Creation vs. Evolution

[Brego]

Not to be "obtuse" but seriously, you really have no idea who you are speaking to, so enough with the utter disrespect.

If you want to have a serious discussion about this, then change your attitude quickly.

A) You have no idea who I am either
B) Some of the responses to my statements directly imply that I am some kind of moron

Why is disrespect towards people like me socially acceptable, but to respond in kind is not?

Who can run the math on man evolving from dust and woman evolving from a rib?

I assume that's the other explanation if evolution "doesn't add up".

1) That is common misconception.
2) Also generalized contempt

 

[Touring Mars]

A) You have no idea who I am either
B) Some of the responses to my statements directly imply that I am some kind of moron

Why is disrespect towards people like me socially acceptable, but to respond in kind is not?

Because you are the one who said 'DO THE MATH DUDE' to a bunch of qualified scientists, mathematicians, a former NASA engineer and everyone else for that matter. I didn't say anything about you, but many of your comments suggest strongly that YOU don't understand much about the debate. I'm giving you the chance to participate in a more civil manner than your 'DO THE MATH DUDE' comment suggests you are willing to do.

 

[McLaren]

1) That is common misconception.
2) Also generalized contempt

Misconception, lol. That's literally 1 of 2 narratives of where man comes from, from the side of Creation.

In the first, Adam and Eve are not named. Instead, God created humankind in God's image and instructed them to multiply and to be stewards over everything else that God had made. In the second narrative, God fashions Adam from dust and places him in the Garden of Eden. Adam is told that he can eat freely of all the trees in the garden, except for a tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Subsequently, Eve is created from one of Adam's ribs to be his companion.

Yeah, this definitely seems more plausible over evolution.

 

[TexRex]

Because you are the one who said 'DO THE MATH DUDE' to a bunch of qualified scientists, mathematicians, a former NASA engineer and everyone else for that matter.

Full disclosure: I ****ing suck at math.

I'm just a trainwreck enthusiast.

 

[Joey D]

False.

I am pointing out a simple mathematical problem, and the only reason you are attacking my point is because you don't like the point I am making. You are so committed that you willingly avoid the idea of trying to understand what I am saying. I.e., intentionally obtuse. I think you know what I am saying but you think that as long as you can make any specious argument, then you are still right.

Thanks Famine, I will avail myself of that option post haste.

What's false? I was asking you direct questions because I am trying to understand the point you're attempting to make. You've devised this mathematical problem from where exactly? Either you independently came up with it yourself, which means you likely haven't had it peer-reviewed or published, or it's from another person that may or may not have had the information peer-reviewed.

I understand biological evolution at a pretty low level since it's not my area of expertise, however, based on what I do know, you're math doesn't seem to add up because it's not addressing a huge swath of evidence that we currently know about evolution. It's very pigeon-holed.

Think of it this way too. If explaining away evolution could be done with simple math formulas, don't you think that would've already been done and been run through the scientific method?

 

[Brego]

Who can run the math on man evolving from dust and woman evolving from a rib?

I assume that's the other explanation if evolution "doesn't add up".

What's false? I was asking you direct questions because I am trying to understand the point you're attempting to make. You've devised this mathematical problem from where exactly? Either you independently came up with it yourself, which means you likely haven't had it peer-reviewed or published, or it's from another person that may or may not have had the information peer-reviewed.

I understand biological evolution at a pretty low level since it's not my area of expertise, however, based on what I do know, you're math doesn't seem to add up because it's not addressing a huge swath of evidence that we currently know about evolution. It's very pigeon-holed.

Think of it this way too. If explaining away evolution could be done with simple math formulas, don't you think that would've already been done and been run through the scientific method?

I do not believe at all that you are trying to understand the point I am trying to make.

 

[Danoff]

Thanks Famine, I will avail myself of that option post haste.

Oh thank god. That means I don't have to feel obliged to point out what non-linear means.

 

[Famine]

That doesn't really make sense though. Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics about entropy in a system never being able to decrease?

Yes, more or less. Intelligent Design advocates usually present it as denying the possibility for organisms to become larger and more complex because "the universe tends towards chaos": in a closed system the natural tendency is for increased disorganisation and decay until energy is all converted into heat.

It's been a good long time since I've heard it advanced as a serious argument against evolution, but I guess the classics never go out of fashion.

 

[Touring Mars]

I do not believe at all that you are trying to understand the point I am trying to make.

Then you need to be clearer.

You say that single celled life existed 2 billion years ago, but also say that extant life could not have evolved from it.

So that begs the question of how extant life came about in spite of the apparently independent evolution of single celled organisms.

To be fair, that's a tough one to answer...

Full disclosure: I ****ing suck at math.

 

[McLaren]

I do not believe at all that you are trying to understand the point I am trying to make.

The point you're trying to make ironically doesn't add up itself. The thing I & Joey seem interested in is what's the alternative for creation.

 

[Joey D]

I do not believe at all that you are trying to understand the point I am trying to make.

Because I'm asking how you arrived at your hypothesis? I mean take it for what you will, but I am actually trying to understand your point but it doesn't make sense to me. This is why I've asked whether you came up with it independently or if you're using something else as a source. I get it, sometimes it's difficult to distill the information down from another source, which is why I think it's important that you provide the sources you're getting all this information from.

The only thing you've given me thus far is the age of the Earth, a mathematical "formula", and the statement "do the math bro". If it was really that simple, there wouldn't be who fields of study attempting to figure out a unified theory of how we all got here.

 

[Brego]

And to the other point, it is not necessarily the only other possible

The point you're trying to make ironically doesn't add up itself. The thing I & Joey seem interested in is what's the alternative for creation.

An alternative idea is irrelevant to the point I am making.

E.g., You can't dismiss A simply because you aren't sure of what B is yet.

 

[McLaren]

And to the other point, it is not necessarily the only other possible

An alternative idea is irrelevant to the point I am making.

E.g., You can't dismiss A simply because you aren't sure of what B is yet.

Nah, it is relevant. You're essentially waving off evolution because of whatever math you're trying to piece together.

So, a couple of us are interested in what you think the alternative is if you want to claim, "I did not evolve from a single cell".

 

[Danoff]

He's not gonna see this, but I can't help myself:

E.g., You can't dismiss A simply because you aren't sure of what B is yet.

What logical operation is this one again? Modus Tollens? No that's not it.

Nobody is dismissing your "MATH DUDE" based on your caginess about what you think is the alternative. There are soooooo many reasons to dismiss your math. So many. From the fact that you applied it to cells (which makes no sense), to your assumption of linearity for a highly non-linear system. There are more too.

I think they're just asking you what you think it is. Don't worry, you couldn't possibly weaken your "math" by answering the question.

 

[Brego]

Because I'm asking how you arrived at your hypothesis? I mean take it for what you will, but I am actually trying to understand your point but it doesn't make sense to me. This is why I've asked whether you came up with it independently or if you're using something else as a source. I get it, sometimes it's difficult to distill the information down from another source, which is why I think it's important that you provide the sources you're getting all this information from.

The only thing you've given me thus far is the age of the Earth, a mathematical "formula", and the statement "do the math bro". If it was really that simple, there wouldn't be who fields of study attempting to figure out a unified theory of how we all got here.

I do not believe you are trying to understand what I am saying. Not at all. I have explained it in the simplest terms possible.

You want to dismiss my proposition because as far as you know, no one else has suggested it? Why would that apply to my suggestion but not to anyone else? History is replete with examples of individuals who suggested ideas that no one has suggested before, and were laughed to scorn, and yet later found to be correct.

I asked for an explanation and the response was "Evolution". No one insists on citations, studies, proofs, published articles, etc. It is just accepted as a valid response simply because everyone agrees with it. I call it a double standard because when I suggest bacteria appeared 2 billion years ago, or complex multicellular life appeared 560 million years ago, suddenly I need to back up that claim. Yet those are commonly accepted figures. I do not doubt that you can find various sources with various alternative figures, but I am giving the best possible number for PRO evolutionary advocates I am being as generous as possible. Yet I still need to back up the claim that bacteria appeared 2 billion years ago. Well, I'm not going to do that because it is a disengenuous argument. Anyone that wants to disagree with the number is going to contest every thing about it no matter how I support it. Especially considering I am giving the best possible number to support arguments against mine. And as far as that goes, I even suggested going beyond that, to the full age of the earth. I will give you 4.5 billion years, and it is still not enough time.

Review of factual information my suggestion is based on. Explain which and how of these points are incorrect and invalid for the purpose of the point I am making.

1. At some point in the earths history, bacteria appeared.
2. At some point later in the earths history, complex life forms appeared.
3. Evolution posits that the complex life forms evolved from the simple life forms.
Regardless of the details of the process, or if I am wording it incorrectly, or if I "don't understand" how it works - none of which has anything to do with what I am saying, which is simply, as stated, again: Evolution posits that the complex life forms evolved from the simple life forms.
4. The maximum amount of time for this evolution to occur is less than 4.5 billion years.
5. The common estimate is around 2 billion years ago, the first bacteria appeared.
6. The common estimate for large and complex multicellular animals is more than 300 million years ago. E.g., Dunkleosteus is an extinct genus of large armored, jawed fishes that existed during the Late Devonian period, about 382–358 million years ago.
7. The difference between the two figures is 1.642 million years.
8. Therefore the process evolution posits must have occured within that time frame of 1.642 million years.
9. The DNA of a bacteria contains the instructions to create one cell.
10. The DNA of a dunkleosteus must contain the instructions to create, differentiate, and organize the cells for a 28 foot long fish, wieghing perhaps 4 tons.
11. All of those cells must be differentiated and organized into a dunkleosteus and all of the information to do so is contained in the DNA of every cell of the same creature.
12. The difference between the bacteria and the dunkleosteus is the complexity of instructions contained in the DNA.

My proposition is very simple: The time frame of 1.642 million years is simply not long enough to for the evolutionary process to proceed from bacteria to the large complex life forms of the devonian period, or even the current era. Not even if you take all the time from the hot ball of lava to Darwin himself would you have enough time to go from bacteria to human. Regardless of the process or if I worded it incorrectly or "thats not how it works", it does not matter, because all I am pointing out is that you have a FINITE amount of time to go from a single cell, to such a complex life form. I don't need a degree in evolutionary science to understand basic mathematics. Humans have 30 trillion cells. Evolution would have us believe we evolved from a single cell in 2 billion years. I say there is simply not enough time.

How did the instructions for creating and organizing one cell get all the way to creating differentiating and organizing 30 trillion cells in only 2 billion years? It is not a hard "formula" to figure out. And if you want to argue "well its non-linear" then you should understand that makes it even worse, because punctuated equilibrium means there are periods of much faster increases in complexity.

The instruction set must increase in complexity at a rate of 15,000 additional cells to evolve and differentiate and organize per year.

Nah, it is relevant. You're essentially waving off evolution because of whatever math you're trying to piece together.

So, a couple of us are interested in what you think the alternative is if you want to claim, "I did not evolve from a single cell".

You cannot dismiss A simply because you don't know what B is. We are talking about what A is.

That truck over there is NOT a Ford, because I might buy a Toyota Tundra next week.

He's not gonna see this, but I can't help myself:

What logical operation is this one again? Modus Tollens? No that's not it.

Nobody is dismissing your "MATH DUDE" based on your caginess about what you think is the alternative. There are soooooo many reasons to dismiss your math. So many. From the fact that you applied it to cells (which makes no sense), to your assumption of linearity for a highly non-linear system. There are more too.

I think they're just asking you what you think it is. Don't worry, you couldn't possibly weaken your "math" by answering the question.

No this is an attempt to divert my argument into something else everyone would rather find argument with.

 

[UKMikey]

Full disclosure: I ****ing suck at math.

I'm just a trainwreck enthusiast.

The speed with which this thread has evolved into something resembling a disastrous rail accident would appear to belie the argument that evolution is too slow for complex organisms to evolve from single cells in billions of years.

 

[McLaren]

You cannot dismiss A simply because you don't know what B is. We are talking about what A is.

That truck over there is NOT a Ford, because I might buy a Toyota Tundra next week.

Meh, that's what I thought. You claim A is wrong based on incorrect math on your part, but when asked the alternative is, you won't even say, "I don't know" & hand wave the question off.

 

[Touring Mars]

An alternative idea is irrelevant to the point I am making.

Well, your dismissal of evolution theory is based on very spurious and poorly explained claims, and you don't seem to have any reasonable alternative to explain observable facts.

I do not believe you are trying to understand what I am saying. Not at all. I have explained it in the simplest terms possible.

You want to dismiss my proposition because as far as you know, no one else has suggested it? Why would that apply to my suggestion but not to anyone else? History is replete with examples of individuals who suggested ideas that no one has suggested before, and were laughed to scorn, and yet later found to be correct.

I asked for an explanation and the response was "Evolution". No one insists on citations, studies, proofs, published articles, etc. It is just accepted as a valid response simply because everyone agrees with it. I call it a double standard because when I suggest bacteria appeared 2 billion years ago, or complex multicellular life appeared 560 million years ago, suddenly I need to back up that claim. Yet those are commonly accepted figures. I do not doubt that you can find various sources with various alternative figures, but I am giving the best possible number for PRO evolutionary advocates I am being as generous as possible. Yet I still need to back up the claim that bacteria appeared 2 billion years ago. Well, I'm not going to do that because it is a disengenuous argument. Anyone that wants to disagree with the number is going to contest every thing about it no matter how I support it. Especially considering I am giving the best possible number to support arguments against mine. And as far as that goes, I even suggested going beyond that, to the full age of the earth. I will give you 4.5 billion years, and it is still not enough time.

Review of factual information my suggestion is based on. Explain which and how of these points are incorrect and invalid for the purpose of the point I am making.

1. At some point in the earths history, bacteria appeared.
2. At some point later in the earths history, complex life forms appeared.
3. Evolution posits that the complex life forms evolved from the simple life forms.
Regardless of the details of the process, or if I am wording it incorrectly, or if I "don't understand" how it works - none of which has anything to do with what I am saying, which is simply, as stated, again: Evolution posits that the complex life forms evolved from the simple life forms.
4. The maximum amount of time for this evolution to occur is less than 4.5 billion years.
5. The common estimate is around 2 billion years ago, the first bacteria appeared.
6. The common estimate for large and complex multicellular animals is more than 300 million years ago. E.g., Dunkleosteus is an extinct genus of large armored, jawed fishes that existed during the Late Devonian period, about 382–358 million years ago.
7. The difference between the two figures is 1.642 million years.
8. Therefore the process evolution posits must have occured within that time frame of 1.642 million years.
9. The DNA of a bacteria contains the instructions to create one cell.
10. The DNA of a dunkleosteus must contain the instructions to create, differentiate, and organize the cells for a 28 foot long fish, wieghing perhaps 4 tons.
11. All of those cells must be differentiated and organized into a dunkleosteus and all of the information to do so is contained in the DNA of every cell of the same creature.
12. The difference between the bacteria and the dunkleosteus is the complexity of instructions contained in the DNA.

My proposition is very simple: The time frame of 1.642 million years is simply not long enough to for the evolutionary process to proceed from bacteria to the large complex life forms of the devonian period, or even the current era. Not even if you take all the time from the hot ball of lava to Darwin himself would you have enough time to go from bacteria to human. Regardless of the process or if I worded it incorrectly or "thats not how it works", it does not matter, because all I am pointing out is that you have a FINITE amount of time to go from a single cell, to such a complex life form. I don't need a degree in evolutionary science to understand basic mathematics. Humans have 30 trillion cells. Evolution would have us believe we evolved from a single cell in 2 billion years. I say there is simply not enough time.

How did the instructions for creating and organizing one cell get all the way to creating differentiating and organizing 30 trillion cells in only 2 billion years? It is not a hard "formula" to figure out. And if you want to argue "well its non-linear" then you should understand that makes it even worse, because punctuated equilibrium means there are periods of much faster increases in complexity.

The instruction set must increase in complexity at a rate of 15,000 additional cells to evolve and differentiate and organize per year.

The reason people are asking for your alternative to existing theory is that YOU are the one disputing it, in spite of the fact that you are also the one framing it in terms of observable facts. You're not disputing that life on Earth went from A to B, but you are disputing how it went from A to B - yet you are not offering any alternative explanation, only rubbishing the existing explanation using extremely poor reasoning.

So the question remains, if single celled bacteria did exist 2 billion years ago and multicellular life did not (correct), then how did multicellular life on Earth (as we see it today) come about if not via common descent/evolution? Frankly, if you don't have a credible answer, then I'm wondering why you are even in this thread to begin with.

 

[Danoff]

The instruction set must increase in complexity at a rate of 15,000 additional cells to evolve and differentiate and organize per year.

You're sticking with this uh... let's call it... idea. A single instruction change in DNA can result in billions of cells which are all different.

10. The DNA of a dunkleosteus must contain the instructions to create, differentiate, and organize the cells for a 28 foot long fish, wieghing perhaps 4 tons.

It's not mapped 1 to 1. You don't have a single piece of DNA sequence (protein?) for each cell in your body. Sometimes you have more cells, sometimes fewer, your DNA can stay the same size. If you lose 5 lbs, your DNA does not also lose 5 lbs.

11. All of those cells must be differentiated and organized into a dunkleosteus and all of the information to do so is contained in the DNA of every cell of the same creature.

You'd be arguing about types of cells, not individual cells.

12. The difference between the bacteria and the dunkleosteus is the complexity of instructions contained in the DNA.

Yes. But absolutely NOTHING you have shown indicates that it can't happen in the amount of time involved. You haven't even begun to show anything at all about the complexity of DNA, how DNA changes, or what rates are reasonable for it to change. That's because all of this was erroneously based on cells at first, and you haven't adapted.

The DNA of a human is about a 96% match to the DNA of a chimp.


Edit:

The reality is that the 96% is kindof a worst case scenario, because if you do the comparison intelligently you end up with an even closer match. Keep in mind that humans and chimps have been diverging from a common ancestor for a long time. Both species have moved away from each other, and yet we still have very similar DNA despite tens of trillions of cells which are configured into a different species. Nearly the same DNA, completely different cellular expression of an organism.

It is not a hard "formula" to figure out. And if you want to argue "well its non-linear" then you should understand that makes it even worse, because punctuated equilibrium means there are periods of much faster increases in complexity.

Uh huh, like exponentially faster a times.

 

[TexRex]

No this is an attempt to divert my argument into something else everyone would rather find argument with.

So basically what you are saying is "LALALALAH BILLIONS OF YEARS LALALAH IS LONG TIME"

 

[Joey D]

I do not believe you are trying to understand what I am saying. Not at all. I have explained it in the simplest terms possible.

I'm not sure how you think I'm not attempting to understand what you're writing, but it's not being spelled out in the simplest possible terms. Or I guess rather, it's being spelled out in simple terms, but those simple terms are so simple that they ignore a large part of evolution.

You want to dismiss my proposition because as far as you know, no one else has suggested it? Why would that apply to my suggestion but not to anyone else? History is replete with examples of individuals who suggested ideas that no one has suggested before, and were laughed to scorn, and yet later found to be correct.

If it's something you came up with, yes I want to dismiss it until it gets proper peer review to ensure that the scientific method was followed. I do the same thing to other ideas that are presented as fact with no data to back it up because that's how science works.

I asked for an explanation and the response was "Evolution". No one insists on citations, studies, proofs, published articles, etc. It is just accepted as a valid response simply because everyone agrees with it. I call it a double standard because when I suggest bacteria appeared 2 billion years ago, or complex multicellular life appeared 560 million years ago, suddenly I need to back up that claim.

Evolution is a theory that has been studied for nearly 200 years with thousands and thousands of highly educated people lending their expertise to it. It's been critiqued, reviewed, and challenged over and over again because that's good science. If you really want all the proof, I don't think it could actually fit in this thread due to the sheer magnitude of it. Even if we boiled it down to human evolution, it would still be too large for the thread. Hell, I took classes, as in plural, on human evolution when I was at university.

So why do you need to back it up? Because you're the one putting forth this idea that we still don't know where it came from. If it's something you came up with, there needs to be a peer-review process before it holds any weight at all. It's how academia works.

4. The maximum amount of time for this evolution to occur is less than 4.5 billion years.
5. The common estimate is around 2 billion years ago, the first bacteria appeared.
6. The common estimate for large and complex multicellular animals is more than 300 million years ago. E.g., Dunkleosteus is an extinct genus of large armored, jawed fishes that existed during the Late Devonian period, about 382–358 million years ago.
7. The difference between the two figures is 1.642 million years.
8. Therefore the process evolution posits must have occured within that time frame of 1.642 million years.

I'm really not sure where you're getting the 1.642 million years here.

Also, complex life on Earth is significantly older than 300 million years. Trilobites alone date to as early as 520 million years ago. The Cambrian Explosion dates to around 540 million years ago too and there's plenty of evidence of that found in the Burgess Shale. Sponges were likely the first multicellular life on Earth too dating to at least 700 million years ago, if not older.

 

[wfooshee]

Wow, I though this thread had done everything it could do. I've now shown myself analogous to the folks that wanted to close the patent office because everything conceivable had been invented.

I have never seen any attempt at defining the process of Evolution as a mathematical progression. Simple organism times 60 trillion equals complex organism, completely ignoring everything that happened in between, all the intermediate species and branches of plants and animals and ancestors and descendants, and environments.

 

[Danoff]

Wow, I though this thread had done everything it could do. I've now shown myself analogous to the folks that wanted to close the patent office because everything conceivable had been invented.

I have never seen any attempt at defining the process of Evolution as a mathematical progression. Simple organism times 60 trillion equals complex organism, completely ignoring everything that happened in between, all the intermediate species and branches of plants and animals and ancestors and descendants, and environments.

I was hit with something similar to this about renewable energy not that long ago. Someone decides to simplify the hell out of a complex situation and does some "back of the envelope" math with a ton of incorrect assumptions because they have no actual idea what they're talking about. They arrive at the desired conclusion (usually something like "it's impossible"), and call it good. Never re-evaluating everything that went into it, and concluding with the notion that they're somehow smarter than the "college educated elite" who failed to consider the simplest possible ideas.

It's "ignorance is a virtue". I grew up with this kind of anti-intelligence intelligence idea, so I tend to be sensitive to it when it appears. Dunning-Krueger is a good name for it, but I see it most often used to argue that something is wrong rather than that something is right.

 

[Exorcet]

but I am giving the best possible number for PRO evolutionary advocates I am being as generous as possible.

What you presented doesn't make sense. You are only displaying that you don't know what evolution is, and that ironically you're bad a math. At least applied math. You can add as much as you want, and your addition can even be flawless. However if your math model is completely divorced from reality, as yours is, what good is it? The math has to resemble what actually happens in reality.

Yet I still need to back up the claim that bacteria appeared 2 billion years ago. Well, I'm not going to do that because it is a disengenuous argument. Anyone that wants to disagree with the number is going to contest every thing about it no matter how I support it. Especially considering I am giving the best possible number to support arguments against mine. And as far as that goes, I even suggested going beyond that, to the full age of the earth. I will give you 4.5 billion years, and it is still not enough time.

Your timelines are close enough, and don't really matter. They are not what people are taking issue with. It's your process that is the problem, because it's made up and doesn't describe anything in reality. Has there even been an evolutionary paper that focuses on "cells per day/year/whatever per organism" or something similar over evolutionary timescales? Probably not because it doesn't mean anything. Organisms don't evolve by linearly increasing cell count. Cell count is a result of evolution, not what drives it.

9. The DNA of a bacteria contains the instructions to create one cell.

I am not an expert in biology but I think it would be more accurate to say that the DNA of a bacteria or single cell contains information for the creation of proteins that when transcribed create a functioning cell. There isn't actually a blueprint for an entire organism in there, just a self replicating molecule that undergoes multiple complex processes which eventually create an organism. You don't directly control the size or cell count of the organism, that arises from the proteins created and how they interact with each other.

10. The DNA of a dunkleosteus must contain the instructions to create, differentiate, and organize the cells for a 28 foot long fish, wieghing perhaps 4 tons.

This is again not cell based. The fish, like the bacteria, comes about from the reading of DNA to create proteins. Rather than the difference between the two being "you are 1 cell" and "you are x trillion cells", it would be more like "your cells separate on division" and "your cells remain conjoined after division". That's not really accurate either because again, the difference is in what proteins are made and how they all interact with each other. However if those interactions make something like cellular adhesion an on/off switch and cells divide at an exponential rate, it trivializes the issue you have with time.

A cell that divides at a rate of once per day will undergo 2^365 divisions a year. That gives you 10^109 cells. Your math does not apply. We have so much abundance in time for evolution (in terms of the cell count of organisms, only because you bring it up) to occur it's ridiculous say time is a constraint.

11. All of those cells must be differentiated and organized into a dunkleosteus and all of the information to do so is contained in the DNA of every cell of the same creature.
12. The difference between the bacteria and the dunkleosteus is the complexity of instructions contained in the DNA.

See above.

My proposition is very simple: The time frame of 1.642 million years is simply not long enough to for the evolutionary process to proceed from bacteria to the large complex life forms of the devonian period, or even the current era. Not even if you take all the time from the hot ball of lava to Darwin himself would you have enough time to go from bacteria to human. Regardless of the process or if I worded it incorrectly or "thats not how it works", it does not matter,

"Regardless of the process or if I worded it incorrectly or "thats not how it works", it does not matter"

This is wrong. You're using linear math where it doesn't apply. You're also applying that linear math on an imaginary process. These mistakes of your matter a lot. You can't get into a discussion on evolution if you don't know anything about it.

You need a working model to at least show that you know what you're talking about. You don't have one.

because all I am pointing out is that you have a FINITE amount of time to go from a single cell, to such a complex life form. I don't need a degree in evolutionary science to understand basic mathematics. Humans have 30 trillion cells. Evolution would have us believe we evolved from a single cell in 2 billion years. I say there is simply not enough time.

You're not qualified to say this. You may not need a degree in evolutionary science to add random numbers together, but you do need the degree, or at least a high school understanding of evolution, to know what numbers to perform what operations on to reach a meaningful conclusion. In other words, how to come up with a working model. You don't have one.

How did the instructions for creating and organizing one cell get all the way to creating differentiating and organizing 30 trillion cells in only 2 billion years? It is not a hard "formula" to figure out.

Yet you can't figure it out.

And if you want to argue "well its non-linear" then you should understand that makes it even worse, because punctuated equilibrium means there are periods of much faster increases in complexity.

The instruction set must increase in complexity at a rate of 15,000 additional cells to evolve and differentiate and organize per year.

No, a mutation or multiple mutations occur and internal processes that build the organism change, which results in changes to things like the number of cells, size, and cell differentiation. Since cell growth is non linear, it's easy to see where multi trillion cell organisms came from in relatively short time spans.

 

[Imari]

I am pointing out that billions of years is NOT ENOUGH TIME.

If you want to be that obtuse about it, go ahead with the age of the earth okay? Is that good enough for you, or do you think evolutionary processes have been going on here on earth since before the planet accreted into a flaming ball of lava?

4.5 billion years. STILL not enough time.
You need for a single cell bacteria to evolve into a 30 trillion cell human in 4.5 billion years.


You do not hav enough time for that to happen.

What is enough time? If you can say that 1.6 billion and 4.5 billion years are definitively not enough time, presumably you have at least some idea of what is enough time. Because you're not saying that it's not possible, you're just saying that there hasn't been enough time.

I say there is simply not enough time.

You keep saying this, with no attempt to explain what is "enough" time, what isn't "enough" time, and how one might distinguish between them. Let alone reasons why a certain amount of time might be enough or not enough.

Explain how people can tell what is or isn't enough time for an evolutionary process to occur, and you might get somewhere.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Some of the responses to my statements directly imply that I am some kind of moron

 

[Danoff]

When considering the possibility of life existing outside of the Earth, there are several things usually discussed.

1) How likely is it for a planet to form that is habitable (ie: how many such instances do we expect in the universe)?
2) How likely is it for life to originate on such a planet.
3) How likely is it for intelligent life to originate on that same planet.

For that last point, I'm starting to think the answer is "pretty likely". Brains exist for an evolutionary reason. Brains help predators catch prey, and they help prey avoid predators. A brain which can simulate the future helps a predator predict its pray and also predict its environment to help it catch prey, and the same development can assist prey in avoiding predators for the same reason. Sophisticated brains that are hardwired with environmental expectations (like gravity, mechanical leverage for limbs to propel, and so on) and which deliver dopamine responses for events (like eating and sex) which are correlated with procreating, should therefore be expected to arise in evolution and we see that happen in our own planet's history.

We don't just see it happen, we see it happen in many different places to different degrees depending on the environment. Mammals have the most sophisticated brains on earth. And even though quite a few mammals have very sophisticated brains (some of them profoundly sophisticated), if all of that sophistication arises in the mammal tree we might conclude that intelligence is as likely as mammals - which might be unlikely. But then... octopus exist. Parrots exist. Bees communicate.

A highly adept brain seems more like an eventuality than a rarity.

 

[wheelhp]

On sheer chance, I would not be surprised if life exists outside of Earth. If it were also intelligent, would not surprise me. If it had it's own religion/God, would not surprise me.