A quote for the atheists to consider.

[Shaker]

""

The "odd" swear word??  You're joking.  If I followed your practice and bothered to count things up, it would take a heck of a long time to count them all.  I have Parliament on in the back-ground as I like to listen to the debates.  I've been doing it for years, and in all that time, despite the often heated arguments, I have never heard a swear word used!  So, they manage to argue and use some of the 80,000 plus adjectives in the English Language to make their points.  Makes you lot look so inept.  Don't forget to add that reference to adjectives to your list, if it makes you happy, or if you think it means anything!

The House of Commons is a place where it took until the advent of the twenty-first century to scrap the practice of an MP having to wear a top hat when raising a point of order, so I don't think it's any kind of model to emulate in terms of its understanding of the real modern world.

[BashfulAnthony]

The House of Commons is a place where it took until the advent of the twenty-first century to scrap the practice of an MP having to wear a top hat when raising a point of order, so I don't think it's any kind of model to emulate in terms of its understanding of the real modern world.

Tosh!  What's that comment got to do with using crude and abusive language?  There are more than 80,000 adjectives they could use...     Keep counting!   

[Jack Knave]

Then discuss the wretched thread instead of looking for any excuse to have a pop at me:  that's not too intelligent; you know!   

I did Basher. They are governed by the laws of physics. So it isn't chance, the atomic forces pull them into their configurations.

[jeremyp]

How do you know that?  I suppose it's you who reports me, is it?   A rare piece of hypocrisy, then, from one so acerbic, confrontational, and crude as yourself.

I reported you once recently. I was sick of the way you derailed a perfectly good thread with your swear word rants and your invective directed at others, although, to be fair, others did rise to the bait and I was hoping their posts would be removed too.

Anyway, I see you've even derailed your own thread with more of the same.

[BashfulAnthony]

I reported you once recently. I was sick of the way you derailed a perfectly good thread with your swear word rants and your invective directed at others, although, to be fair, others did rise to the bait and I was hoping their posts would be removed too.

Anyway, I see...

Only once?  Hurray for free speech, auntie!!

[jeremyp]

Only once?  Hurray for free speech, auntie!!

Your right to free fucking speech does not translate to a duty on the forum to publish your bollocks.

[BashfulAnthony]

Your right to free fucking speech does not translate to a duty on the forum to publish your bollocks.

Go back and lie in the gutter, where you learn your language.

[ProfessorDavey]

Who says?  And are they qualified to pronounce on this particular OP?  Find out before you post.

I do - I am a professional scientist.

The fundamental problem with the assertion in the OP (amongst many others) is that assumption that an improbable event cannot occur, simply because the probability of it occurring is low. That is non-sense.

Take this simple example - the probability of rolling 6 sixes on a dice in a row is 6 to the power 6 or 1 in 46,656 (I believe) which is very small. But then the probability of any other specific combination of 6 throws is also 1 in 46,655. According to the poor thinking of the OP if you roll the dice once per year it would take 'on average' 23,000 years for 6 sixes to come up. But then every other combination also has the same probability so the OP assertion would claim the same (on average they'd come up in 23,000 years) too. But of course we know that to be non-sense, because the very first throw will produce a combination with a 1 in 46,656 chance, as will the second and so on. So the notion of 'average' time to achieve a particular outcome really means nothing as that outcome is just as likely (or unlikely) in the first 'throw' as in the 46,656-th throw.

What the OP seems to be claiming is the equivalent of saying that if you only throw the dice 20,000 times (i.e. less than the 'average') then the likelihood of throwing 6 sixes is zero - it isn't and to suggest it is is totally muddled thinking.

[BashfulAnthony]

I do - I am a professional scientist.

The fundamental problem with the assertion in the OP (amongst many others) is that assumption that an improbably event cannot occur, simply because the probability of it occurring is low. That is non-sense.

Take this simply example - the probability of rolling 6 sixes on a dice in a row is 6 to the power 6 or 1 in 46,656 (I believe) which is very small. But then the probability of any other specific combination of 6 throws is also 1 in 46,655. According to the poor thinking of the OP if you roll the dice once per year it would take 'on average' 23,000 years for 6 sixes to come up. But then every other combination also has the same probability so the OP assertion would claim the same (on average they'd come up in 23,000 years) too. But of course we know that to be non-sense, because the very first throw will produce a combination with a 1 in 46,656 chance, as will the second and so on. So the notion of 'average' time to achieve a particular outcome really means nothing as that outcome is just as likely (or unlikely) in the first 'throw' as in the 46,656-th throw.

What the OP seems to be claiming is the equivalent of saying that if you only throw the dice 20,000 times (i.e. less than the 'average') then the likelihood of throwing 6 sixes is zero - it isn't and to suggest it is is totally muddled thinking.

Oh really; so we bow to your all-encompassing knowledge.  And in what discipline  do you specialise? "Scientist" covers a very great deal of ground.  I was a professional teacher, but it didn't stop the know-alls on here thinking they know more.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh really; so we bow to your all-encompassing knowledge.  And in what discipline  do you specialise? "Scientist" covers a very great deal of ground.  I was a professional teacher, but it didn't stop the know-alls on here thinking they know more.

Yes - really.

I have been professionally involved in internationally-leading academic research for nearly 30 years. I have well over 100 research publications in top quality peer reviewed journals and a international reputation in my field. My research is fairly multidisciplinary, bringing together aspects of cell biology (my first degree), biochemistry (my PhD) and bioengineering as applied to medical and clinical problems. Quite a lot of my current research is in the field of stem cells - understanding the triggers that induce them to differentiate.

The issue with your OP piece assertions is that they are totally naive on the issue of probability and statistics - and of course most scientists (myself included) have to use these methods pretty well all the time to determine the likelihood that differences between control and treatment groups in an experiment are likely to be due to chance or not - so called statistical significance.

And your expertise on this topic is exactly.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh really; so we bow to your all-encompassing knowledge.  And in what discipline  do you specialise? "Scientist" covers a very great deal of ground.  I was a professional teacher, but it didn't stop the know-alls on here thinking they know more.

You could, of course, try to counter my critique of the fundamental problem within the OP assertion, rather than 'play the man' so to speak.

But I guess you don't have an argument to refute mine.

[Nearly Sane]

You could, of course, try to counter my critique of the fundamental problem within the OP assertion, rather than 'play the man' so to speak.

But I guess you don't have an argument to refute mine.

  note he won't be doing so for ten days at least as he has been banned

[Shaker]

Try not to think of it as a ban, more an admin-bestowed holiday.

He said unconvincingly.

[ProfessorDavey]

  note he won't be doing so for ten days at least as he has been banned

Oh that's a shame - I was hoping for a well argued response.

[Nearly Sane]

I am still baffled why the OP was titled something for atheists to consider. If the theory of evolution was falsified tomorrow it would contribute nothing to the argument for a god, and many theists happily accept the ToE. I will remember the amount of time the much missed John Armagh used to take with fellow theists on the strength of ToE

[ProfessorDavey]

Perhaps one of our resident "experts" on here can counter this?  Get googling, chaps!

"The probablility of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10[to the 161th power], using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began... For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10 [to the 119,879th power]. It would take 10[tothe power of 119,841] years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10 [to the power of 119,831] times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119, 831 zeroes. -Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, pg. 110, 114

A further point here is that the interactions aren't random, but driven by energetic conservation.

So moving on from my dice example, I'd like to give an oil and water example.

The assertion in the OP is that all possible permutations and interactions of molecules are equally likely, but they aren't. So if you take the OP assertion and apply it to oil and water molecules you would concluded that of all the permutations of interactions between oil and water it would be almost impossibly unlikely that all the oil molecules would interact with each other and create an oil film on the surface of the water. But that is, of course, what they do - due to this being the lowest energy configuration. And, indeed, in a steady state system they will always do this. So out of millions of possible permutations of interactions between the molecules, you always get the same one - so rather than oil lying as a film over the water being an almost impossibly unlikely outcome, it is actually almost a certainty.

[Jack Knave]

I am still baffled why the OP was titled something for atheists to consider. If the theory of evolution was falsified tomorrow it would contribute nothing to the argument for a god, and many theists happily accept the ToE. I will remember the amount of time the much missed John Armagh used to take with fellow theists on the strength of ToE

But it is such a strong theory that it gets in the way of their treasured beliefs and to pull it down would be one step for them in asserting theirs more forceful perficiency. For many people, generally, a vacuum needs to be filled with no real disregard for what fills it and this would allow this 'sewage' to flow in.

[Jack Knave]

A further point here is that the interactions aren't random, but driven by energetic conservation.

So moving on from my dice example, I'd like to give an oil and water example.

The assertion in the OP is that all possible permutations and interactions of molecules are equally likely, but they aren't. So if you take the OP assertion and apply it to oil and water molecules you would concluded that of all the permutations of interactions between oil and water it would be almost impossibly unlikely that all the oil molecules would interact with each other and create an oil film on the surface of the water. But that is, of course, what they do - due to this being the lowest energy configuration. And, indeed, in a steady state system they will always do this. So out of millions of possible permutations of interactions between the molecules, you always get the same one - so rather than oil lying as a film over the water being an almost impossibly unlikely outcome, it is actually almost a certainty.

I think that nails it!!!

[jeremyp]

Go back and lie in the gutter, where you learn your language.

You seem to get unduly wound up by my fucking swearing. Perhaps you should have a long hard think as to why I am doing it.

[Samuel]

Hi Prof

I really appreciate you being around to explain this stuff. I have a science background, and although I am still within the subject of my study I wouldn't say my work involves really 'doing' science. So, I'm ok with the principles but in practice a lot of science theory goes over my head. It's great to have you here as you always make it accesibile for the layfolk like me. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi Prof

I really appreciate you being around to explain this stuff. I have a science background, and although I am still within the subject of my study I wouldn't say my work involves really 'doing' science. So, I'm ok with the principles but in practice a lot of science theory goes over my head. It's great to have you here as you always make it accesibile for the layfolk like me. 

Thank you

[Bubbles]

Perhaps one of our resident "experts" on here can counter this?  Get googling, chaps!

"The probablility of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10[to the 161th power], using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began... For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10 [to the 119,879th power]. It would take 10[tothe power of 119,841] years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10 [to the power of 119,831] times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119, 831 zeroes. -Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, pg. 110, 114

Wot?

 

For the scientifically challenged can you put the point in English? 

The earth was around for a very long time for those molecules to find each other, seems to me.

Unlikely things happen, now and again, I presume that's why we are all here 

With that profound thought........ I'll get my coat  🌹👀

[Red Giant]

The OP seems to have forgotten about selection.  You do the random mutations and then pick the best and discard the rest.  Then more mutations etc.

Computer simulations are easy enough and demolish the improbability argument immediately.

The technique is used for solving difficult optimisation problems.

[Leonard James]

  I was a professional teacher, but it didn't stop the know-alls on here thinking they know more.

What glorious conceit! So you think professional teachers are the height of human knowledge! I have known quite a few teachers in my life, some of them abysmally stupid, in spite of their "training".