I wonder how many chemical reactions could happen in an environment the size of all the oceans in about a billion years? I'm guessing it might be more than just a few...
I also wonder how many of those primitive chemical reactions got eaten by other, more efficient chemical reactions, resulting in the apparent universality of DNA we see today. How many different ways of representing life are we missing in modern biology simply because those alternatives to DNA just happened to taste like bacon?
The problem facing protein formation is similar to the problem of having to spell “I am going to Disney Land in California next Saturday with some friends and family who will be coming to stay with me for a couple of weeks from the venerable city of Venice, Italy” by randomly pulling letters out of a large pot one at a time. Inside the pot, however, is an equal number of English letters and Chinese characters.
This is the only time I'm going to post in this thread because it's obvious to me that you don't listen to anyone other than the ill-informed fools you quote. Your abuse of chemistry and statistics is in a league of its own. You apparently know nothing of how proteins are formed (or any other product of chemical reaction, for that matter) or basic thermodynamics.
Proteins are not formed by grabbing molecules or amino acids at random. You yourself have pointed that out because you've tried to willy-nilly define DNA, the template for production, as a code. Now, you dishonestly posit that protein formation is random (see quote above). You can't have it both ways. Pick one and stick to it. Once you learn what thermodynamics is, you'll see the sense of it. You won't learn anything by getting your science from stilted religious websites. (Yes, I did check them out and they're gibberish.)
Chemical reactions don't happen at random as you and your quoted experts believe. When chemists calculate rates of reaction, they don't begin with the supposition that there are "this many" particles in the universe so "gosh golly" how ever will we make a gram of rayon?! By what you and your sources have written, any chemical reaction would have an infinitesimally small probability of occurrence. Here's a challenge for you: apply your "statistics" to calculate the probability of any known reaction. That would be a true test of the prediction power of your false logic. I know why and you probably do, too. It doesn't work. Your method of calculating probabilities is easily disproved by empirical science.
You believe what you want. I have no obligation to educate you. Only you can do that. I'll just move to more fertile ground. Bye!
The major links in the molecules-to-man theory that must be bridged include (a) evolution of simple molecules into complex molecules, (b) evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules, (c) evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules, (d) eventual evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA or similar information storage molecules, and (e) eventually evolution into the first cells. This process requires multimillions of links, all which either are missing or controversial.
Chance is now out of favor in part because it has become clear that even the simplest conceivable life form (still much simpler than any actual organism) would have to be so complex that accidental self-assembly would be nothing short of miraculous even in two billion years (Spetner, 1997).... (cut)...
Biophysicist Hubert Yockey has calculated the probability of forming a single gene product (one that is functionally equivalent to the ubiquitous protein cyctochrome C) as one chance in 10 to 75. 56 Given this probability, Yockey calculated that if the hypothetical primordial soup contained about 1044 amino acids, a hundred billion trillion years would yield a 95% chance for random formation of a functional protein only 110 amino acids in length (a single gene product).57 The universe is about 15 billion years old. This means that less than one trillionth of the time has passed that would be needed to make even one of the 250-350 gene products necessary for minimal life, or one of the 1500 gene products necessary for independent life.
But we cannot know these probabilities until we know how life arose, can we? To calculate it based on random isn't at all what we are looking for. What we are looking for is a sequence of natural laws -- pretty much like we found for more recent evolution. Have they calculated the probability for evolutionary events we know occurred?
Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.
This epistemic-probability is one part in: 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0.
Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1
This again, is why we are looking for underlying natural laws.
I suggest you take a look at Markov Chains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain#Markov_text_generators) to see a better way to calculate the probability when it comes to something under the influence of natural laws. The link is to an actual text generating application which more closely resembles the sort of 'directed random' you get with evolution.
To say that something isn't known or well understood and then just throw a probability onto it is a type of lie.
And just for grins, try calculating the probability of your own existence, evolution notwithstanding. You can just take a few million sperm as your basis. For you, your father, his father, and so on (and don't forget to calculate how likely it would be for those men to mate with your female ancestors).
See if it is probable that you are even here. I doubt that it is. In fact, I'm pretty sure you cannot possibly be here at all -- it is just too unlikely.
wrong. the evidence lets already conclude firmly, that a natural origin of the first cell can be excluded, with a great certainty. What you express, is just blind wishful thinking.
Likewise.....if DNA wasn't doing something 'meaningful'...as in something a Creator 'intended'....there would likely not be this high degree of 'Order', in it's form...
While a computer program could be designed to replicate posts....and produce 'Ordered Patterns'....the computer program, the Algorithim itself.....requuires a Living Being to Create it.
Perhaps you'd do well to ask yourself why people who actually know more about this subject than you feel that this 'code' doesn't require a designer at all. Why do the only people who think that it does are people who know next to nothing about the field.
The problem with that statement, Gibhor, is that no matter what science found as a blueprint for life, you'd interpret it as evidence for a creator. Therefore that opinion of yours is not very convincing.
In fact, DNA, disordered and cluttered with useless bits as it is, is very much evidence of either NO creator, or an incompetent one.
Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.
This epistemic-probability is one part in: 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0.
Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1
I bolded the most revealing part of your post. It isn't my argument you have a problem with. It is talkorigins.org. If you can't understand that everything they present is valid scientific data and not just opinion you are not even worth arguing with.
Again, it isn't me that doesn't know what talkorigins is. However, what you are essentially saying is you believe it's worthless to argue with people who don't already know evolution is a fact. In other words, you have no interest in ever enlightening anyone. Which is fine - you have the right to just come here for fun. I don't like it, though.
There is no debate and I don't call these farcical exercises debates. They are good at learning about slapping down false arguments and a great way to actually learn about the nonsense and lies being perpetrated by Creationists and ID-iots. Many of their arguments are so bad, they are incinerated within a few posts, even the most neutral lurker can see that.
These can be done with well linked post, well reasoned arguments and ridicule. This is not a formal debate with rules. This is changing people's minds, and showing how stupid, dishonest and idiotic Creaotards and ID-iots are, has its uses.
Well, I suppose you're justified in rejecting the word 'debate', although I think a looser definition allows it's usage here. At any rate, I somewhat disagree with your goals; while I agree it's a good thing to educate lurkers and show them the folly of creationist arguments, I think it's counterproductive to do it without good debating manners. Sure, the opponents don't have them - but it's not like we model our other behaviour after them. I think that while ridiculing creationists may well teach some lurkers about what evolution really is, it will also teach them that it's all right to win arguments by ridiculing your opponent. And that's going to bite us in the leg in the long run.
I get your point but I'm not deluded enough to believe that hardcore Creationists will be swayed by any link even to the elite universities. My issue is, I respect talkorigins' well done and well resourced articles and it is a shame to even lump them in with Creaotard sites.
Despite by contrariness, I agree with you. I've tried to move away from posting directly from talkorigins and tried to post from more "neutral" and well respected sites of late.
Well, I suppose you're justified in rejecting the word 'debate', although I think a looser definition allows it's usage here. At any rate, I somewhat disagree with your goals; while I agree it's a good thing to educate lurkers and show them the folly of creationist arguments, I think it's counterproductive to do it without good debating manners. Sure, the opponents don't have them - but it's not like we model our other behaviour after them. I think that while ridiculing creationists may well teach some lurkers about what evolution really is, it will also teach them that it's all right to win arguments by ridiculing your opponent. And that's going to bite us in the leg in the long run.
Besides the 'oddness' of the chance argument I never quite understood the concept. For clarity let's look at a 1 in a 100 billion chance for the formation of the first cell. Life began between 700 and 1000 million years after Earth formed (that is anywhere between 3.5-3.8 Billion years ago). Given the sheer immensity of the number of chemical reactions that took place in the 700-1000 million years before life, the odds are much closer to even if not heavy on the positive side. Considering there is life, there was an origin (at least once) and that means the odds of it happening were 100%. So why does the argument by improbability even exist?
Because it is an appeal to emotion, say that you have two molecules that meet every year and they have a 1/1,000,000 chance of binding to make a new molecule. Let one billion years pass, they will have bound 1000 times.
The issue is that abiogeneisis did not happen randomly, the processes were essentially random, but catalyzation changes the odds, and self catalyzation does even more so.
You do know that these alleged 'complex' molecules already exist is space, right. You are not so ignorant of the facts to believe that they must have formed on the earth. Right.
(b) evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules,
You do know that organic molecules exist in the interstellar molecular clouds right and that space in galaxies is permeated with poly aromatic carbons.
Right?
So why do they have to be synthesized on the earth when they can freaking be there in the first place?
Again, it isn't me that doesn't know what talkorigins is. However, what you are essentially saying is you believe it's worthless to argue with people who don't already know evolution is a fact. In other words, you have no interest in ever enlightening anyone. Which is fine - you have the right to just come here for fun. I don't like it, though.
Because it is an appeal to emotion, say that you have two molecules that meet every year and they have a 1/1,000,000 chance of binding to make a new molecule. Let one billion years pass, they will have bound 1000 times.
The issue is that abiogeneisis did not happen randomly, the processes were essentially random, but catalyzation changes the odds, and self catalyzation does even more so.
Yes, I know. I like the posts you make when you actually take the time. I think the jeering drive-by posts you usually fling at fundies and woos are more annoying than anything else. I won't say you shouldn't continue with them, but it is my firm opinion that they don't do anyone any good.
With a sample size of 1, I'm not sure how you can say this. If we find life under this ice on Europa, and evidence of it on Mars, etc, then maybe, but right now we only KNOW that life came to be once for certain. It did get started early in Earth's history, but that could have been the result of a particularly unlikely event. I honestly agree with your sentiment, just not the 'inevitable' bit, and I suspect we would find evidence for very simple life in a number of places were we able to look.
Steadyyeti and GIBHOR, there are numerous clear explanations for the points you've tried to make easily available online. If you don't feel like researching counterarguments, you can at least watch a video... Youtube user cdk007 has made a number of excellent videos regarding evolution and abiogenesis. The one pertinent to this thread is below, but virtually every other argument you've made is addressed in one or more of his videos (not just the four linked at the beginning of this, he's made dozens.)
GIBHOR, your main argument seems to be that various aspects of life occurring randomly are wildly unlikely. Leaving aside spurious probability calculations, this shows a basic misunderstanding of how natural selection works, whether it is acting in an evolutionary sense or in a similar way in abiogenesis. It's not random, plain and simple, instead it's deterministic. The conditions under which a polynucleotide existed influenced the development of said polynucleotide. This means that a random RNA strand that had ANY beneficial activity would have been selected for over those that did not or that had harmful activities. There are a great great many sequences that act as pathetically bad ribozymes, but pathetically bad is better than non-functional.
Completely ignoring the above, it's surprising what is possible with random sequences and natural selection. I can't find the article now that I want it, of course, but a group replaced a viral coat protein's gene with a completely random sequence of nucleotides (can't recall if it was and RNA or DNA virus) and within several hundred generations the sequence had evolved into a fully functional, but completely different, coat protein. (Don't suppose anyone knows what I'm referring to and can provide a reference?)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
By what you and your sources have written, any chemical reaction would have an infinitesimally small probability of occurrence. Here's a challenge for you: apply your "statistics" to calculate the probability of any known reaction. That would be a true test of the prediction power of your false logic. I know why and you probably do, too. It doesn't work. Your method of calculating probabilities is easily disproved by empirical science.
