get your head around numbers before there was time, go for it.

The Bible describes the big bang in the first 10 words

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)

Quite a coincidence that a book written thousands of years ago nailed the 3 requirements, as identified by modern science, needed for the origin of the universe to happen.

Not that much of a coincidence, all stories have to begin somewhere.
And definitely not accurate, as PCdefender will surely point out, there is no way the heavens, as described in the bible, can be considered equivalent to space.

But I like how you've brought it back to your own personal take on intelligent design immediately after having a go at Carantoc with your sky fairy comment.


I wonder, if these people in the video who did some maths (quite a lot over 14 years apparently) and concluded that the universe was wrong, whether they say which flavour of deity is responsible for this intelligent design?

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
The argument put forward is mathematical not religious.

The main argument put forward in the video is one for purchasing a book being spruiked and a club to join.

But besides that, the notion that the logic presented it is only about the maths is far from true. The maths is simply being used to argue another point.

If you want to isolate the maths of evolution fair enough, but your other comments do not support this.

Hence I'll repeat my assessment of the maths included, that it appears to be based on the probability of entire strings being assembled instantaenously from zero. The logic of this has been argued against, mainly by FN above. If it is not based on random events from scratch each time, could you provide some more info to clarify this ?

Although it seems only the maths is not the goal (either int he video or in the topic here), and so my next point :

It attributes traits from one entity to simplify and explain another, i.e. the use of digits in coding to equate to DNA sequences because that is the easy way to understand that concept of DNA. But, it then jumps to the logic that if DNA sequencing is like the string of digits in coding, then every other aspect of coding is also attributable to DNA and DNA sequencing can only be explained in terms of coding logic. I don't agree with this premise either.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

cammd said..
The argument put forward is mathematical not religious.

It attributes traits from one entity to simplify and explain another, i.e. the use of digits in coding to equate to DNA sequences because that is the easy way to understand that concept of DNA. But, it then jumps to the logic that if DNA sequencing is like the string of digits in coding, then every other aspect of coding is also attributable to DNA and DNA sequencing can only be explained in terms of coding logic. I don't agree with this premise either.

They argue the chemical or physical properties of the nucleotide bases that make up the genetic sequence are not important rather the sequence in which they are arranged are what's important, in the same way the sequence of 0's and 1s in code are what's important. Why do you disagree with that premise. Is it incorrect?

No, I agree with the base. But not how they then apply it.

The statistcal chance of getting the sequence might be 1 in 10^77 (I don't know but I suspect it is big). But the video appears to say that assumes the entire sequence is random. But as FN pointed out the evolution theory (or adaptation theory as it might more acurately be envisaged in the mind), is a building block approach. The whole doesn't build from scratch each time. Like the chance of rolling two sixes on two dice. 1 in 36 is correct maths. Yet 1 in 12 is also correct maths. Which is correct just depends how you frame the point being made and the conclusion you want reached. I may stand corrected and the 10^77 may be a lowest chance via a building block, but that isn't what the video implies their argument is to me, or that you have explained it is and why it is.

And their argument it is like code in being like a series of 0 and 1s makes sense. It is like computer code in being a very long sequence of a limited number of variables, as opposed to being a short sequence of large number of variables. But they don't show, or even claim, it is actually 0s and 1s, that the proteins are on or off. they say they are like 0 and 1, like on or off, like code in that one sense of long sequence, limited variables. But they then go straight to an extraoplation of that one analogy is thus an equivalence and also that this equivalence then applies to very other aspect related to coding. And to me that is not a logical step (or even two different, quite separate steps to merge into one) to take when one considers it critically and skeptically.

I see it as the same argument as PM33 saying a spirit level on the floor of a flying aeroplane is level, thus the world is flat. I agree with the first point, but not how it is then applied to the conclusion.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

decrepit said..

Carantoc said..>> Why isn't there two God, or five Gods. Or 1,000 Gods. Is it one or a thousand, but nothing inbetween ?

Way to simplistic, forget about commonsense, reality isn't constrained by commonsense.

A "creation" implies that there was time before creation, but it appears spacetime started with the bigbang. so there was no time before creation.
If you can get your head around numbers before there was time, go for it.

The Bible describes the big bang in the first 10 words

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)

Quite a coincidence that a book written thousands of years ago nailed the 3 requirements, as identified by modern science, needed for the origin of the universe to happen.

Well, I am pretty sure that the authors of the bible didn't put time/space/earth there in brackets. That's just your fixing up of it to match modern understanding of the universe.

Does it mention planets or other stars in the bible? Dinosaurs?

@carantoc


I am interested to hear why the video is unreasonable, I thought it was reasonable in its logic but its good to hear other arguments

In response to your first point above, I don't think they claim the quantified probability relates to the entire build, they said it is in relation to the random mutations needed to build a functional adaption from one protein of 150 amino acids. That is the profound problem they propose ie each evolutionary adaption needs that huge random search of mutations (statistically speaking) to occur for each of the trillions of functional adaptions over the earths history that are preserved by natural selection. So for each succesful random mutation there are trillions and trillions of failed mutations.

I am misunderstanding FN's point, he is suggesting, for example, a few extra bases on the end of an already successful protein reduces the number of searches/mutations required to make another functional adaption, built on the previous, therefore making more than enough time. He is assuming the molecular biologist didn't think of that when he did the maths, a big assumption.

Second point, I think the equivalence they make to code is limited to two aspects, the importance of the sequence of variables to convey instructions and the probability of random sequences being wrong is far greater than being right . In code its 1 and 0 in DNA it's the 4 bases. The argument is typing random gibberish into code will degrade the software far sooner than it will enhance it due to the shear amount of opportunities to go wrong compared to gibberish getting it right. That equivalence of a lot more probability to go wrong is applied to random mutations in the sequence of the DNA bases. I think that it as far as the equivalence goes. That doesn't seem to be an unreasonable hypothesis to me but interested to hear why it is.

FYI Stabila make good levels, they can be trusted

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..

decrepit said..

Carantoc said..>> Why isn't there two God, or five Gods. Or 1,000 Gods. Is it one or a thousand, but nothing inbetween ?

Way to simplistic, forget about commonsense, reality isn't constrained by commonsense.

A "creation" implies that there was time before creation, but it appears spacetime started with the bigbang. so there was no time before creation.
If you can get your head around numbers before there was time, go for it.

The Bible describes the big bang in the first 10 words

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)

Quite a coincidence that a book written thousands of years ago nailed the 3 requirements, as identified by modern science, needed for the origin of the universe to happen.

Well, I am pretty sure that the authors of the bible didn't put time/space/earth there in brackets. That's just your fixing up of it to match modern understanding of the universe.

Does it mention planets or other stars in the bible? Dinosaurs?

Good point, I haven't seen anything about i-phones or KFC either now that I think about it.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..

decrepit said..

Carantoc said..>> Why isn't there two God, or five Gods. Or 1,000 Gods. Is it one or a thousand, but nothing inbetween ?

Way to simplistic, forget about commonsense, reality isn't constrained by commonsense.

A "creation" implies that there was time before creation, but it appears spacetime started with the bigbang. so there was no time before creation.
If you can get your head around numbers before there was time, go for it.

The Bible describes the big bang in the first 10 words

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)

Quite a coincidence that a book written thousands of years ago nailed the 3 requirements, as identified by modern science, needed for the origin of the universe to happen.

Well, I am pretty sure that the authors of the bible didn't put time/space/earth there in brackets. That's just your fixing up of it to match modern understanding of the universe.

Does it mention planets or other stars in the bible? Dinosaurs?

Good point, I haven't seen anything about i-phones or KFC either now that I think about it.

So why did you bring it up? If you want to quote something and then add your own interpretation to it, you may as well introduce other parts and put (iphone) and (KFC) next to it, just to jazz it up.

How old is the earth, and why did they only write about it thousands of years ago?

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..

decrepit said..

Carantoc said..>> Why isn't there two God, or five Gods. Or 1,000 Gods. Is it one or a thousand, but nothing inbetween ?

Way to simplistic, forget about commonsense, reality isn't constrained by commonsense.

A "creation" implies that there was time before creation, but it appears spacetime started with the bigbang. so there was no time before creation.
If you can get your head around numbers before there was time, go for it.

The Bible describes the big bang in the first 10 words

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)

Quite a coincidence that a book written thousands of years ago nailed the 3 requirements, as identified by modern science, needed for the origin of the universe to happen.

Well, I am pretty sure that the authors of the bible didn't put time/space/earth there in brackets. That's just your fixing up of it to match modern understanding of the universe.

Does it mention planets or other stars in the bible? Dinosaurs?

Good point, I haven't seen anything about i-phones or KFC either now that I think about it.

So why did you bring it up? If you want to quote something and then add your own interpretation to it, you may as well introduce other parts and put (iphone) and (KFC) next to it, just to jazz it up.

How old is the earth, and why did they only write about it thousands of years ago?

It was in response to decrepit mentioning the big bang, nothing to do with this evolution discussion, forgot about it, its not relevant to the current discussion.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
....I don't think they claim the quantified probability relates to the entire build, they said it is in relation to the random mutations needed to build a functional adaption from one protein of 150 amino acids.

You think they don't. I think they do. Do you have any other source to back-up that they don't ?

I understood that they are saying that the total number of combinations of unfunctional to functional is what is giving them the 10^77 figure. There are so many more total combinations that don't work than do. But I take it that assumes each combination of any chain is of equal likelihood to occur, a pure chance and true random event for every chain of ones and zeros.

But I don't think it is quite like that. In code terms (if we must use the analogy) there should be equal 1 and 0s, because there are only two choices, Right ? But they don't actually occur equally. If you take a chunk of memory it is more likely there will be more zeros than more ones. Because, amongst other things, zero is the default value assigned when there is no value. The 50/50 chance of a zero and a one is actually closer to 66/33 zero to one because there is zero, one and also a 'nothing', with 'nothing' being a zero by default. So the maths is true in both cases, depending how and where you apply it. Select only data and then zeros and ones are statistacally equal. Select everything from scratch, and it isn't 50/50.

I am not suggesting that amnio acid chains default to the complex or default to zero. Just that in the terms of the maths presented it appears to be correct but also then appears to be applied incorrectly.

And I too probably misunderstand FN's point. I took it as simply highlighting that to get a tame fox you don't start with an average fox and have a random chance of its offspring being tame. So if you have a 1 in 1000 chance of any random fox being tame, you don't have to wait 1000 generations to breed a tame one, because you selectively start with one pre-disposed to be tame and you only selectively breed the ones that are more tame than their parent. Yes it is 'random', but it is not starting from scratch each generation with a 1/1000 chance.

Do you have any links to the references referred to by the speaker in the video ? Might help to explain if the speaker has taken them in or out of context.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

Do you have any links to the references referred to by the speaker in the video ? Might help to explain if the speaker has taken them in or out of context.

Here's a link to a video that debunks the maths in detail, as well as ripping into the professor who quantified it. I didn't understand it all and it moved to fast for my feeble mind to follow the science, I would have to slow it down by a factor of 10 to keep up. From what I understood it said real world experiments showed DNA sequencing did not have to be perfect to achieve functional change, unidentical strands could achieve the same results, that put the math out by a factor 66, among a host of other errors. At first it just plays the man but later it gets into the nitty gritty of why his paper is crap.

no mention of tame foxes

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Carantoc said..

Do you have any links to the references referred to by the speaker in the video ? Might help to explain if the speaker has taken them in or out of context.

Here's a link to a video that debunks the maths in detail, as well as ripping into the professor who quantified it. I didn't understand it all and it moved to fast for my feeble mind to follow the science, I would have to slow it down by a factor of 10 to keep up. From what I understood it said real world experiments showed DNA sequencing did not have to be perfect to achieve functional change, unidentical strands could achieve the same results, that put the math out by a factor 66, among a host of other errors. At first it just plays the man but later it gets into the nitty gritty of why his paper is crap.

no mention of tame foxes

Can I continue to watch this? The first sentence had me almost choking on my lunch.

No tame foxes? Nah, not worth watching if he doesn't go into that.

I watched or at least listened to the whole original video and never picked up on the name Douglas Axe. Where did that come from? Did you hide this or did I miss it, or is it just left out and someone on that channel would know?

Or Discovery Institute. Is it there somewhere and I just missed it or is it assumed knowledge when you watch that video?

After looking him up, it looks like he is the guy in the overlay shot, and the last few minutes, talking about stuff... but I am not sure he introduces himself either.

I saw a comment on the video talking about Saul Goodman. I think Saul was much more entertaining. That Dr (a historian) looks like he dresses to do door-knocking.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
I watched or at least listened to the whole original video and never picked up on the name Douglas Axe. Where did that come from? Did you hide this or did I miss it, or is it just left out and someone on that channel would know?

Or Discovery Institute. Is it there somewhere and I just missed it or is it assumed knowledge when you watch that video?

After looking him up, it looks like he is the guy in the overlay shot, and the last few minutes, talking about stuff... but I am not sure he introduces himself either.

I saw a comment on the video talking about Saul Goodman. I think Saul was much more entertaining. That Dr (a historian) looks like he dresses to do door-knocking.

Douglas Axe is cited, in the video, by the guy talking to Ben Shapiro as the professor who quantified the maths.

I had never heard of him before, or the discovery institute.

Given the paper he wrote was from 2004, 20 years ago its disappointing Shapiro didn't at least address any criticisms if he was being serious about its value.
Can only assume criticism of the math is to difficult to address so it is left unsaid. Bit poor from Ben

Pretty standard practice by Ben.

Their theory of evolution is DEPENDENT on their other two laughable theories.

Their Big Bang theory once put in place they then pushed their second theory - the heliocentric model.

With the first two now in place they were able with decent success to get the masses to accept the nonsense of evolution.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
Pretty standard practice by Ben.

Maybe, I will be more alert to it in future. I have generally regarded him as a logical person with reasoned arguments.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
Their theory of evolution is DEPENDENT on their other two laughable theories.

Their Big Bang theory once put in place they then pushed their second theory - the heliocentric model.

With the first two now in place they were able with decent success to get the masses to accept the nonsense of evolution.

Oooohhhh.... I can't wait to hear what the end-goal is.

Do tell!

Digital everything including cash.

A social credit system dependent on the coming digital everything.

They got u by the balls if u do not comply - they turn off your credits. Easy as pie.

Enjoy your slavery - you have well and truly earned it with your head in the sand attitude.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
Digital everything including cash.

A social credit system dependent on the coming digital everything.

They got u by the balls if u do not comply - they turn off your credits. Easy as pie.

Enjoy your slavery - you have well and truly earned it with your head in the sand attitude.

Yeah, I remember ages ago some political party wanted to bring in an 'Australia Card'. This was well before the internet had taken over.

I think people rejected it at the polls and no one was keen on the idea.

Lucky we have driver licenses and passports to use for ID and for scammers to impersonate us using them instead. I much prefer the paper licenses and having to photocopy and email it to someone or even take it with you for id. So much better!

Sadly, I think my first license was actually a paper one...

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
Digital everything including cash.

A social credit system dependent on the coming digital everything.

They got u by the balls if u do not comply - they turn off your credits. Easy as pie.

Enjoy your slavery - you have well and truly earned it with your head in the sand attitude.

Wow.

So Babbage invented the first digital device in 1832# but in 1831# Darwin set off on a 5 year voyage, whose purpose it was to convince the masses to accept digital currency. A concept not only yet to be theroised, but a concept that could not be envisaged.

Wow-ser. maybe Ed Sheran's lyriks are simply to butter us up to finally accept {insert theory next year because one doesn't exist yet}. I never thought of it like that.


#I don't recall the exact dates, maybe they did overlap by a few years, but it couldn't have been much.