Customer Discussions > Science forum

Can evolution produce a Supreme Being?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 722 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2011 10:28:03 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 20, 2011 1:17:23 PM PDT
Seeker says:
Charles F. Mielke says: I believe in one universe, but it's probably too big for us to see all of it;

That's an o.k. definition for me as well. Whether we call it a single unending universe, or an unending multiverse comprised of universes defined by the extent that we can see them, it's pretty much the same to me. The only difference is that you have a boundary, and I don't.

I was thinking in bed last night as I was trying to sleep. Your limited universe got me visualizing a place where we are in total darkness, and expected to run in one direction, as fast as we can.........Someone has told us that there is an end to the surface we are running on, and we both believe it, but are compelled to continue running. As time goes on, I start to question the validity of the surface having an end, perhaps thinking we are on the surface of a ball, or on a giant treadmill. At some point, running together, we both start to fall. There WAS an end. So then my question becomes, what are we falling toward?

I like your bridge analogy. The progress is enhanced by being able to conceptualize the possibilities. Otherwise we will continue to build the bridge in a static style of architecture.......and never learn....anything.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2011 1:09:46 PM PDT
mark says:
LDV,

(hands over, er....cigarette, with commensurate measure of respiratory malfunction)

Lemme break it down for you. Let's do a jigsaw puzzle. A big one. 1000 pieces. Maybe a shoreline scene, with subliminally hidden ducks and poorly shaded shadows. Toss the whole unassembled mess out on a table. It's immediately understood the puzzle will make the scene shown on the box because the pieces must have been cut from the completed puzzle. Ever onward.

From T1, as the pieces go together, the probability of completing the puzzle increases, in direct proportion to the increasing time increments relating to the number of pieces. T2 = second piece, T3= third piece, etc, etc.

At some arbitrary time, oh hell....call it T761, we find that piece 762 is missing, so T762 will never occur. Would you agree that the probability of completing the puzzle has dropped to exactly ZERO???? What if we'd made it all the way to T999 before finding the stereotypical non-American puzzle company employee left a damn piece on the factory floor? At T998, probability looked pretty good, didn't it? But, alas, T999 is just as much zero puzzle completion probability as T762.

What, you ask, may be gleened from this? (Lovely word...gleened) As the complexity of the puzzle increased, the probability of it's completion also increased, but from the beginning, the improbability of it's completion, while being inversely proportional, is just as real, dictated by intangibles.

The only, I say only, way the puzzle's completion is certain, within the parameters given above, is if it's impossible for a piece to be missing. And, by association, when we threw that conglomerate of pieces out on the table, it was impossible to know if any given piece was not missing.

Oh, but sir, we are not done. The puzzle's completion is also dependent on shipping, which depends on weather, bribery, the quality of the steel in the hull. See where this is going? Now the complexity of the entire puzzle system has skyrocketed, which suggests the obstacles to the puzzle's completion must keep pace. True, as each obstacle is overcome, completion probability increases. But the possibility of any specific obstacle inherent within an infinity of time, can dump the whole completion probability straight into the crapper.

Are you going to insist evolution will create supremacy, just because it's possible, when there is equal probability it won't, based on a numerical equality of adverse possibilities?

I have conceded to your conjectures; will you concede to my reality?

I would be blowing smoke if I were attempting to define a supreme being, objectively. But it can't be done, so......

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2011 1:37:09 PM PDT
Seeker says:
I DO concede.....and embrace....your reality, but only as far as it goes. The puzzle IS able to be completed. Not with the example you describe, because there IS a missing piece. It can be exhibited that the piece IS missing. But what about the 150K other puzzles that were shipped? Out of all those puzzles, is there one that contains ALL of the pieces? Of course there is. Even if there weren't, the fault would be artificial and will be corrected in future shipments. We overcome obstacles. You are saying that we cannot anticipate some of the obstacles to an eventuality. True that.....But we can anticipate that obstacles will be overcome. My contention is, that it IS possible to overcome all obstacles, given enough time.....The whole argument rests on the two original premises, one being that infinity exists.....

Is it possible for a man to dig through the earth from Chicago to Bejing in one lifetime with a spoon? NO.....Is it possible for a man to do it in an unlimited amount of time? Only if he understands that going through the earth in a straight line is impossible, and he will have to modify his route. He understands that he needs to deal in what is possible so that he can overcome the obstacles.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2011 1:39:36 PM PDT
Seeker says:
mark says: Are you going to insist evolution will create supremacy, just because it's possible, when there is equal probability it won't, based on a numerical equality of adverse possibilities?

The probability isn't equal, it is enormously in favor of failure. But all it takes is one......and the time frame is infinite......

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2011 3:33:55 PM PDT
mark says:
Mine: the puzzle is evolution, the pieces of the puzzle are forms evolution may take;
Yours: all puzzles are evolution, and any one puzzle is a form evolution may take.
Mine: from the original post, evolution is one premise, therefore one puzzle is one premise;
Yours: straying from the original post, evolution is now comprised of 150K sub-premises.
Mine: the one specified end result can be canceled by one missing piece, from the one premise that has variables;
Yours: even if there's an incomplete puzzle in this sub-premise, there won't be in that one, so the specified end result is assured.

Yours may be just as correct, except you're creating the probability of 150K forms of supreme beings.

I hereby solemnly invoke Occam's Razor. All in favor say aye.

Seriously though. I do see where you're coming from, and I do appreciate the friendly repartee.

Peace.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2011 6:47:11 PM PDT
I'm not sure that is correct in all circumstances. In some, yes; e.g. a perfect bridge hand of 13 spades will eventually be dealt--and again and again, etc. In other cases, for instance if the number of possible outcomes "grows faster" than the number of tries, then there will be possible outcomes that never occur.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 10:29:57 AM PDT
Seeker says:
I see where you are coming from as well, and agree that your take on the issue has as much merit as mine until proof can be offered one way or the other. Funny that you invoke Occam's Razor. It was one of the thoughts that got me started in finding an explanation to whether a Spreme Being could logically exist.

mark says: Yours: straying from the original post, evolution is now comprised of 150K sub-premises.

LDV: straying? Not really........isn't it assumed that there are as many possibilities in evolution as have already manifested? In fact more? 150K is actually an insignificant number of possibilities compared to the realities in genetics.......

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 10:37:03 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 21, 2011 10:37:34 AM PDT
Seeker says:
Now THAT is an interesting point. So, if I understand you correctly, if the rate of complexity outpaces the rate of occurrence, there ARE going to be possibilities that never manifest.

I would agree, in a closed system. But this system doesn't only have an infinity of time, it also has an infinity of space.....I would say that given that, all additional outcomes are inevitable as there is no limit on how many systems are involved.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2011 2:57:36 PM PDT
Seeker says:
I saw a Royal Flush in Spades once, at the table I was sitting at. The guy that got it wasn't even excited after he won the hand. I was excited to even see it....

Posted on Oct 21, 2011 9:59:31 PM PDT
King David says:
I'm commenting here right now, aren't I?

Posted on Oct 21, 2011 10:26:47 PM PDT
Infinity of time would work in your favor; infinity of sample or outcome space would work against you; I think it depends on the cardinality of each. Quantization can affect the cardinalities of infinity that may be available.

For a royal flush in a specified suit, the chance is 1/C(52,5) [1/2,598,960]. For a perfect bridge hand in a given suit, 1/C(52,13) [29,845,637,301,200]. [Unless I made a mistake!]

I think I heard of a report that once upon a time there was a deal of four perfect bridge hands. Dollars to doughnuts, it was a brand new deck that the dealer forgot to shuffle....

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2011 1:35:54 PM PDT
Seeker says:
I sat at a poker table where a Royal Flush in Spades came up. The guy that got it wasn't even excited.......I consider myself priveleged to have been there.....

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2011 1:39:12 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 25, 2011 10:03:36 AM PDT
Seeker says:
I have enjoyed your perspectives as well.

I see where you are coming from as well, and agree that your take on the issue has as much merit as mine until proof can be offered one way or the other. Funny that you invoke Occam's Razor. It was one of the thoughts that got me started in finding an explanation to whether a Spreme Being could logically exist.

mark says: Yours: straying from the original post, evolution is now comprised of 150K sub-premises.

LDV: straying? Not really........isn't it assumed that there are as many possibilities in evolution as have already manifested? In fact more? 150K is actually an insignificant number of possibilities compared to the realities in genetics.......

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2011 3:42:01 PM PDT
mark says:
Duplicate posts? Miss us that much, huh? Don't blame ya, really. Of the 6 most active threads in the science forum, 5 have religious undertones, or some sort of un-scientific abstraction. (yawn) With the same names, saying the same thing. Even a brand new thread, again, SOS. Somewhere else, a poster asks 8 questions, of which 6 are rhetorical and the other 2 are followed with their own answers. Certainly no discernible challenge for intelligent thought there.

Anyway. About that guy digging to Peking. You know of course, it IS possible to dig in a straight line from here to there. Right? Or are you suggesting there is no inertial rest frame from the digger's perspective, in which case the Earth's trajectory must be a term in the equation for conservation of angular momentum?

Inquiring minds, and all.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2011 10:15:53 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 25, 2011 10:16:57 AM PDT
Seeker says:
With a spoon? Not possible to dig through the earth's core, or even close to it. The best possible route is probably up through Alaska, under the Bering Strait, and down to Beijing, staying only deep enough to BE underground except for digging under water when you would have to be concerned with drowning so you would have to go deeper. At only a few miles deep, for instance the mine in Lead, S.D. where they are studying neutrino's, the temps reach 140 degrees.

As to duplicate posts.......yeah, I missed you.......(feeling all gushy and stuff,......right[sarcasm]), I just thought you might have missed the other. I do that, so I assume everyone does.

This thread isn't intended to be religious or spiritual. I only wanted to explore the possibilities from the perspective of reality. LOL....yeah, like infinity can be assumed to be real.....[sarcasm, again].

Posted on Oct 25, 2011 5:41:49 PM PDT
getalife says:
ask chuck norris.he's the closeest thing to a supreme being there is.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2011 10:51:55 AM PDT
Seeker says:
What, now no response?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2011 5:01:26 PM PDT
mark says:
Hey....I'm thinking. Be right with ya.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 28, 2011 9:20:53 AM PDT
Seeker says:
Hey, nothing on your profile......care to share your location? I'm in Utah......hiking the slick rock and the aspen glades......yeehaw!!!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 28, 2011 4:10:28 PM PDT
mark says:
Hey,

Man, you're all over the place around here, huh. I have no idea what took me to the religion forum, but there you were, a couple times, even. It's cool. Far as I'm concerned, there are far too few thinkers and far too many parrots. Personal opinion, of course.

I'm in Western Washington, but I spent this last summer in Yellowstone/Tetons, also hiking. Now that the years are increasing, the load I can carry is decreasing, so the hikes get shorter and easier every year. (shrug)

But the beauty of the solitude remains the same. Amazing how many answers one finds when there's no one talking.

Peace.

Posted on Oct 28, 2011 4:59:53 PM PDT
Juscz says:
Perhaps a more relevant question (derived from the title of this topic) is as follows:

Would a supreme being produce evolution as a mechanism for generating new species?

Juscz

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 28, 2011 6:35:14 PM PDT
Why not? I think some versions of "theistic evolution" already are similar to this idea.

One could go even further. What if God created leptons and quarks, with their neat combinatorial properties, and simply turned them loose to see what would flower from such a simple but fertile beginning? On that scenario, anti-evolutionism would be blasphemy.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 28, 2011 7:06:21 PM PDT
Juscz says:
I agree with you, Eugene. Don't know why evolution is so offensive to those claiming to be creationists.

Juscz

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 28, 2011 7:44:47 PM PDT
mark says:
Ah, but wait, he said, enthusiastically. If it's probable evolution will lead to a supreme being, which is waaaayy up the ladder, don't you think an intermediate step is probably whatever will enable us to dig to China? Some newfangled technological marvel that solves all the physical problems of transiting the diameter of the Earth.

I have no problem with infinity being real, even if, for all practical purposes, it's unnecessary.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2011 9:58:33 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2011 10:06:00 AM PST
Seeker says:
Yeah, my age is starting to tell as well. No more backpacking for me, dayhikes only. As to answers, it seems that my comfort level has increased in being ignorant....as the questions pile up faster than the answers for me.....always have......

Hiked the base of Mt. Rainier several years ago.....one of my favs....
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  83
Total posts:  722
Initial post:  Oct 7, 2011
Latest post:  Sep 5, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions