You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Speciation of Humans Colonizing Mars

in #science • 7 years ago (edited)

My background is in IT... You're response is both interesting and will now lead me down many rabbit holes to gain further understanding. Thank you for that.

First my belief in the Big Bang Theory is shaken and now you're causing me to doubt evolution... This has been an interesting couple months. Conscious Incompetence ;)

7 years ago in #science by
$0.00
    1 vote
    Reply 3
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     7 years ago 

    When I first did the calculation I realized that the theory of evolution is statistically imposable. If you look at the history of science you will find theories that today are considered false where taught as being true. That situation still exists today. My goal of the original post was to hopefully get someone who understands statistics to see the contradiction. I don't have all the answers but its fun looking for them.

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       7 years ago 

      I've found some arguments against evolution being random chance.

      This objection is fundamentally an argument by lack of imagination, or argument from incredulity: a certain explanation is seen as being counterintuitive, and therefore an alternate, more intuitive explanation is appealed to instead. Supporters of evolution generally respond by arguing that evolution is not based on "chance," but on predictable chemical interactions: natural processes, rather than supernatural beings, are the "designer." Although the process involves some random elements, it is the non-random selection of survival-enhancing genes that drives evolution along an ordered trajectory. The fact that the results are ordered and seem "designed" is no more evidence for a supernatural intelligence than the appearance of complex natural phenomena (e.g. snowflakes).[114] It is also argued that there is insufficient evidence to make statements about the plausibility or implausibility of abiogenesis, that certain structures demonstrate poor design, and that the implausibility of life evolving exactly as it did is no more evidence for an intelligence than the implausibility of a deck of cards being shuffled and dealt in a certain random order.[41][113]

      It has also been noted that arguments against some form of life arising "by chance" are really objections to nontheistic abiogenesis, not to evolution. Indeed, arguments against "evolution" are based on the misconception that abiogenesis is a component of, or necessary precursor to, evolution. Similar objections sometimes conflate the Big Bang with evolution.[24]

      What are your thoughts in response to this?

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         7 years ago 

        I don't like the argument it seems a bit incoherent. The argument wouldn't sway me in any direction. The statistical argument above is simple and only falsifies the random hypothesis. Note that I'm not proposing an alternative theory. I'm simply stating that if its not random then it must be deterministic. This is all that I can conclude from the statistical argument above.

        $0.00
          Reply

          Coin Marketplace

          STEEM 0.21
          TRX 0.18
          JST 0.031
          BTC 87446.28
          ETH 3163.39
          USDT 1.00
          SBD 2.93