the universe and space....?

Ican, That'd be nice.

Ican is determined to have a god of some kind (no matter how he has to describe that god) ENDOW us with rights -- so that he can claim divine justification for his conservative screed that none of his tax money should be used to help others.

The rest of this crap is just smoke and mirrors.

The most ethical thing Ican can do is to simply state that he thinks it is wrong to use tax money to set safety nets for people -- to, in effect, provide for the general welfare -- and to abandon all this nonsense about showing that there has to be INTELLIGENCE guiding our evolution -- and that the INTELLIGENCE (or any other god) endows us with certain rights.

That is the ethical course of action for Ican.

Frank, Doesn't Ican somewhat remind you of maliagar? Knows how to use thousands of words, but ends up with faulty logic? c.i.

Mech,
Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking this forum is about the universe. So many here act like they think this forum is about ican. They clearly imply that ican's thinking is illogical and unethical. So why do they bother with such a bone-brained wretch anyhow? Perhaps they think bone-brained wretches are dangerous to their health...ehhh...their mental health. But how could that possibly be true?

Oh well, back to the subject at hand with a more accurate calculation for one life evolving planet.

ASSUME

P is the probability of the evolution of any one relevant genome sequence with unselected chance plus natural selection;

N is 3,168,808,781 genome edits per second, with 3600 x 24 x 365.25 seconds per year, and with 10,000,000,000 years per a sequential, 3 evolution epoch period.

D is 4 different bases, with 3 bases per codon, with 9000 codons per gene, with 300 relevant genes per genome, with a sequential, 3 evolution epoch period.

P = N/D

N = (3,168,808,781) x (3600 x 24 x 365.25) x (10,000,000,000) = 10^27.

D = (((4^3)^9000)^(300 x 3)) = 4^24,300,000 = 10^14,630,057.78.

P = 10^27 / (10^14,630,057.78) = 10^ (-14,630,030.78).

So to increase P to 10^(-99.78), selected chance must increase P by the ratio 10^(-99.78) / (10^(-14,630,030.78) = 10^14,629,931.

Let's use an analogy.

It is alleged that the probability of getting a straight flush dealt from a 52 card deck is 1/70,000, or one hand in 70,000.

To increase that probability to 1/70, or one hand in 70, selected chance must increase the probability of a straight flush by a factor of 1,000. One way to accomplish this is stack the deck in such way as to produce those new odds, 1/70.

How shall the evolution <deck> be stacked to increase the evolution odds by a factor of 10^14,629,931? As I've already indicated, I lack sufficient valid data to even warrant a guess.

All we seem to know is that the evolution <deck> is stacked, because among many other things I've already mentioned, epoch after epoch (i.e., the period between environmental disasters that wiped out the more intelligent species), evolution always resumed evolving the genomes for the more intelligent species from the less intelligent creatures. This occurred despite the fact that the more intelligent species failed time after time to survive such disasters.

This is analogous to the straight flush model. What would you think if despite the alleged 1/70,000 odds against a straight flush, straight flush hands occurred 1/70 or a 1000 times more often than their computed probability implied they would? Of course, you would infer that the deck was stacked by something; perhaps that something is akin to what we are now calling selected chance.

We can call anything "selected chance," but who's doing the selecting? We're trying to say it's "natural selection."

No, natural selection is clearly insufficient. Natural selection leads to the failure of the less fit species to survive. Natural selection by way of environmental disasters also lead to the failure of the more intelligent species to survive. But the more intelligent species have nonetheless relentlessly evolved each and every evolution epoch between such disasters.

They're stubborn little suckers! Something is "stacking the deck" in they're favor.

Ican, what you claim as not being natural selection is precisely all the things you list and more. Biology; geology; weather patterns; natural disasters includes fires, floods, vulcanic actions, earthquakes, meteors; intelligence; disease; etc., etc., etc. These are natural to our world. They happen with or without human causes, and certainly not with the influence of any gods. Nature. c.i.

Everything will eventually lead a theist to a god somehow!

Your "something" is your imagination at work.

Now, if you had made it "perhaps there is a something stacking the deck" -- it would make sense.

Perhaps there is!

And then again, perhaps there ain't!


As for the:

Only if you are very hard-headed. Otherwise, it is one of the possibilities -- and to many, it is THE possibility.

um trying to ponder "un-natural selection"
gives me a headache. kinda reminds me of those peeps ranting about "organic."

Folks;

in Mech's words: " epoch after epoch (i.e., the period between environmental disasters that wiped out the more intelligent species), evolution always resumed evolving the genomes for the more intelligent species from the less intelligent creatures."

Could it be (silly me), that intelligent species are more able to successfully seek out suitable niches, in order to augment their own 'chances' (be they straight flushes, or a single pair) of surviving to reproduce more effectively?
And therefore 'appeared' to 'emerge' and prosper unequally.

And is it possible that a momentous event, impossible to plan for, is as likely to wipe out inteligent species en masse, as it is to wipe out less inteligent species? In this case there is (was, perhaps) no advantage to intelligence.

And could it be that trumped up 'factors' 'effecting' evolution are utter crap!

i kinda lean towards de-evolution meself.

BoGo, Exactly my point; intelligence helps, but it's not 'everything' in survival. c.i.

BoGoWo, re your post of Aug 30, 7:46

Intelligent species seem to be more delicate, ie prone to suffer more from eco-disasters. This may be a function of a certain minimum size related to brain capacities.

In any disaster the larger animals would be less able to find a "niche" due to slower reproduction rates, longer adolescences, longer generations, lack of support systems etc.

As Earth ages life evolves. Each successive epoch will have more and more genomes to throw on the table,so as to speak, so it would seem natural that intelligence, as a result of evolution, would be quicker and quicker to throw out an "Intelligence". As another result of this there will also be more and more species as Earth ages. I think that this is also observed despite the rants and cries of the more rabid eco-freaks.

Think hard, Mech

Ican, Something is indeed "stacking the deck"

You, for months have been taking that view. I concurred recently, and found the mechanism that does it at a level before that of natural selection is able to do it. We have decided to call this phenomenon "Selected Chance."

This lies in the discovery some twenty or thirty years ago of chemicals which seem to lie at the boundaries between "alive" and "inert".
The experiments that I read about even were able to "crystallize" this substance, sterilize it, and maltreat it in other ways which are normally inimical to life. That particular combination of elements (a viral protein as I remember) absolutely could not be killed by any normally lethal methods. The material still remained infectious.

The prions of Alzheimers disease, Mad Cow disease, and Kuru disease also do not seem to be able to be killed and live (exist) in a potentially infectious state for a very long time. They also seem to occur spontaneously. (Krutzfeld-Jacobs disease and Scrapie disease).

I hope that you realize that you and I, in finding that life (intelligence) inherent in relatively simple,naturally occurring, chemicals are raising hob with one of my better arguements for an infinite universe.

Rather than surmising that life as we know it could not evolve in the time frames allotted to it it without intelligent direction now becomes (at least to me) obvious that there is a natural mechanism that could account for it. This mechanisim would not be dependent upon an infinite time, nor indeed one any longer than Earth has existed. Nor will it require even very many chances. Meaning no intergalactic experiences would be necessary.

This should be quick work for your calculator. If you are interested.
Given that 100 elements exist-
Given that energies exist
Given that 4 elements plus energy are a minimum reguirement of "life"
Given that a combination containing less than 1,000 atoms has been observed to "live".
How many possible combinations are there?
Considering that there are easily a thousand possible interactions per second per milliliter of seawater, how long do you think it would take for life to appear somewhere, someplace, on Earth?

I surmise that it would be practically instantaneous but I await your judgement. Evolution, AKA Natural Selection, would be a different, slower process.

CI,

Do you agree that the process I have described is sufficiently different from "Natural selection" to warrant another name

Yes, natural selection by and of its nature is slow. It constitutes the dieing out of species not capable of procreating rapidly enough to survive the environment in which they are in.

I'll work on your problem.

Note: One point of irrelevant difference (i.e., irrelevant to the specific problem you ask me to solve). You wrote earlier that: "As another result of this there will also be more and more species as Earth ages." But currently, scientists allege that the number of different species hit a peak about 200,000 years ago (about when humans first evolved) and has been in sharp decline ever since. The environment began to deteriorate for other species as soon as we arrived.

It's got be those damn 200,000 year old SUVs that are causing it. Trash them and who knows. :wink:

Shall we even entertain the thought of the possibility of time..space...ect... turned inside out? Hmmm

Sure, if I knew which side was in and which side was out and how I could tell the difference.

just look for the manufacturers tag (usually on the inside) (dry clean only)

dys, You're a riot! LOL

Dys as usual beat me to it; i was going to say look for the seam!

Hi Adele; hope your clever 'new bee' is a harbinger of wit to come! :wink: