Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 89
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by THRASHEE
    But this isn't true--the OP himself has given us calculations for how long it could possibly take for such a thing to occur, and ANY odds, no matter how incredibly small, are significant in the face of infinity. Indeed, not just significant, but akin to happening all the time when you have no temporal limit. This is the problem with odds and things like infinity--as humans, what seems utterly impossible to us is mundane, given a wide enough perspective.
    But you don't have infinite time.

    Quote Originally Posted by THRASHEE
    I meant, of course, the aggregate of time, or whatever you'd like to call it, if the universe is indeed a cyclical phenomenon. Instead of time, let's simply call it the number of chances amino acids have to arrange themselves in the perfect way. And again, we're not discussing just this one universe repeating itself over and over again, but potentially an infinite amount of other universes doing the same. In other words, the sample space of these odds is infinite, so the possibilities are thus infinite as well.
    there is no reason to suppose such conditions exist. we have the one universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by THRASHEE
    Precisely. So the only reason why the odds of amino acids randomly forming proteins seems so remarkable to us is because our perspective is necessarily limited. The distinction is a product of that limited perspective, not of the odds themselves. If you're dealing with either an infinite amount of time (or chances), and/or an infinite amount of universes--in which the laws of physics might be drastically different than our own--then what seems like a great distinction to us might be pretty mundane indeed. In other words, the odds only seem significant because we're only looking at one tiny sliver of the sample space, our own universe in this current cycle of time.
    Demonstrate an infinite and you have an interesting point.
    If however your argument is that we don't know that there are not an infinite.
    Or that their "could be" an infinite.

    You need to do more than simply appeal to our ignorance to make a case. You have to make an actual rebuttal and show why the OP IS wrong, not how it "could be wrong if things are different". If the OP assumes a finite amount of time, then you need to demonstrate an actual infinite amount of time in order to counter the OP, no simply posit "it could be wrong".


    Quote Originally Posted by BASICINSTINCT
    On the whole though, I personally agree with the fact that discovering the entire protein code may not be possible, but I simply have problems with your assumptions as presented...
    I think you have misunderstood the OP.
    He isn't arguing that science can't figure out all the key combinations, or that science is lacking in some way.
    It is that barring some natural law which causes the proper interactions to occur, the known process is incapable of producing what we see randomly.

    That it does exist is not an argument for it's purely natural and random causation.
    To serve man.

  2. Likes rlms liked this post
  3. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    But you don't have infinite time.
    I addressed this previously. Call it "number of chances" rather than time.

    there is no reason to suppose such conditions exist. we have the one universe.
    There is equally no reason to suppose this universe is the only one.

    You need to do more than simply appeal to our ignorance to make a case. You have to make an actual rebuttal and show why the OP IS wrong, not how it "could be wrong if things are different". If the OP assumes a finite amount of time, then you need to demonstrate an actual infinite amount of time in order to counter the OP, no simply posit "it could be wrong".
    Actually, no. The burden of proof is on the OP, not me. He is the one stating "chance is not even a remote possibility to have been the vehicle by which the first life forms came about." This isn't true even taking the OP at face value alone. No matter how infinitesimal a chance might be, any number above 0 is still a possibility, and thus, could still come about by chance.

    I only threw out the ideas of a cyclical universe and multiverses to demonstrate how un-fantastical these odds might truly be. But even that's not necessary given the above.
    "Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves." --Bill Hicks

  4. #23
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Washington, Maine
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think you have misunderstood the OP. He isn't arguing that science can't figure out all the key combinations, or that science is lacking in some way.
    I agree to disagree, as the sentential, measurement and temporal contradictions are obvious to me, and scientists, in order to advance, must be critically assessed to move forward. It's the same with me, if I state something un-scientific, I expect and want to be criticized, to move forward into more productive ideas and areas...

    It is that barring some natural law which causes the proper interactions to occur, the known process is incapable of producing what we see randomly.
    As to this point; Natural laws do not precede actions_they follow_we discover them, by closely following Nature's actions. Natural laws are our bio-mental logical interpretations of the Universe's fundamental motions, of her fundamental substances and aggregate inter-actions of, up to the present time, which we form our law and knowledge systems from. Imo, the Universe itself has no Natural laws(unless you count the ones in our minds)__We simply discover laws we can scientifically apply to the Universe's naked combinatorial actions and functions, of her "pure motion necessities". She becomes natural law producing by naked combinatorial cosmic evolution, unless she has always existed and/or recycles. Think about it; If it's a recycling Universe, then at some future time, say Hawking time of 10^137 years recycle point, for all matter to decay/radiate away, including black holes, all laws would also no longer be deducible from such a 'possibly' near pure energy state Universe(that may or may not be the fact), and would only appear again on the return cycle of building new stars, galaxies and black-holes, etc., but not until intelligent bio-life was/is able to apply it's discoveries and knowledge of motion's and inter-actions' raw combinatorial ways into laws, or simply_mathematical additions and divisions, of raw decayed matter, back into it's many myriad forms, actions and reactions...

    The Universaal laws are simple how we observe the motions of bodies and objects to act and react; but, fundamentally it's all raw motion, all the way down to the deepest fine-structured quantum levels, which are always traveling, spinning, vibrating and/or amplifying/amplituding. Most scientists look extremely deeply into their minds' inferences to see the order of the real world physical actions, laws and functions to self-discover new relationships, especially as to logic, principles, rules, math and laws. Most of this knowledge is still actively being debated, as to scientific truth and facts, yet many of the natural, logical and physical laws are well settled...

  5. #24
    torpex
    Guest

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    So let me get your points straight:
    Yet you appear to have decided to just ignore my points, then respond to ones I never made, such as:

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    #1 - Life already exists, therefore we are not allowed to discount your theory despite the impossibility shown because there is no God
    Firstly, I proposed no theory. Secondly, I did not make any claim on the existence or non existence of any god. In fact the only thing I did do was offer a critique of your OP, since it was apparent that you think probability is something that has any use AFTER an event, when (as you will clearly realize having read my response to it) that is patently false.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    Now let's start this reasoning at another point
    There is Life -> Life is too complex for Naturalistic explanation -> A Supernatural Source built life
    So you mean the very “god of the gaps” reasoning you so explicitly claimed not to be using in your OP?

    Lacking a naturalistic explanation did not mean that earthquakes, plagues, eclipses, lightning, etc must have a supernatural cause, the reasoning “no one knows, therefore a god must have done it” was a flat out argument from ignorance then, as much as it is now. The only difference is, people in the modern era have less excuse for making them having witnessed plenty of previous examples to realise the flaw in this reasoning

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    #2 - Evolution doesn't work by chance
    That would be true if we could come up with a protein for the organism to either use or discard, but, before that we are relying on random mutations to get to that protein. This tells me that you do not truly understand evolution based on the arguments you are giving. Here is an excerpt from evolution 101 from the University of Berkely:
    Mutations are Random
    The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...1aRandom.shtml
    Nope, I never said #2 either.

    Whilst I promise not to resort to personal attacks, I have seen this exact strawman too many times to not instantly doubt the intellectual honesty of anyone using it.
    Not any any time did I say “Evolution doesn't work by chance,” my exact words were “evolution is not a chance process. Your car engine engine DOES work by combustion, all I said was your car engine does NOT combust. Evolution is natural selection, survival of the most likely to, ie a selection made naturally from variations which arise through chance. Mutations are random, evolution is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    #3 - The odds that are given are impossible by anyone's standard, picking at my use of impossible and improbable isn't going to change that, nor prove your point
    Had you understood the rest of my response, you’d see this point is moot. Odds are useless looking backwards, remember those 10 steps and all the molecules that interacted?
    I thoroughly recommend digesting the points I made originally, to stress how important it is that you realize statistical probability can say absolutely nothing about what has already happened, it is only useful in a PREdicitive way. The odds of anything that has already happened are 1, regardless of how they did.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    I find that none of your scenarios disprove the point of what I am saying nor address it in any way.
    Possibly then, you are not only unaware of your erroneous usage of probability, but indeed unwilling to learn why it is erroneous at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    You are shifting the argument instead of proving that it is possible to produce life with a purely naturalistic scenario.
    I made no argument, nor did I need to, just thoroughly deconstructed yours.
    Your “improbable” argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, your claim that seemingly exponential retrospectively improbable events must be impossible, is easily pulled apart with a little understanding of what probability is, which leaves you with the god of the gaps argument from ignorance, all 3 of these I have explained to you and given you examples of, to demonstrate how flawed the reasoning in each really is.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    I also find the argument, life exists therefore it just happened despite the mathematical, scientific objections, especially hypocritical considering that if a religious person gave you the same response you would ridicule them.
    Firstly, (but certainly not for the first time) that is not my argument, nor, as far as I can see, did I ever say anything that you might accidentally misinterpret such as my argument.
    Secondly, what you find hypocritical suggests that you either know me, or that it’s relevant in an impersonal debate. Neither of which being the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    Your arguments resemble a person with strong religious beliefs that will not waiver no matter what facts there are to the contrary. So, just say,"I am an atheist and choose to believe this no matter what science says", and quit trying to pretend you are arguing at a factual level.
    Again, I made no argument, just demonstrated how flawed yours was. Also, science does not say life could not arise naturally, nor (as I very much hope you now see) does statistical probability.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    How about this, an ancient Greek evolutionist believed that arms, hands, feet body, head, and legs crawled out of the ocean and assembled themselves on the beach to make the first man. This is highly improbable, but since man is here, it has to have happened no matter how impossible it is.
    People have and still do believe vastly more far fetched stories of our origins, and they shall continue to do so purely because, as yet, no one can prove to them that they’re wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    Kind of silly to ignore the base premise of the mechanism and jump to the conclusion and then proclaim yourself right.
    Again, I made no argument, so again, you’re responding to things never said.
    You’re the one who made the OP, the one making the claims, so actually by trying to suggest that I’ve made any, YOU’RE shifting the argument, not I.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    Probability and impossibility are essential to science to establish good theories and discard bad ones. This is an ongoing process to finding the truth instead of acquiescing to the status quo. Now you are telling me to throw them out because your theory is above all of this.
    Not at all, I’m telling you what probability can and can’t do, and that because it can’t do what you seem to think it can do, your OP amounts to nothing more than precisely what you claim it isn’t, an appeal to ignorance – “you can’t explain it, therefore a god did it.”
    If you look backwards at absolutely any event in this planets history with enough detail, then try and apply probability to it, the odds against it happening are vastly in excess of any of the numbers you proposed. I cannot sugar coat this anymore; you don’t understand probability or it’s use. I’m willing to bet that the person who came up with those numbers as if they were useful, was relying on you and the majority of other readers to not understand probability too.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    So, I am supposed to just trust you and forget the math
    Don’t forget the math, learn the math.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    I would invite you to try again, and this time give a scientific answer as to how proteins can be made instead of a lesson on card shufling, sock molecules and padlocks, none of which apply here.
    Firstly, that lesson on probability could easily have saved your argument any further embarrassment. Secondly, I don’t know how the first self replicating matter on this planet came to be, but if you were relying on the supposed improbability of it happening naturally to work that out, it seems neither do you.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    It is just simple math
    It is, but not so simple as you thought.

  6. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by THRASHEE
    I addressed this previously. Call it "number of chances" rather than time.
    If by "address" you mean to introduce an unfounded assumption.. yes.. yes you did.

    Quote Originally Posted by THRASHEE
    There is equally no reason to suppose this universe is the only one.
    We reason from known to unknowns. The OP represents an argument based on what is known.
    If you have more to add, do it and make the case. Otherwise simply introducing unfounded assumptions


    Quote Originally Posted by THRASHEE
    Actually, no. The burden of proof is on the OP, not me. He is the one stating "chance is not even a remote possibility to have been the vehicle by which the first life forms came about." This isn't true even taking the OP at face value alone. No matter how infinitesimal a chance might be, any number above 0 is still a possibility, and thus, could still come about by chance.
    The OP has offered a solid reasoning, you have yet to offer any contradicting evidence at all.
    Except to appeal to ignorance, which is a fallacy of reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by BASICINSTINCT
    I agree to disagree, as the sentential, measurement and temporal contradictions are obvious to me, and scientists, in order to advance, must be critically assessed to move forward. It's the same with me, if I state something un-scientific, I expect and want to be criticized, to move forward into more productive ideas and areas...
    Yea, that doesn't address what I said at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by BASIC
    As to this point; Natural laws do not precede actions_they follow_we discover them, by closely following Nature's actions. Natural laws are our bio-mental logical interpretations of the Universe's fundamental motions, of her fundamental substances and aggregate inter-actions of, up to the present time, which we form our law and knowledge systems from. Imo, the Universe itself has no Natural laws(unless you count the ones in our minds)__We simply discover laws we can scientifically apply to the Universe's naked combinatorial actions and functions, of her "pure motion necessities". She becomes natural law producing by naked combinatorial cosmic evolution, unless she has always existed and/or recycles. Think about it; If it's a recycling Universe, then at some future time, say Hawking time of 10^137 years recycle point, for all matter to decay/radiate away, including black holes, all laws would also no longer be deducible from such a 'possibly' near pure energy state Universe(that may or may not be the fact), and would only appear again on the return cycle of building new stars, galaxies and black-holes, etc., but not until intelligent bio-life was/is able to apply it's discoveries and knowledge of motion's and inter-actions' raw combinatorial ways into laws, or simply_mathematical additions and divisions, of raw decayed matter, back into it's many myriad forms, actions and reactions...
    Again, that has nothing to do with the point I made. I'm not sure you understand what is going on in this thread, so I will leave you to it.
    Good luck.
    To serve man.

  7. #26
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If by "address" you mean to introduce an unfounded assumption.. yes.. yes you did.
    There is nothing unfounded about it--at least no more unfounded than the OP itself. Are you seriously going to come from the stance that a cyclical cosmological model--or a multiverse--is a new and heretofore unheard of theory?

    I'm not claiming that time is infinite or that there are multiple universes. I'm simply saying that these are distinct possibilities that quite obviously affect the very same odds the OP is founded upon. And it is no more an appeal to ignorance for me to suggest these things as possibilities than it is to claim they are not. There are numerous theoretical models to suggest both cases.

    Nonetheless, you can happily toss out the ideas of infinity altogether, because they do not matter for the purposes of this thread:

    We reason from known to unknowns. The OP represents an argument based on what is known.
    If you have more to add, do it and make the case. Otherwise simply introducing unfounded assumptions
    The only thing the OP has argued is that tiny odds equals impossibility. It does not.

    The OP has offered a solid reasoning, you have yet to offer any contradicting evidence at all.
    Except to appeal to ignorance, which is a fallacy of reasoning.
    Sorry, but pointing at minuscule odds and shouting "impossible!" is not solid reasoning nor evidence of anything. The OP has failed to prove his claim based on his own merit. So if you want to toss out the perfectly valid possibilities that time and the number of universes might be infinite, go right ahead. Strike them from the record. You're still left with an unsupported OP that mistakes tiny odds for whether something is impossible.
    "Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves." --Bill Hicks

  8. #27
    torpex
    Guest

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    I made a ridiculous assumption, every atom in the universe being an amino acid, just to show the impossibility of making one protein. Now you have to have a minimum of 256 just such extreme miracles happening all at the same time in the exact same place and then interacting together in a way to create energy, create more proteins, procreate, etc... The odds of the proteins interacting in such a manner even if they were together in the same time and space, are so far out there they are not calculable.
    Firstly, again, you deduced their impossibility on their improbability.
    Secondly, again, improbability cannot be applied backwards.
    Thirdly, your argument still assumes that chance was the only factor involved.
    Fourthly, proteins are made from amino acids, all the proteins required for life require 20 different amino acids. experiments recreating the earths early atmosphere and environment have produced over twice that number, including all the necessary ones. This is not the famous original Stanley Miller experiment which, scientists agree, did not accurately represent a young earth, but the follow up experiment which in fact got even better results than the flawed one.

    So, while no one knows precisely how the first protein formed, we do know two important things:

    1) proteins are made of, amino acids, which we do know can occur naturally. the smallest proteins in life forms are made of just 20 amino acids.
    2) any inference that proteins must have formed via chance reactions between completely random atoms, is ignoring the above, so it turns out that, far from impossible, life beginning naturally might not even have been improbable.

    Don't forget, the math in your OP and ongoing posts are entirely guilty of the false premise listed in 2).


    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    Don't forget, we have to have a new viable protein to get a favorable trait.
    That's flat out nonsense. See sickle cell anemia in my link below.
    Whether a trait is favorable or not can be determined by an organisms surroundings, but not it's number of proteins.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    Evolution teaches that we have "random mutations" http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...1aRandom.shtml
    That is random at the codon level(1 codon = 1 amino acid), then evolution claims that once a new protein has been produced it is either kept or discarded through natural selection.
    No, it does not.
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0/mutations_03

    ---------- Post added at 02:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not really, because here it is being used to evaluate the descriptive power of a theory.
    If you were holding an orange, and I proposed that an asteroid had collided with the earth only moments before, and causing a shock-wave to blow an orchard down, and cause a single orange to fly through the air getting sucked into a jet engine and exit without being harmed, then fall only to be slowed by excessive updrafts, then landing in your hand, for me to observe. Sure it is "possible", but it is so highly unlikely as to make it a very suspect theory for how the orange came to rest in your hand
    Actually, it was your knowledge of things that do and do not happen, which is in no way analogous to the origin of life.
    you have to know how something happened BEFORE you apply probability. you cannot use probability to then conclude how something happened, that just doesn't make sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Here the idea of unguided "random" formation of the most basic proteins is shown to require an incomprehensibly more unlikely event. If there is any theory that increases the likelihood of the event, it should be preferred over that.
    Let's break out the science. All life on earth and all it's proteins, are made of just 20 amino acids, all of which can be produced in experiments recreating earth's early atmosphere and environment. This means that any derived probability of proteins occurring via entirely random atoms in the universe, is worthless. proteins have building blocks, the smallest protein has just 20 amino acids, which can occur naturally. There's absolutely nothing "impossible" about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Probably a bad example because there is a specific choice involved.
    Not really since a) I said random direction, do it blindfolded - it makes no difference because b) there was no choice on which molecules would interact.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also, your example here lacks a very important factor, in that it doesn't matter what is touching what at the place where you are standing.
    and this is my point - the more specific you look back at how things happened, the more improbable they seem, at least to anyone unaware that, with no other methods available, probability is useless in determining how something happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Or at least, there is a vast array of possible alignments that will all produce the same effect.
    and we don't know enough to say the same is not true of the origin of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In the case of the OP, there is a very specific alignment that produces one result (life/protein) and a vast array of equally possible/probable alignments that produce the same result of non-life/protein.
    only if you assume that the OP's premise that proteins could only have formed naturally via complete chance combinations of atoms, were a sound one. We know it is not. We know proteins are made of building blocks, amino acids which can occur naturally.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Still, I would for go that if you could demonstrate a law that guides the bonding process so as to end in a successful alignment per the OP.
    I would hope that this is no longer necessary. The numbers in the OP do not stand up to scrutiny, not only because they ignore the key, already well understood, build up of proteins, but also because of an entirely useless application of statistical probability.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The OP represents an argument based on what is known
    Far from it, I think you will now agree.
    the OP both omits important knowns, whilst relying heavily on unknowns.
    Last edited by torpex; November 21st, 2012 at 06:20 PM.

  9. #28
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by ZealousDemon View Post
    I admit that I'm not versed enough in this topic to be able to evaluate your argument on an equal footing. However, I do find it hard to believe that the entirety of abiogenesis and evolutionary research could be shut down by "simple math". If that was the case, scientists would have stopped looking many, many years ago.
    I really have not had anyone seriously challenge me. The facts I have stated are well known by microbiologists. If you know any that you trust have them look at it and give their opinion.
    I can't say as I blame you for bowing out it can be very tedious. I got into it when I was trying to "reverse engineer" cell designs to use in some of my ideas for robotics, never had any interest before that. I figured, how hard can it be to replicate? When I got into it I realized the complexity and unbelievable genious that existed when viewing life as a designer. From that point I have been fascinated with microbiology, but I can understand why most aren't.

    There is a page on Talk Origins concerning probabilities of abiogenesis that might be relevant to the conversation, but I know this forum frowns upon including outside links to do the debating for us. Thus, being a laymen with only so much free time (and honestly, an unwillingness to do exhaustive research into molecular biology), I will simply state that potential refutations of your argument exist, even if nobody here could adequately do so.
    I have been on there researching this topic, there are no serious answers, just propaganda, in fact some of the people on here are trying to use them as valid arguments. For the most part I stay away from creation and evolution forums because they are so set on proving their points instead of proving the truth(Although the base for this argument did come from an ID site). There are enough sheeple in the world following what those sites tell them.
    Instead I try to get as much raw data as I can from scientific journals and science news from various sources and then compile it in a way I can interpret the data myself. Maybe I will be off in left field or maybe I will come up with the next breakthrough, either way, it will be my own path and I won't be stepping in sheeple manure

  10. Likes disinterested liked this post
  11. #29
    torpex
    Guest

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    if you want to toss out the perfectly valid possibilities that time and the number of universes might be infinite, go right ahead. Strike them from the record. You're still left with an unsupported OP that mistakes tiny odds for whether something is impossible.
    You don't even have to go down the line of what may be possible, the OP's application of probability on things that have already happened make it useless.

    Consider the exact position of the moon, specifically, every single molecule that makes up the moon, with reference to every other molecule that makes up the bodies orbiting our sun. Now calculate the odds that, at the precise age of the universe at the millenium, 00:00 gmt, all those molecules should happen to be in that precise position with relation to each other.

    The odds against this alone exponentially surpass any supposed improbability made by the OP, even ignoring all the molecules in the galaxy or universe, but we don't conclude that it didn't just happen to be that way out of chance.

    Clearly then, applying probability alone at things that have already happened, is 100% useless at determining if they happened by chance.

    Probability is only useful forwards, assuming you already know exactly how something happened.

    The OP get's this completely the wrong way around.

    ---------- Post added at 03:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    I really have not had anyone seriously challenge me
    Your argument contains fallacies, bad maths and relies on other peoples ignorance of well known facts, all of which I have demonstrated.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    I figured, how hard can it be to replicate?
    It took over 4 billion years for any life form on earth to subsequently copy things that nature produced like the eye, the ear, the nose, radar, infra red detection, there's absolutely no shame in saying we don't fully understand it.

    After all, why would you expect an organism that nature produced, to understand every way in which nature does things? Sure we've got the most complex cerebral cortex of any organism on earth, but why would our brain being produced by nature, mean in any given era that we should know everything about nature or natural processes? Why do we insist on filling unknowns with "something must have intended it that way?" I have a few answers, none of which are based on what is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    the base for this argument did come from an ID site
    I strongly suspected as such.
    It seems when ignorance of science cannot catch out the scientists, they're relying on ignorance of mathematics.

    More to the point though:
    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    The average protein in a cell is made up of 288 amino acids
    but the simplest is made up of 20.
    the simplest theorized self-replicating protein is only 32 amino acids long.

    care to recalculate the odds of such a protein happening by chance, over a billion years, factoring in how many chemical reactions were occurring in earth's oceans per second during that billion years? Because I definitely wouldn't.

    Actually, it turns out someone already has.

    "The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10^40......if we assume the volume of the oceans were 10^24 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 10^31 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 10^40, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed."

    source: http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
    Last edited by torpex; November 21st, 2012 at 06:52 PM.

  12. #30
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by THRASHEE
    There is nothing unfounded about it--at least no more unfounded than the OP itself. Are you seriously going to come from the stance that a cyclical cosmological model--or a multiverse--is a new and heretofore unheard of theory?
    No not "unheard of" but the cyclical model is disprove, and the multi-verse is speculation.

    If you wish to use one or the other to counter the OP, then you need to support it.

    Quote Originally Posted by THRASHEE
    I'm not claiming that time is infinite or that there are multiple universes. I'm simply saying that these are distinct possibilities that quite obviously affect the very same odds the OP is founded upon. And it is no more an appeal to ignorance for me to suggest these things as possibilities than it is to claim they are not. There are numerous theoretical models to suggest both cases.
    No you appeal to ignorance when you say "we don't know if it isn't the case, so we can't trust the OP as being correct".
    You are not offering any actual information or position. Thus it is not a challenge to the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by THRASHEE
    The only thing the OP has argued is that tiny odds equals impossibility. It does not.
    I think it argues that it is so unlikely as to be unreasonable to accept as the cause.

    I mean, if you are going to accept something that has 300+ zeros behind it in the Odds department
    then you are basically willing to accept anything that is said.

    Quote Originally Posted by THRASHEE
    Sorry, but pointing at minuscule odds and shouting "impossible!" is not solid reasoning nor evidence of anything. The OP has failed to prove his claim based on his own merit. So if you want to toss out the perfectly valid possibilities that time and the number of universes might be infinite, go right ahead. Strike them from the record. You're still left with an unsupported OP that mistakes tiny odds for whether something is impossible.
    All it is saying is that randomness is not sufficient explanation given what we know.
    If you base your belief on random coming together of proteins, then it is demonstrated to be a powerful faith indeed.


    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    Actually, it was your knowledge of things that do and do not happen, which is in no way analogous to the origin of life.
    you have to know how something happened BEFORE you apply probability. you cannot use probability to then conclude how something happened, that just doesn't make sense.
    No it is to establish which "theory" should be preferred. If you are presented with two theories and one requires 10 variable and the other requires 1billion variables
    then you should prefer the theory that requires 10 variables.

    That was why my orange example is perfect. Both theories explained how the orange got to your hand. One required a chain of highly unlikely events in order to be true.
    given that I do not know how the orange actually came to be in your hand, the one with the fewest variables (that you just purchased it from the orange stand behind you), is preferable to one that
    supposes a long chain of improbable events.

    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    Let's break out the science. All life on earth and all it's proteins, are made of just 20 amino acids, all of which can be produced in experiments recreating earth's early atmosphere and environment. This means that any derived probability of proteins occurring via entirely random atoms in the universe, is worthless. proteins have building blocks, the smallest protein has just 20 amino acids, which can occur naturally. There's absolutely nothing "impossible" about it.
    where is the science in what you said? Where is the experiment that shows amino acids arrange themselves into proteins in any real natural environment?
    If all 20 amino acids are mixed together...what do you get?

    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    and we don't know enough to say the same is not true of the origin of life.
    Actually, I think we do. Because we know that there are only so many cobinations of amino acids that produce proteins that facilitate life.

    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    only if you assume that the OP's premise that proteins could only have formed naturally via complete chance combinations of atoms, were a sound one. We know it is not. We know proteins are made of building blocks, amino acids which can occur naturally.
    That isn't what the OP says.
    It supposes that every attom in the universe be converted to amino acids.
    Quote Originally Posted by op
    If we were to convert every atom in the universe(1e+80 atoms) to an amino acid, then try 1 billion different combinations per second, it would take 1.59e+198 years to produce our first protein.
    Quote Originally Posted by torpex
    I would hope that this is no longer necessary. The numbers in the OP do not stand up to scrutiny, not only because they ignore the key, already well understood, build up of proteins, but also because of an entirely useless application of statistical probability.
    You have fundamentally misunderstood the OP.
    The OP assumes and in fact uses amino acids in it's calculations. You have responded as though the OP refers to random attoms.
    That is not the case. Please re-read the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    Far from it, I think you will now agree.
    the OP both omits important knowns, whilst relying heavily on unknowns.
    I think if you re-examine what the OP says, you will find that your objection is unfounded.

    ---------- Post added at 09:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    "The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10^40......if we assume the volume of the oceans were 10^24 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 10^31 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 10^40, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed."
    Regarding the amino acid concentration... what % are left handed, and how many are right handed?
    To serve man.

  13. Thanks rlms thanked for this post
  14. #31
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Washington, Maine
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    The op has mistakenly used linear math assumptions to failingly attempt to prove his ideas/assertions. Abiogenesis is quantum mechanically known to require a non-linear mathematical process to even begin its proper scientific modeling, by all reputable bio-physicists, as I presently work on these problems with a PhD bio-physicist, and believe me, we've a long way to go. He works on and produces 'long chain sugars from seaweed' in the lab, but we explore all possibilities of abiogenesis also, as it's interested me for many years. I lean more toward the Russian bio- and bio-quantum schools on this subject, as they've been working on it longer. We have especially been interested in RNAi and mitochondria also, but have mathematically explored the possibilities of protein formations as well, all the way into extreme complexity. Scientific American also has articles on the subject, especially as to protein formation. He and I both agreed it takes some powerful non-linear math, even to begin to tackle this problem. Iow, many multiples of mechanical actions are taking place at once in the life origin process, and that requires a high degree of, non-standard logics and non-linear mathematical necessities, not straight classical logic only and linearity only, as you and the op seem to think, as near as I can tell. The op's math assumptions is where the problem lies. Weak linear math is nowheres near powerful enough to tackle this complexity problem, or even make any sound assertions about it, other than general psychological and historical assumptions, imo...

    Here's a short para from the science archives' article, plus it's concluding paragraph:

    Functionality definedOur goal here is to give a brief overview of these different biological mechanisms, summarize some of the theoretical models, and highlight some of the experimental and theoretical evidence both for and against a functional role for quantum effects in biological systems. By “functional” we imply a role where the presence of coherent quantum dynamics achieves something either more efficiently, or otherwise impossible, than could be achieved by a classical mechanism alone. This concept of nature taking advantage of quantum mechanics is an inspiring notion, but the evidence for and against it must be examined carefully. We thus discuss only experimentally-verifiable systems in this review. This topic is growing at a phenomenal pace, and we can only summarize the main points for each system we
    consider.

    Thus, at this time, the most promising candidates for function quantum biology remain photosynthetic units [5, 4, 7, 6], and magnetoreception [41, 43]. The evidence so far is in favor of both these systems not only containing quantum coherence in a hot and wet biological environment, but also that it is used to gain a biological advantage.
    There is a great possibility that further examples of functional quantum biology remain to be found. After all, as in a great number of technological breakthroughs, we usually find that nature has been there before us.

    The science archives lists this article on "Functional quantum biology in photosynthesis and magnetoreception", which includes "long-range quantum tunneling in proteins" at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0883. It's a place to start, but the field is very young and in much transition; but, without the quantum physics of biology, one doesn't have acceptable science. Argue all you will, it requires actual experiment and math proofs, to be classed as real science....

    I suggest you check into the bio-quantum physics much deeper, because that's what RLMS is working toward, but science still has a long way to go on abiogenesis, to even become a real science with proven evidence...

    Here's the science archives link for many articles on quantum biology: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND.../0/1/0/all/0/1

    (A simple definition from Wiki)Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. Abiogenesis likely occurred between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, in the Eoarchean era (i.e. the time after the Hadean era in which the Earth was essentially molten).

    The wiki article is just a general overview, and I have only talked in general terms, but I think pointed in the correct scientific direction...

    Enjoy,
    Basic

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If by "address" you mean to introduce an unfounded assumption.. yes.. yes you did.

    We reason from known to unknowns. The OP represents an argument based on what is known.
    If you have more to add, do it and make the case. Otherwise simply introducing unfounded assumptions

    The OP has offered a solid reasoning, you have yet to offer any contradicting evidence at all.
    Except to appeal to ignorance, which is a fallacy of reasoning.

    Yea, that doesn't address what I said at all.

    Again, that has nothing to do with the point I made. I'm not sure you understand what is going on in this thread, so I will leave you to it.
    Good luck.
    Just to make it interesting, here's a quote I published on my blog last June:

    Why Biology Can Not Be Mechanized...

    Mr. Herbert Spencer wishes to explain evolution upon mechanical principles. This is illogical, for four reasons. First, because the principle of evolution requires no extraneous cause; since the tendency to growth can be supposed itself to have grown from an infinitesimal germ accidentally started. Second, because law ought more than anything else to be supposed a result of evolution. Third, because exact law obviously never can produce heterogeneity out of homogeneity; and arbitrary heterogeneity is the feature of the universe the most manifest and characteristic. Fourth, because the law of the conservation of energy is equivalent to the proposition that all operations governed by mechanical laws are reversible; so that an immediate corollary from it is that growth is not explicable by those laws, even if they be not violated in the process of growth. In short, Spencer is not a philosophical evolutionist, but only a half-evolutionist,―or, if you will, only a semi-Spencerian. Now philosophy requires thoroughgoing evolutionism or none. C.S. Peirce
    Last edited by BasicInstinct; November 22nd, 2012 at 10:58 AM.
    The Triadic Maxim___Any Idea; “Arithmetically check all possible effects, against all possible premises, and the combined results will be the total actions of the idea.”

  15. #32
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by ZealousDemon View Post
    Do evolutionary biologists actually make that claim? I'm pretty sure that the scientific understanding of evolution is that favorable traits tend to get passed on and that unfavorable traits tend not to.
    I don't think many biologists make the claim that proteins and multi-cellular life forms developed randomly, because it's obviously false and statistically impossible. Many atheist laymen tend to, though, to try and get around the logical requirement for a Designer of life, whether that be God, aliens, or some other intelligent being which we do not comprehend.

    Evolution of existing life forms is an entirely separate subject from the genesis of life itself from non-living materials.

  16. Thanks rlms thanked for this post
  17. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning View Post
    I don't think many biologists make the claim that proteins and multi-cellular life forms developed randomly, because it's obviously false and statistically impossible. Many atheist laymen tend to, though, to try and get around the logical requirement for a Designer of life, whether that be God, aliens, or some other intelligent being which we do not comprehend.
    I think there tends to be a misunderstanding by what it means when people use the word "random" to explain how evolution works. Creationists interpret the idea of "random" like it means that evolution/abiogenesis says that everything happens at completely random. But what actually happens is that individual random events occur and that the favorable results to these random events tend to get passed on and unfavorable results tend not to. Thus the overarching process itself is not necessarily random.

    If you're confused by what I mean, imagine this. Imagine you hold 10 dice in your hand and want to roll the dice in such a way that you get a complete set of 10 sixes. You can't pick up individual die and just set it down so that it shows a six, but you can pick up and roll any subset of the 10 dice. So what you first do is pick up all 10 dice and roll them. Let's say you get 2 sixes from then. So you pick up the remaining 8 dice that aren't sixes and roll those. You get another six, so you pick up the 7 that aren't, and you repeat the process until you get all 10 dice to be sixes.

    In this example, the process uses random events (individual dice rolls) as part of the mechanism, but the selection of favorable results (getting a six) and re-rerolling those that aren't favorable (not getting a sex) are not random processes. The chance of rolling 10 dice and getting all sixes is about 1 in 60 million, but when you use the non-random mechanism, the result is essentially inevitable.

    Admittedly, my example requires a "designer" since we're actually looking for a specific outcome, but evolution and abiogenesis doesn't necessarily require a specific outcome, it just requires outcomes which are favorable and are the results of natural processes.
    ~Zealous

  18. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Admittedly, my example requires a "designer" since we're actually looking for a specific outcome, but evolution and abiogenesis doesn't necessarily require a specific outcome, it just requires outcomes which are favorable and are the results of natural processes.
    That is the problem though ZD, there is no "preferable" outcome as far as amino acids are concerned. If a chain of 36 are required, there is nothing that favors the combination of the first two, because they are indistinguishable from any other pairing. You are right that they are not really "random" because they are governed by rules or laws of chemistry. For example they can't exist on the surface of the sun, because at X temperature Y occurs.

    So, the process of amino acid bonding is nothing like the dice example you give. Unless of course you can offer why nature prefers that amino acids that look most like a working protein are favored among the natural processes governing amino acid bonding.
    To serve man.

  19. #35
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is the problem though ZD, there is no "preferable" outcome as far as amino acids are concerned. If a chain of 36 are required, there is nothing that favors the combination of the first two, because they are indistinguishable from any other pairing. You are right that they are not really "random" because they are governed by rules or laws of chemistry. For example they can't exist on the surface of the sun, because at X temperature Y occurs.

    So, the process of amino acid bonding is nothing like the dice example you give. Unless of course you can offer why nature prefers that amino acids that look most like a working protein are favored among the natural processes governing amino acid bonding.
    Just as a reminder, I did step away from the debate as it concerns getting into specifics as to how life began, because I admitted that I do have a knowledge gap on the topic.

    But I know at least enough to know that when somebody says that the processes of evolution or chemistry are complete random, that they're operating on flawed understanding and/or assumptions.
    ~Zealous

  20. #36
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    But I know at least enough to know that when somebody says that the processes of evolution or chemistry are complete random, that they're operating on flawed understanding and/or assumptions.
    Well, the OP is actually being more generous in it's use of "random". Because unless there is something that works like your example, then the number of tries used in the OP is far, far more rapid than the actual laws that govern chemistry will allow, further it is ignoring all of the laws that would be a prohibitive force. So, yes it is painting an unrealistic picture, but it is to the BENEFIT of constructing a protein.
    That is not a reason to criticize the OP, because if the OP were to include the natural workings then the we would be making it even more unlikely.
    To serve man.

  21. #37
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by ZealousDemon View Post
    But I know at least enough to know that when somebody says that the processes of evolution or chemistry are complete random, that they're operating on flawed understanding and/or assumptions.
    Once again, abiogenesis and evolution are entirely different subjects. We are discussing how life potentially did or not arise from non-living material, not how living organisms evolved over generations.

    "Random":

    "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
    2.
    Statistics . of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen." - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/random

    If DNA, RNA and proteins, and eventually single-celled living organisms, arose from a pool of amino acids (a "primordial soup"), with no intelligent external input, that would indeed qualify as "random," especially by the second statistical definition given. For such functional complexity to form from a statistically random environment (this does not mean materially "neutral" or "balanced," but rather without intelligent external inputs), would violate all known principles of biology, chemistry, and common sense.

    Although it's a cliched example, that of a wristwatch is very appropriate. If the individual gears, springs, wheels, etc., were all lying jumbled about together, no amount of random inputs (such as a baby playing with them) would ever assemble them into a functionally complex mechanical device.

    The chances of life being created from non-living material, from random external inputs such as wind, water, electricity, etc., are even lower, since there is no intelligence acting upon the elements, not even a rudimentary and insufficient intelligence (such as that of the infant in the watch example).

  22. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    There are a lot of false assumptions about the OP so I wanted to take the time to reiterate the main point. Hopefully, I can clarify the intent and streamline the debate so we can stay on track.
    I realize this can be an extremely complex subject and that is why I have chosen to reduce it to its simplest scientific and mathematical base.

    First of all this is about Proteins. I am only showing probability concerning the creation of 1 average protein so as to explain an inherent problem with Abiogenesis and Evolution.

    The mathematics represented prove this point and this point alone. The scenarios I present are designed to put perspective on these very large numbers in relation to the universe we live in.

    I am not trying to calculate the steps necessary for the beginning of life. This would indeed be a very complex formula. I have no desire to take the time or effort to do so because I believe the impossibility is already more than evident based on the protein problem.

    To make the mathematics more representative of reality would leave more people unable to understand or verify the calculations. I would like for as many people as possible to be able to grasp what I am saying instead of, "leaving it up to the experts" as many of the experts seem to be ignoring this issue and just going along with the status quo.
    As the reality of the mathematical models increase, the odds against atheistic models rise drastically, so, in reality I am favoring the naturalist by keeping simplistic models.

    All calculations used assume amino acids and do not call upon random atoms to produce proteins as some have suggested.

    The Theory of Evolution(atheistic) and Abiogenesis are negated by the lack of ability to produce proteins.
    This problem with protein additions is known by many microbiologists. Over a third believe in ID(a small percentage are creationists), and the rest seem to ignore it. No one, that I know of, has offered any explanation or theory that would overcome this problem.

    So far, no one here has given reasonable evidence that would contradict the thesis of the OP, which is, ”the odds to produce even one protein in a naturalistic scenario are so large that the beginning of life and the further diversification could not have possibly been purely naturalistic.”

    I have very limited time, but, I will try and answer all objections when I can.

    To those of you who don’t fully understand how proteins work in the process of life and how the DNA code is used as a blueprint to create the proteins, I would encourage you to study these from a source other than a propaganda website(either evolution or creation). Especially study protein to protein interactions, codons, rna and the function of the mitochondria to understand what we are talking about here.
    Here is a good video to start with: BBC Secret Universe: The Hidden Life of the Cell
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GZXRMG5i_w
    Last edited by rlms; November 25th, 2012 at 06:42 AM.

  23. #39
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    ZealousDemon
    But what actually happens is that individual random events occur and that the favorable results to these random events tend to get passed on and unfavorable results tend not to.
    Thank you for pointing out that there is random events occurring in the processes in question. The production of proteins occurs in this random part, not in the selective part of evolution. The equations in the OP are based on this.

    But I know at least enough to know that when somebody says that the processes of evolution or chemistry are complete random, that they're operating on flawed understanding and/or assumptions.
    I am fully aware that that the theory of evolution relies on selection, which is not random, and mutations at the codon level and mitochondria level, which are random. Again, all the activity in the OP refers only to the latter.
    It is true that the chemistry is not random, but, what we know of the linking of amino acids further complicates the production of the first life. There are proteins that can only be produced with oxygen, others without, only left handed amino acids can be used, amino acids don't normally link, etc...
    I left all of that out for the reason of simplicity.

  24. #40
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    BasicInstinct
    I simply think you are being far too pessimistic about future human and scientific possibilities. Imo, to 'seemingly so' pronounce the "logical death of science" before the future has played out, is a bit pre-mature__No...?
    I didn't pronounce the "death of science", just the need to look seriously at the theory of evolution that has a fatal flaw that everyone seems to be ignoring. If the protein problem cannot be rectified then naturalistic evolution simply isn't possible and other viable theories need to be considered.
    My concern is that science is held back when the facts are ignored in favor of preconceived notions. Everyone acts like I am being unscientific when I question a theory, when the reality is, that is the essence of science.

    I don't think any "serious" scientists are stating we will discover the total bio-code of producing the protein of everything, as bio-organisms are scientifically admittedly, extremely complex, due to the hyper-fine structures of their near infinitesiml quantum structures. I think it's only the "radical" scientists who claim more than science may be possible of discovering.
    Far from the truth. The establishment labels anyone who takes the stand that there could possibly be something more as "radical" and calls anyone who takes a naturalistic world view as "serious" thereby, in essence, making it a "self-fulfilled prophecy". The penalty can be quite severe if you step out of line. You can watch Ben Stein's, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" if you want further elaboration on this.
    There are some top of the line scientists who also question the standard theories, they just do it in a way that most people have no idea what they are saying.

    The op has mistakenly used linear math assumptions to failingly attempt to prove his ideas/assertions. Abiogenesis is quantum mechanically known to require a non-linear mathematical process to even begin its proper scientific modeling, by all reputable bio-physicists, as I presently work on these problems with a PhD bio-physicist, and believe me, we've a long way to go.
    As previously mentioned I don't even attempt to calculate the chance of abiogenesis. My calculation is for the production of 1 protein, encased in a scenario to put a perspective on the odds we are dealing with. The scenario is an unrealistic assumption made to cover any notion that maybe there were many large planets full of oceans of amino acids, and also to further show the impossibility of such a feat by favoring the naturalist in such a way there could be no cry of foul.
    Your more complicated real world assumptions merely drive the already impossible odds higher, so, I really don't see the point.
    There are other people who have done this and I would be happy to bring out their work, but, I would rather do this on a different thread since it will be a very complex debate with innumerable points.

    ---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by torpex View Post
    Firstly, again, you deduced their impossibility on their improbability.
    Secondly, again, improbability cannot be applied backwards.
    Let's agree to disagree on these points. First, my definition of impossible here is "statistically impossible", which, by definition means highly improbable. Everyone from scientists to law enforcement use this form of reasoning in their line of work everyday.

    Secondly; Improbability that cannot be applied backwards? This, to me, is illogical when you are formulating the most likely theory of how something came about.
    By saying that we can no longer rule out a theory based on extreme improbability because we have had an eternal past and the improbable becomes mundane, is basically saying I can believe whatever I want no matter how preposterous.

    Add to that, the majority of scientists believe the universe will not cycle, but will end through heat death in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. And, there is no real evidence for multiple universes, it is just an interesting theory trying to fill in the blanks of the interaction of unknown matter in our own universe. So, infinity and infinite multiplicity are not even real issues to be dealt with, just wishful thinking. If you want to believe this that is fine, but, I do not believe they are serious arguments here.

    When you point out a star that is 13 billion light years to a person who believes the universe is 6,000 years old and ask how that is possible, they tell me God did it and God can do anything.
    When I point out impossibility or improbability to someone with your logic, they would tell me eternity did it and eternity makes all things possible no matter how small the odds.

    Your reasoning essentially does the same thing as the God argument, only we replace the word God with eternal past to defy all logic.

    I would like to get a consensus on what others here on the forum think:
    Is the highly improbable/impossible argument negated by a possible eternal/infinite choice?

 

 
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Gaza Dilemma
    By ians25 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 20th, 2009, 08:55 AM
  2. The Traveller's Dilemma
    By Trendem in forum General Debate
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: September 17th, 2007, 06:09 PM
  3. Ethical Dilemma
    By Iluvatar in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2006, 01:40 PM
  4. Abiogenesis, baby steps
    By Slipnish in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: April 4th, 2006, 06:42 PM
  5. Intelligent Design vs Atheistic Abiogenesis
    By Meng Bomin in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: December 27th, 2005, 07:58 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •