Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (10417)	4/4/2001 5:19:16 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

There have been zillions of mutations- it's just that most of them don't work out. There's nothing improbable about it. I used to create mutations in fruit flies- it's easy, and fast- and over the life of this planet? Hardly improbable that things turned out the way they did. As for taking the extra step to a creator I've never seen the point and I still don't. You always come to the problem of "if everything needs a creator, why doesn't the creator need a creator"- and you always get the answer, "because he doesn't" which isn't very satisfying to me.

To: Neocon who wrote (10417)	4/4/2001 5:54:56 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

The process of evolution remains one of immense improbability...It still looks more like something intentionally brought about, albeit in a roundabout way, then like a series of accidents. When we compute probabilities, we use different formulas to determine the probability that a dandilion will show up on our lawn vs. the probability that one will grow precisely five feet due south of the southwest corner of the third flagstone of the walkway. Of course it's immensely improbable that evolution, left to its own devices, produced us. Of course it's more likely that intelligent design produced us. But if you consider the probability that evolution produced some kind of intelligent creature, not necessarily us, your odds go way up. There could be some green and orange striped creatures with seven legs, twelve eyes, and no teeth contemplating, in our stead, how they were created in God's image and likeness. Karen

To: Neocon who wrote (10417)	4/4/2001 7:04:12 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The process of evolution remains one of immense improbability. ... Just the right mutations, in just the right sequence, had to occur to get the nervous system, the cardiovascular system, and so forth. The fallacy there is that - once achieved - any 'random' sequence is improbable. Ten million coin tosses will give a particular sequence: that specific sequence is in itself incredibly improbable... but no individual toss is unlikely, and the result need have no design or purpose. Carbon bonds in specific ways: specific molecules are likely to align in certain ways, given their shapes: some chemical reactions free energy, and are more likely than others: and so forth. It is arguable, I grant, that the probabilities were initially shaped... but that's also unprovable. In hindsight, this is the way it went - that's all. It could be seen as 'accidental', but only because we're not present to see the result of any other accidental choices... And I can't argue with your last paragraph since that's been my point all along - at best, unprovable. Even if, to some, believable... <g>