Avatar: A Bad Thread

[Alondro]

Screw the plot, Avatar had SPARKLES. And that's good enough for me. 

Though I do kinda wish it had been kept like he originally planned.

Good lord, the original story was MUCH better!  Why on earth did he alter it so much?  I still hate the whole naturally-existing Gaia thing.  The biologist in me cannot accept it without the vital information that would hint that such a system must be deliberately designed.  Evolution (ie, random genetic change over time) would never create such a world of interlinked organisms.  But all it would have taken was one suggestion by a scientist, "You know, the capabilities of this planet far exceed anything imaginable.  The analytical ability we're seeing here surpasses even our best AI.  This whole world may be a living supercomputer.  If so, I'd love to meet the race that designed it."  And I would have been satisfied.  It wouldn't have to be 'proven' that way in the movie, just thrown out as a logical explanation to cover the bases. 

Other than that, the old story would have virtually eliminated all the plot holes and sterotypes (except the mean ol military), BUT since the analogy would have been primarily a comparison to the ransacking on Native Americans (and maybe little nod towards Africa, South America, and Australia, since Europe kinda screwed those continentss' native populations over just as severely), it would have been very accurate to what went on back then.

This is what I'd thought when I saw it, that there was a structure of a much better story that had been hacked up over time.

[Sofox]

Evolution (ie, random genetic change over time) would never create such a world of interlinked organisms.

You know, I've heard anti-Evolution theorists use the same argument for various existing organic complex systems such as the eye (which contains the lens, retina, link to the brain, and the brains area for processing the information). They say that given it has several parts, and each individual part is useless without every other part, that the incremental change of evolution would never have brought such a complex system into being.

[Turnsky]

i reaaaallly think you two are reading too much into this, haven't you folks heard of "Narrative Causality"? 

[Mao]

Evolution (ie, random genetic change over time) would never create such a world of interlinked organisms.

You know, I've heard anti-Evolution theorists use the same argument for various existing organic complex systems such as the eye (which contains the lens, retina, link to the brain, and the brains area for processing the information). They say that given it has several parts, and each individual part is useless without every other part, that the incremental change of evolution would never have brought such a complex system into being.

Problem with that, is that evolution doesn't really say that something isn't possible.  Given a vast amount of time and space (which from observation and testing, we *seem* to have), *any* thing could conceivably find the right conditions and circumstances to evolve.  It's a bunk argument that people like to use to make themselves feel better about their beliefs and it's not really based on any fact.  "It couldn't possibly have" is never followed by "because..."

I mean, that's what random kinda means.  Not predictable.  You can't really say it wouldn't do something.

[Keleth]

My problem with the Incredibles is two fold.  On one hand, it is supposed to encourage those with abilities to use those abilities, yet at the same time, encourages people to hide their abilities (note that the family still goes back to maintaining the facade, instead of becoming full-time superheroes).  Also, it portrays the common man as a villain, a man who not only compensates for his lack of ability, but is willing to share (albeit for a price) the experience of being a "super" thereby leveling the playing field.  Syndrome was about making people equal by empowering those who'd choose to be empowered, while getting revenge on those who thought of themselves as superior because of their powers.

Only the "special" can be heroes, and they will do anything in their power to prevent normal people from achieving their status.  How sad.

The message I got from the movie was, wasted potential.

Syndrome had the opportunity to yeah, actually be a good superhero, could of one upped Mr. Incredible by actually you know, putting his talents to good use.

Sure, if SuperHeroes are outlawed, he still could of done the world a huge amount of good if he actually wanted to.

But he didn't, and that's why he's a sort of tragic villain. Because it was his own damn fault :b

[Sofox]

It's a bunk argument that people like to use to make themselves feel better about their beliefs and it's not really based on any fact.  "It couldn't possibly have" is never followed by "because..."

"because..." evolution implies that minor mutattions or birth defects built up over time due to it giving an advantage to those who posess it. A slightly peaked shell may enable a tortise more able to eat food from higher up branches. Hence, those with the peaked shells are more likely to survive, give birth, and and pass those peaked shell genes to their children who make have a mutation that makes their shells even more peaked and so even more likely to survive. Over time, the species of tortoise with extremely peaked shells build up. The critical point here is that for an attribute to evolve (eg. peaked shells), it must be useful in the all stages of it's growth so that it can continue to be passed down, otherwise it will be drowned out by other genetic mutations and diversity. To have a complex system like the ocular system come to be evolved, either various parts of the system would have had to gradually build up over countless generations while providing no survival benfit until suddenly fiting together like a jigsaw; or a single mutation would have to create the entire system in one go. Both scenarious are incredibly unlikely.

Look, I'm not saying I agree with the argument, but at least deal with the argument on it's own merits rather then involving the people who make it.

Anyway, my point was that whatever argument used to explain how these complicated organisms systems like the eye came to be could also explain how Pandora is a world of interlinked organisms.

[Tapewolf]

Anyway, my point was that whatever argument used to explain how these complicated organisms systems like the eye came to be could also explain how Pandora is a world of interlinked organisms.

AFAIK there is a chain of known organisms with the eye in different stages of development from light sensor to light direction sensor to motion sensor to full image sensor.  In fact, I seem to recall a Royal Institution lecture about that.

Anyway, I don't exactly see why an entire ecology might not become symbiotic through gradual evolution...

[Turnsky]

Anyway, my point was that whatever argument used to explain how these complicated organisms systems like the eye came to be could also explain how Pandora is a world of interlinked organisms.

AFAIK there is a chain of known organisms with the eye in different stages of development from light sensor to light direction sensor to motion sensor to full image sensor.  In fact, I seem to recall a Royal Institution lecture about that.

Anyway, I don't exactly see why an entire ecology might not become symbiotic through gradual evolution...

there's fine examples of Symbiotic relationships here on earth, anyways.

Lichen would be a spectacular example.

[Gornemant]

Evolution (ie, random genetic change over time) would never create such a world of interlinked organisms.

Why not?

Sofox:
So your argument on the "because..." is "It's incredibly unlikely"?

[Mao]

Sofox:
So your argument on the "because..." is "It's incredibly unlikely"?

In summary.

Think he missed the part where I said: "Given a vast amount of time and space (which from observation and testing, we *seem* to have), *any* thing could conceivably find the right conditions and circumstances to evolve."  which takes that whole 'incredibly unlikely' part and blows it out of the water.  It may be incredibly unlikely, but evolution kinda accepts the fact that weird stuff is going to happen.  There's a couple random variables in there.  Random stuff doesn't seem to sit well with folks, but it's something you kinda have to accept as a concept.

I'm all for looking at the argument, but when the argument can't even stand, I start wondering about the loony who's saying it.

[Sofox]

The crux of the argument comes to how you evaluate the probabilities involved. The argument I put forth (which as I said, wasn't mine), was that the odds against the complex systems developing through evolution are so gigantically against it, (even "Given a vast amount of time and space (which from observation and testing, we *seem* to have)"), that it would be ridiculous to assume that evolution is the natural explaination for them just so it can fit into established scientific knowledge.

Now whether those probability against it is really that big, I'm not sure, I've reached the limit of my scientific knowledge of the subject here and would greatly appreciated any further scientific input anyone could give.

And Mao, while I appreciate your point of view, you've failed to conclusively prove that the argument I was proposing was flawed, and until an argument is proven to be flawed or at least highly unlikely, it is reasonable for anyone to believe it.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

There's a fundamental difference though, between a complicated organ and a complicated system of organisms interacting.  Remember, evolution works by having an enormous number of protiens interacting over millions of years, and while that could mean that almost anything is possible, the more iterations of interaction you have, the less likely the really far out possibilities are to occur. Rolling a 20 on a 20 sided die has a 1 in 20 chance of occuring. Rolling twenty on 20 "dice" with either a zero or a one on them occurs once every 2^20 possibilities, which is 1 in 1,048,576.

But evolution is not completely random. Mutations that lead to adaptations for survival are weighed probabilities, they're more likely to come up, and ones that are harmful are less likely to. (duh)  Here's the catch though. Even supposing that something absurdly unlikely, that the eye springing up in one complicated mutation, or wings spontaneously developing, is plausible, symbiotic relationships working need more variables to line up to function, with the number needed rising exponentially with each creature added to the circle. Remember, the liklihood is only weighted in your favor if it's in your species best interests to "play nice" with each and every other member of the symbiotic circle. As you keep adding creatures, the liklihood becomes absurdly common for it to be best for one organism to "cheat" and parasitize (sp?).


Yeah, it's *possible*. But it's also possible for a bullet fired at point blank range to be deflected by quantum uncertainty principle, since the electrons of a building a mile away all *happen* to be in the right place to electromagnetically push away the bullets electrons, stopping the slug. The odds are so ridiculously unlikely though, that if it were to happen in a movie, everyone would be shouting "bullshit!". Would you blame them?


Best wishes,
Corgatha Taldorthar.

[Mao]

To respond to both of you:  The argument was that it couldn't possibly have happened that way.  I call bullshit on that part.  Neither of your arguments have been able to conclusively say that it's impossible.  In fact, the points both of you have made, make your view of it just as likely wrong.

You yourself said, Sofox, that it was only unlikely.  Corgatha took it a bit further and made an extreme and near (but not quite) absurd analogy to support his view and I'll give you credit, it is unlikely.  However, so is then, the theory that it was created too.  Because frankly, what are the odds that something able to create something like this evolved?

So far, you both have left out the fact that even evolution theory admits that some evolutions happen with absolutely no impact either way on survival.  They simply went unchecked.  They occured randomly and spread by chance.  Surprise, it happens.  Evolution does not ever say that the only way a mutation happens is with regards to survival.  It's a driving force, but some mutations have no effect either way, and thus spread.  Maybe by sheer chance they did later become something useful.

The problem came about when someone said:  "It can't possibly have happened that way."

Anything is possible, even the creation theory.  Good day.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

I think that while "It's impossible" is what is literally being said, I think that's more being used as a shorthand for "It's so absurdly unlikely that it interferes with suspension of disbelief and inspires the audience to speculate about how gullible the writers think they, as a group, are."


Which one sounds catchier? :p

[Gornemant]

The crux of the argument comes to how you evaluate the probabilities involved. The argument I put forth (which as I said, wasn't mine), was that the odds against the complex systems developing through evolution are so gigantically against it, (even "Given a vast amount of time and space (which from observation and testing, we *seem* to have)"), that it would be ridiculous to assume that evolution is the natural explaination for them just so it can fit into established scientific knowledge.

Now whether those probability against it is really that big, I'm not sure, I've reached the limit of my scientific knowledge of the subject here and would greatly appreciated any further scientific input anyone could give.

And Mao, while I appreciate your point of view, you've failed to conclusively prove that the argument I was proposing was flawed, and until an argument is proven to be flawed or at least highly unlikely, it is reasonable for anyone to believe it.

There is no point in debating the argument you presented, because it isn't an argument to begin with, it's 100% speculation trying to explain speculation. It would be the same as saying that it is incredibly unlikely that you will get red 20 times in a row at roulette, and so saying it is impossible. It is improbable, but far from impossible, it's a far fetched conclusion based on probability laws...

But have a favorite of mine,  evolution and science somewhat explained by Carl Sagan in his series of Cosmos:
http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/CosmosNotes/cosmos2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1JUTNI5OH4
Edit: I especially like the experiment around 50'

[Mao]

There is no point in debating the argument you presented, because it isn't an argument to begin with, it's 100% speculation trying to explain speculation. It would be the same as saying that it is incredibly unlikely that you will get red 20 times in a row at roulette, and so saying it is impossible. It is improbable, but far from impossible, it's a far fetched conclusion based on probability laws...

But have a favorite of mine,  evolution and science somewhat explained by Carl Sagan in his series of Cosmos:
http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/CosmosNotes/cosmos2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1JUTNI5OH4
Edit: I especially like the experiment around 50'

Thank you for voicing what I lack the ability to.

I wuv you. *hugs*

[Turnsky]

Amazing how a discussion about a movie has *ahem* evolved into a theological debate of varying quality.. will this one survive the unnatural selection of the forums? Tune in next week!

Look folks, it's simple as this, i haven't seen Avatar, and i doubt i will while it's in Theaters, but this sort of discussion is relatively pointless in the end, and will prolly ultimately be locked because of it.
It's a Science-Fiction Movie... see the "fiction" part of it? that means it's all "Make Believe" and folks shouldn't take it as gospel truth.
Also, Alondro, for a supposed scientist (i don't know whether you have a doctorate, phd or whatever, so i won't argue about that), you seem to have a very narrow mind for other possibilities beyond the scope of what we know on this ball of rock.
For Starters: Avatar takes place in the future, does it not? what's to say what scientific progression will be in those intervening years between now and the far-flung reaches of the future? I mean, according to some back in the day, we'd be getting about like Buck Rogers or George Jetson by now.

as for the rest of you: the whole Evolution/Creationism Debate is rather passe, given it involves everything from hard science to flying spaghetti monsters, to proverbial ant farms, sea monkeys and whatnot. What's to say what did or did not happen, to say "it happened like this" is just as silly as saying "oh, some higher being put us together using chewing gum, dental floss and a paperclip".
Evolution is defined as a slow progression of a species due to environmental or other needs, and truth be told, Science is still looking for those "missing links" in the evolutions of a great many species, including our own.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

*shakes head* Outside of abstract math, it's very hard to conclude anything is "impossible".

It's "impossible" for water to flow the way it does in this escher drawing. Well, not if you have an applied charge at the center of that little ramp, pushing the water up against gravity's force. (Such a charge could be constructed internally, too, again by abusing the uncertainty principle and *very* low probabilities.

It's "impossible" to pick up a boulder weighing 6 tons with your bare hands. Well, not if it's a human with enough muscle mass to shift the friction involved in a six ton boulder. What? No human is that strong? Can you demonstrate that it's impossible? Simply increase bicep cross sectional size until it's big enough.

In U.S. Politics, it's "Impossible" at this date for the Republicans in the senate to stop the health care bill. Well, if all of the democrats suddenly change parties tomorrow, then it'll probably happen.


If you were to evaluate a pro soccer team against a group of kids in your neighborhood, I think you'd say it's impossible for the children to win, barring a handicap or the pros throwing the game. But it's not, it just relies on the children playing better than the professionals.


Maybe it's not a strict, english dictionary definition, but colloquially, "impossible" is mostly used to refer to events of exceedingly low probability, which is usually possible to isolate if not actually define at what point something improbable becomes "exceedingly" improbable. In fact, I would posit that the number of times something referred to as impossible means literally "can never happen, under any circumstances" is the minority of  the word usage.

[Turnsky]

*stuff*

i think the word you're looking for is:
Improbable
im⋅prob⋅a⋅ble
  /ɪmˈprɒbəbəl/ Pronunciation [im-prob-uh-buhl]

–adjective-
not probable; unlikely to be true or to happen: Rain is improbable tonight.


just because it's unlikely, doesn't mean it's not going to happen.

[Keleth]

*shakes head* Outside of abstract math, it's very hard to conclude anything is "impossible".

It's "impossible" for water to flow the way it does in this escher drawing. Well, not if you have an applied charge at the center of that little ramp, pushing the water up against gravity's force. (Such a charge could be constructed internally, too, again by abusing the uncertainty principle and *very* low probabilities.

It's "impossible" to pick up a boulder weighing 6 tons with your bare hands. Well, not if it's a human with enough muscle mass to shift the friction involved in a six ton boulder. What? No human is that strong? Can you demonstrate that it's impossible? Simply increase bicep cross sectional size until it's big enough.

In U.S. Politics, it's "Impossible" at this date for the Republicans in the senate to stop the health care bill. Well, if all of the democrats suddenly change parties tomorrow, then it'll probably happen.


If you were to evaluate a pro soccer team against a group of kids in your neighborhood, I think you'd say it's impossible for the children to win, barring a handicap or the pros throwing the game. But it's not, it just relies on the children playing better than the professionals.


Maybe it's not a strict, english dictionary definition, but colloquially, "impossible" is mostly used to refer to events of exceedingly low probability, which is usually possible to isolate if not actually define at what point something improbable becomes "exceedingly" improbable. In fact, I would posit that the number of times something referred to as impossible means literally "can never happen, under any circumstances" is the minority of  the word usage.

The crux of the argument comes to how you evaluate the probabilities involved. The argument I put forth (which as I said, wasn't mine), was that the odds against the complex systems developing through evolution are so gigantically against it, (even "Given a vast amount of time and space (which from observation and testing, we *seem* to have)"), that it would be ridiculous to assume that evolution is the natural explaination for them just so it can fit into established scientific knowledge.

Now whether those probability against it is really that big, I'm not sure, I've reached the limit of my scientific knowledge of the subject here and would greatly appreciated any further scientific input anyone could give.

And Mao, while I appreciate your point of view, you've failed to conclusively prove that the argument I was proposing was flawed, and until an argument is proven to be flawed or at least highly unlikely, it is reasonable for anyone to believe it.

U Mad?

[superluser]

I was fine with the floating mountains right until I asked myself "Where the Hell is that water coming from?"

As a fan of Discworld, that didn't bother me that much.

Anyway, I don't exactly see why an entire ecology might not become symbiotic through gradual evolution...

One extreme example of this that I was just reading about (in The Omnivore's Dilemma) is corn, which has evolved in such a way that its female reproductive organs are inside a husk and its seeds are attached to a cob.  Planting a whole cob will simply cause all the seeds to fail.  This is not a very good arrangement for ensuring the survival of a species...unless this arrangement also allows you to produce more food and thus get the attention of another species with opposable thumbs to remove the husks and plant the seeds.  Corn is truly the Ameglian Major Cow of the vegetable world: an organism that wants you to eat it.  Indeed, its very survival depends on you wanting to eat it, and thus deciding to plant more of it.

Think he missed the part where I said: "Given a vast amount of time and space (which from observation and testing, we *seem* to have), *any* thing could conceivably find the right conditions and circumstances to evolve."

Evolution isn't the infinite monkey hypothesis.  If a trait evolves that is detrimental to the survival of a species, that trait will tend to die out.  A trait that is beneficial to the survival of a species will tend to thrive.  A trait that is neutral may or may not die out, but the likelihood that a neutral trait would survive long enough to be paired with another neutral trait which would make both of them much more beneficial is low enough that most explanations of how some organ evolved tend to explain why each step of the way would make the organism better adapted to living.  But neutral mutations do exist, and some of these mutations are indeed part of beneficial traits.  But do remember that things have only been living for 3.7 billion years, that a simple bacteria can have 160,000 base pairs, and that a single mutation can become one of three other base pairs.  That's 480,000 possible single base mutations.  Two bases would put us at 230 billion possibilities.  Three bases is 110 quadrillion, four is 53 sextillion, five is 25 octillion, and six is 1.2 decillion.  That last number is two thousand times the world population of bacteria.  Mutations may be common, but if you can't explain how certain mutations are likely to persist, it's less persuasive and more like ``I think you should be more explicit here in step two.''

The other caveat is that there are some mutations that are catastrophic for one population, but they persist because they provide some benefit for another.  Sickle-cell anemia is one example.

[Mao]

You're actually still supporting what I'm saying, oddly enough.  They're saying it's impossible.  I'm saying it's not.  Some folks are clarifying that it's improbable.  I haven't challenged that at all, but as has been pointed out improbable =/= impossible.  You're also saying it's improbable.  I'm not disagreeing with that.  I'm also saying that it's just as stupid to say well since this theory makes it improbable, it must have been this other theory that's just as shaky!  There are millions upon millions of possible explanations for just about any of these things.  To take a few 'counter examples' (which in this case aren't even actual counters, but rather things that make the improbability seem even more obvious but don't do anything to disprove) and call that the disproving factor and then propose another theory as therefore the only other possible solution with no evidence to back that one up either... well that just seems asinine.

As for the throwing of the big numbers you've got there? I can't argue that, as I've not seen those numbers before or what they're based on.  They seem to support the idea that, until we can account for every possible mutation and environment that will support, destroy or ignore said mutations, to say that something is impossible.. is talking without all of the facts.

Now I know this is where I'll get the smug comment chucked at me about how then conceivably this does then support for a supreme being who does have the ability to account for all of that.  It's certainly a possibility.  I won't say it isn't, but what an arrogant and ultimately foolhardy thing to say that it's the only possible answer and that no other answer could possibly exist.

Anyway, maybe I'm nuts and just even more ignorant than the rest or maybe I'm just a troll getting his jollies at the nerd/religion reag.

[superluser]

Some folks are clarifying that it's improbable.  I haven't challenged that at all

Well, then we have a disagreement.

The intelligent design folks say it's improbable.

I'm saying that it isn't, or at least that it's orders of magnitude less improbable than you seem to imply.  If you think that evolution works because of dumb luck, you're misunderstanding evolution.  Without the survival of the fittest directing the process, weeding out detrimental mutations and supporting beneficial ones, it would take, on average, longer than the history of life on Earth to have such mutations.

Take the bacterial flagellum.  It's useless if any part is missing, so such a means of locomotion could not have evolved piecemeal.  Ask any evolutionary biologist if the whole thing evolved at once, however, and I'll bet you the answer will not be ``million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.''  The flagellum seems to have evolved from an earlier organelle, used for infecting other cells.  The beneficial mutation that led to the flagellum was not the synthesis of a bunch of earlier neutral mutations, but rather the synthesis of a bunch of earlier *beneficial* mutations (and yes, probably some neutral mutations as well).

[Mao]

Some folks are clarifying that it's improbable.  I haven't challenged that at all

Well, then we have a disagreement.

The intelligent design folks say it's improbable.

I'm saying that it isn't, or at least that it's orders of magnitude less improbable than you seem to imply.

I haven't said anything about it's levels of improbability.  I'm saying that it's stupid to say that something is impossible, especially when we don't know all of the factors.  Your own statement covers the numbers we know of and we haven't even begun to understand all of those.  To rule anything out at this point is foolish and unwise.

  If you think that evolution works because of dumb luck, you're misunderstanding evolution.  Without the survival of the fittest directing the process, weeding out detrimental mutations and supporting beneficial ones, it would take, on average, longer than the history of life on Earth to have such mutations.

I've not said that once, don't put words in my mouth.  I'm saying that even evolution has some random factors.  Those neutral mutations support this in that the whole survival of the fittest thing doesn't really apply to them.  Beyond that, you're only talking about earth.  Fair enough as it's the only environment we know, but I'm thinking a bit bigger here, especially seeings how this started out about a race of aliens who couldn't have possibly evolved something.  A bit beyond earth, don't you think?

Take the bacterial flagellum.  It's useless if any part is missing, so such a means of locomotion could not have evolved piecemeal.  Ask any evolutionary biologist if the whole thing evolved at once, however, and I'll bet you the answer will not be ``million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.''  The flagellum seems to have evolved from an earlier organelle, used for infecting other cells.  The beneficial mutation that led to the flagellum was not the synthesis of a bunch of earlier neutral mutations, but rather the synthesis of a bunch of earlier *beneficial* mutations (and yes, probably some neutral mutations as well).

Again, you seem to think that I'm trying to refute something that you're saying or misunderstanding something.  I do understand it, maybe more than your admittedly much better read self would like to give me credit for.  I'm saying, that potentially (since we've been playing around in improbabilities and the like in this thread) there could exist situations where these things can happen.  Not just restricted to earth and the things we have observed.  I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp for you and the others in this thread.  Saying something is impossible is utterly silly when one considers the vast amount of time and space that seems to exist.  There's so much of it so far, we're not even sure how much of it there really is or if maybe these things aren't limitless.  So what I'm saying is that it's pointless to think in terms of absolutes at this point.  There's too much we don't know.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

Again, you seem to think that I'm trying to refute something that you're saying or misunderstanding something.  I do understand it, maybe more than your admittedly much better read self would like to give me credit for.  I'm saying, that potentially (since we've been playing around in improbabilities and the like in this thread) there could exist situations where these things can happen.  Not just restricted to earth and the things we have observed.  I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp for you and the others in this thread.  Saying something is impossible is utterly silly when one considers the vast amount of time and space that seems to exist.  There's so much of it so far, we're not even sure how much of it there really is or if maybe these things aren't limitless.  So what I'm saying is that it's pointless to think in terms of absolutes at this point.  There's too much we don't know.

Which brings back to the point that I made earlier.

If you want to use impossible in the strictest sense of the word, of "What can never, ever, ever happen", you restrict use of the term to maybe mathematics. It is impossible for the angles in a triangle to have a sum of 200 degrees. (Unless you want to redefine "triangle" the measurement of angles, or the word "sum")

However, outside of the mathematical realm, the word "impossible" is often used to refer to events of exceedingly low probability. Is it possible for earth to go catapulting out of the solar system? Well, maybe, if the sun's mass suddenly disappeared, or due to some factor of gravitics that isn't currently understood, the attraction between bodies weakens significantly and suddenly.

But chances are very good that physicists do *not* misunderstand gravity that badly, chances are not that the mass of the sun will suddenly disappear, and those chances are so sure that someone could say "It is impossible for the earth to suddenly go catapulting out of the solar system", and be very clearly understood.

Chances are, if someone says something is impossible, they are referring to the colloquial usage, not the mathematical one.

[Mao]

And as has been said in response to your point already:

Why say impossible when you don't actually mean impossible, and when you already have a perfectly acceptable word that more than aptly describes the concept of highly unlikely, particularly when flouting oneself as a scientist and as such a person who is well educated and a reliable source of fact.  No facts were stated, just an attempt to make ones own opinion seem larger than it needs be and then a bunch of silly folks hopped on board and called it so and this is a story all about how my life got flipped turned upside down and I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there while I tell you all about how I became the prince of Bel Air.

[Keleth]

So far all I'm getting out of this conversation is "I have this opinion! Nobody can ever correct me from using the english language improperly!"

And the second is "I disagree you agreeing with me! STOP IT!"

All I have to say is thus

[Darkmoon]

Okay, so the argument is that there is an improbability for life, as we know it, in the form that we know it, to have evolved on this planet because the likely hood of that ever happening is so low...

But then I have to ask that, just because we have a planet here with life the way it evolved here, what's to say that some other planet in the cosmos didn't have a similar path for certain aspects, and the failed to generate life to the degree that we have it? Or that a planet hasn't done a better job of it than ours did?

There's a lot of stars and a lot of planets out there, and when you factor them into any math, they help the adjust "probability" quite a bit.

Also, this thread has become a discussion on evolution, so I gently remind everyone to watch their tones.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

And as has been said in response to your point already:

Why say impossible when you don't actually mean impossible, and when you already have a perfectly acceptable word that more than aptly describes the concept of highly unlikely, particularly when flouting oneself as a scientist and as such a person who is well educated and a reliable source of fact.  No facts were stated, just an attempt to make ones own opinion seem larger than it needs be and then a bunch of silly folks hopped on board and called it so and this is a story all about how my life got flipped turned upside down and I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there while I tell you all about how I became the prince of Bel Air.

Because that isn't how the word "impossible" is actually *used*. Almost all events referred to as impossible are technically possible, just unlikely to extremely high orders of magnitude.


1

I'll quote "this guy is given the job of defending an indefensible system..... He might just be the right man for an impossible job." If he defends the system, silences the critics? Possible, I see no reason as to why it cannot succeed. (I have no real idea of what's at stake in the article itself, I don't follow sports much, so my take on the probability is nonexistant.)

here  are more examples.


In all of the above, something is being stated as impossible, running 5 marathons a week, keeping rents "average" in silicon valley, reclaiming a high from heroin as good as the last one, judging a budget. All of those are feasible, just hard. I don't have any trouble following these articles, and I don't think anyone else does either. Common usage is not a dictionary definition, but it is certainly communication. Since in most communication "impossible" translates into "events of extremely low probability", it seems likely that the post that sparked this all off that it is "impossible" for evolution to follow a certain path, almost certainly is being said to claim that it's probability is so low that it might as well be non-existent.

[Turnsky]

Also, this thread has become a discussion on evolution, so I gently remind everyone to watch their tones.

you could say that it's "evolved", but others would argue that it was intelligent design... but all factors taken into consideration, there's hardly anything intelligent about it.