Amazed by Human Body

Off Topic
101

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
"Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?

Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.

It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose’s answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it’s called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means “zero probability”. Penrose’s number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose’s number tells us that the 'accidental" or “coincidental” creation of our universe is an impossibility.

Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:

This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0’s. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a “product of coincidences” one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of God’s existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs. "

why does every culture, even those isolated from the rest of the world have some form of religion? could it not be because we were created with such a need? why do we have the ability to see in color? why to we have the desire to help others in need? these don’t seem to be things that would be NEEDED for evolution? from what i have seen, i think people would rather claim chance instead of having to answer to someone for their actions. to me, evolution is the leap of faith. my personal belief.[/quote]

WOW, I’m a creationist and that still blew my mind. Where do you come across stuff this good?

102

[quote]gethuge08 wrote:

WOW, I’m a creationist and that still blew my mind. Where do you come across stuff this good?[/quote]

Here is one link for the information here. There is always plenty more out there.

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html

103

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
"Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?[/quote]

I don’t think anyone is arguing that the universe is pedestrian. I see this more as a reason to believe in nothing than believe in anything.

Still, kudos for quoting Penrose. I often wonder what it is like to be Penrose and be totally fascinated by everything.[/quote]

104

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
honest_lifter wrote:
"Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?

I don’t think anyone is arguing that the universe is pedestrian. I see this more as a reason to believe in nothing than believe in anything.

Still, kudos for quoting Penrose. I often wonder what it is like to be Penrose and be totally fascinated by everything.

[/quote]

you are absolutely right. Just by the fact that they are amazed by it tells me they feel it is complex. However, I am emphasizing the implication of believing that there is no higher power. This would mean humans think they an rule themselves, and that has time and time again been proved a fallacy.

105

That doesn’t necessarily mean that there is something like god (if that’s what you’re implying). One can believe other things. For example, that everything in this world runs according to the laws of physics. But that’s a totally different topic…

106

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:

WOW, I’m a creationist and that still blew my mind. Where do you come across stuff this good?

Here is one link for the information here. There is always plenty more out there.

http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html[/quote]

Thanks. I appreciate it.

107

[quote]jCaesar88 wrote:
honest_lifter wrote:This would mean humans think they an rule themselves, and that has time and time again been proved a fallacy.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that there is something like god (if that’s what you’re implying). One can believe other things. For example, that everything in this world runs according to the laws of physics. But that’s a totally different topic…[/quote]

That could run on for 100 pages and not reach any satisfactory conclusion. Best leave that Pandora’s box well alone.

108

[quote]jCaesar88 wrote:
honest_lifter wrote:This would mean humans think they an rule themselves, and that has time and time again been proved a fallacy.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that there is something like god (if that’s what you’re implying). One can believe other things. For example, that everything in this world runs according to the laws of physics. But that’s a totally different topic…[/quote]

You are correct. In fact, if they didn’t believe the laws of physics, it wouldn’t really help them. I mean, if you STRONGLY disbelieve the laws of physics, you would still fall after jumping off a building. Believe has to be based on something. And whether it is a strong belief or not, ultimately, is irrelevent/unfortunate if it is wrong. (yes, i know that was very vague, but I wish to avoid being dogmatic)

109

[quote]gethuge08 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:
Right on Prof. X. I don’t mean to change this into a God discussion, but there is no way that humans, or even animals could have developed on there own.

Um yes it could of. They did and continue to do so.

Also, it’s “their” not “there”.

Actually, “their” implies ownership, so it is “there”. Get your facts straight before you do something as gay as correct my grammar.[/quote]

You are 100% correct. “their” is a possessive pronoun. In the phrase “their book” the possessive pronoun “their” functions as an adjective modifying “book”. An adjective is a word that modifies a noun or a pronoun. In this sentence construction, “own” is used as a pronoun.

“There” can function as a variety of parts of speech, but generally indicates directionality or location, place, or point: stand over “there;” went “there” after church; stop right “there” before you say something you’ll regret; “there” is where I disagree with you
“there,” it’s finished.

So, before you go and bash someone for incorrectly correcting your grammar, make sure you are correct. “Their” is indeed the proper homophone in this construction.

Linette, former English teacher and now librarian!

110

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
"Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?

Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.

It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose’s answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it’s called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means “zero probability”. Penrose’s number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose’s number tells us that the 'accidental" or “coincidental” creation of our universe is an impossibility.

Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:

This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0’s. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a “product of coincidences” one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of God’s existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs. "

why does every culture, even those isolated from the rest of the world have some form of religion? could it not be because we were created with such a need? why do we have the ability to see in color? why to we have the desire to help others in need? these don’t seem to be things that would be NEEDED for evolution? from what i have seen, i think people would rather claim chance instead of having to answer to someone for their actions. to me, evolution is the leap of faith. my personal belief.[/quote]

well we are here, after all. if the probability of life developing in a universe is non-zero, then it will happen. if it’s much greater than zero, than maybe it will happen so often that populations will overlap each other. if it’s barely greater than zero, we probably will never see other life in the time humanity exists.

though maybe if the concept of our uniqueness was more universally grasped, people wouldn’t kill each other so much.

once you accept penrose’s numbers (a big step… i suspect it’s GIGO), getting all glassy-eyed over the incomprehensible size of them is… well i don’t agree with it.

the leap from “my gosh, life is so complex on so many levels, i can barely comprehend it” to “i can barely comprehend it therefore a god must have made it so” is also something i don’t agree with.

citing some intelligent creator is a cop-out. it’s like giving up on a cumbersome problem and declaring it unsolvable, only to be proven wrong by someone with a little more curiosity and a lot more tenacity.

maybe none of us will live long enough to fully understand the complex structure of the human body, but maybe 10,000 years from now our descendants will have enough brainpower to make sense of it all.

there is nothing wrong with feeling overwhelmed at the awesome intricacy of the body (or the rest of life for that matter), but don’t let those waves of wonder and awe numb your curiosity and critical thinking.

one more thing: the structure of you body spans many length scales (understatement of the year!). you generally only perceive reality on a narrow range of scales (tactile sensing down to fragments of a mm, visual sensing up the limits of your sight). that the structure of our own bodies is well outside our range of comprehension should be a little red flag when claims on a global, astronomical, and universal scale start getting thrown around.

111

[quote]grettiron wrote:
well we are here, after all. if the probability of life developing in a universe is non-zero, then it will happen. if it’s much greater than zero, than maybe it will happen so often that populations will overlap each other. if it’s barely greater than zero, we probably will never see other life in the time humanity exists.

though maybe if the concept of our uniqueness was more universally grasped, people wouldn’t kill each other so much.

once you accept penrose’s numbers (a big step… i suspect it’s GIGO), getting all glassy-eyed over the incomprehensible size of them is… well i don’t agree with it.

the leap from “my gosh, life is so complex on so many levels, i can barely comprehend it” to “i can barely comprehend it therefore a god must have made it so” is also something i don’t agree with.

citing some intelligent creator is a cop-out. it’s like giving up on a cumbersome problem and declaring it unsolvable, only to be proven wrong by someone with a little more curiosity and a lot more tenacity.

maybe none of us will live long enough to fully understand the complex structure of the human body, but maybe 10,000 years from now our descendants will have enough brainpower to make sense of it all.

there is nothing wrong with feeling overwhelmed at the awesome intricacy of the body (or the rest of life for that matter), but don’t let those waves of wonder and awe numb your curiosity and critical thinking.

one more thing: the structure of you body spans many length scales (understatement of the year!). you generally only perceive reality on a narrow range of scales (tactile sensing down to fragments of a mm, visual sensing up the limits of your sight).

that the structure of our own bodies is well outside our range of comprehension should be a little red flag when claims on a global, astronomical, and universal scale start getting thrown around.[/quote]

Interesting thought. Really. If the existence of life without a creator is above zero, even the slightest amount, then yes, mathematically, it can be created. I guess it comes down to what we, as individuals, believe to be the answer based on our own probings and findings.

If the God of the Bible actually exists, which I believe he does, then to ignore His existence will have negative consequences.

However, if we were indeed created through evolution over billions of years, then there would be no ultimate consequences for our actions. It is a personal choice which road we will follow. But it is not a personal choice as to which one of those is correct. Both can’t be right.

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Especially your thought on curiosity and critical thinking.

112

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
However, if we were indeed created through evolution over billions of years, then there would be no ultimate consequences for our actions.[/quote]

lol

113

This is the reason why I recently changed my degree program from mechanical engineering to phsyiological sciences. What amazes me are the similarities and carryover between the two, and how nature in general, by evolution has found solutions to highly complex problems that we are only just beginning to realise, let alone understand.

I believe we can find a lot of technological solutions by looking at biological structures, one of the more interesting ones I saw recently was the possible application of wasps to detect different types of explosives, due to their ability to detect certain chemicals.

Also I find not only the physiological development astounding, but the pyschological. The way that we have a memory capacity, emotions, cognitive function in general. This stuff blows my mind.

114

Im sad that i wasn’t born as hung as Shane Diesel Q_Q

115

The mind is the ost dangerous and greatest weapon known to mankind. It can save a life, or end it.

116

[quote]mtlians wrote:
The mind is the ost dangerous and greatest weapon known to mankind. It can save a life, or end it.[/quote]

More truth than you know.

117

[quote]Chrysalis wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
gethuge08 wrote:
Right on Prof. X. I don’t mean to change this into a God discussion, but there is no way that humans, or even animals could have developed on there own.

Um yes it could of. They did and continue to do so.

Also, it’s “their” not “there”.

Actually, “their” implies ownership, so it is “there”. Get your facts straight before you do something as gay as correct my grammar.

You are 100% correct. “their” is a possessive pronoun. In the phrase “their book” the possessive pronoun “their” functions as an adjective modifying “book”. An adjective is a word that modifies a noun or a pronoun. In this sentence construction, “own” is used as a pronoun.

“There” can function as a variety of parts of speech, but generally indicates directionality or location, place, or point: stand over “there;” went “there” after church; stop right “there” before you say something you’ll regret; “there” is where I disagree with you
“there,” it’s finished.

So, before you go and bash someone for incorrectly correcting your grammar, make sure you are correct. “Their” is indeed the proper homophone in this construction.

Linette, former English teacher and now librarian![/quote]

I already acknowledged that I was wrong and was talking about the wrong “there”. But thanks for dragging this on and for the little grammar lesson. I’ll come to you if I ever need an essay to be proof read.

118

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Actually, the complexity of DNA is precisely what turned me away from my belief in evolution and made me begin to question the possibility of ‘intelligent design’.

Having studied engineering, the concept of modular design or common traits to achieve different ends is something that I would apply, if I ever got the chance to create my own universe.

To have one single common thread running through all life (as we know it) suggests (to me) that there is some sort of ‘designer’ at work, taking proven techniques and utilising them over and over.

But that’s my opinion, and I don’t understand the subject well enough (in my own frame of reference) to be able, or willing to enter into debate, so I’ll leave it there, thanks :wink:

BBB[/quote]

As an engineer who works with modular design on a regular basis yes I agree, the whole system seems almost too well laid out almost as if it was designed by an outside party.

The only thing I can say to this is life did not start on earth via evolution, life started out from a biological seed from somewhere else, life on earth has evolved from that seed to what it is today.

Yes my analogy of Genetics to C++ is well a bit weak, well humans have not and likely will not design anything as complex as a single strand of DNA for another few dozen or two decades.

119

The way they have discovered the new RNA that works like a gene (microscopic RNA). They use to think RNA basically was just involved in transcription and translation, but it can actually work like a gene and affect phenotypic expression on its own

The way they use to think apocrine sweat glands worked but now they know they secrete their substances via exocytosis (really making them merocrine glands).

Etc etc etc- even if you think you know it, they are always discovering something new

120

[quote]Nanan wrote:
As an engineer who works with modular design on a regular basis yes I agree, the whole system seems almost too well laid out almost as if it was designed by an outside party.

The only thing I can say to this is life did not start on earth via evolution, life started out from a biological seed from somewhere else, life on earth has evolved from that seed to what it is today.

Yes my analogy of Genetics to C++ is well a bit weak, well humans have not and likely will not design anything as complex as a single strand of DNA for another few dozen or two decades.
[/quote]

Or maybe it started here on earth, which is in the proverbial “Goldilocks zone” for sustaining life. Evolution is the only theory we have that works based on evidence.