Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
The origin of life is about as complicated as the origin of information, in the words of John Lennox. I'm no mathematician like him, but the odds of life forming by chance are virtually zero. We can argue all we want about how the first cell came about but the real question is, are we capable of knowing the origin of life?
The origin of life is about as complicated as the origin of information, in the words of John Lennox. I'm no mathematician like him, but the odds of life forming by chance are virtually zero. We can argue all we want about how the first cell came about but the real question is, are we capable of knowing the origin of life?
From a mathematical standpoint (whether creationist or atheist) the probability of life forming is 1 since the event has occurred and thus the probability is certainty. That really is the only probability you can assign.
From a mathematical standpoint (whether creationist or atheist) the probability of life forming is 1 since the event has occurred and thus the probability is certainty. That really is the only probability you can assign.
Yes that is true, but think about the actual events of the creation of life. The probability of just the first protein or an enzyme forming is very close to zero and those are just the very basics of a cell. Then those would have to manifest themselves unconsciously into a functioning cell that can mutate and then make extremely complex organisms made up of trillions of cells. Let alone from that, how did the creation of matter make all the elements necessary for life along with the extremely precise physical constants? So yes, it happened so the probability is one but there was so many things involved that makes you think how it really happened.
Yes that is true, but think about the actual events of the creation of life. The probability of just the first protein or an enzyme forming is very close to zero and those are just the very basics of a cell.
You cannot state that with any authority. Those calculations you usually see on creationist sites are bogus. They are done by people who do not the first thing about biochemistry or probability. I always think these arguments are best left alone.
Let alone from that, how did the creation of matter make all the elements necessary for life along with the extremely precise physical constants? So yes, it happened so the probability is one but there was so many things involved that makes you think how it really happened.
Same argument as above. Unless you know the precise sample space you are dealt with you cannot determine probabilities and perform calculations from them. The honest answer here is the probabilities are unknown. The posterior probability is 1 but the prior is obviously greater than 0 but that is all we can say. The physical constants are neither precise nor imprecise. They are what they are but unless you somehow no some deeper theory that allows you to determine the possible sample space of their initial values any calculation is doomed to failure.
Not that I know of. We can have living cells make proteins for us. For example add spider DNA in goat embryos so their milk will have the protein that make silk so flexible like spider webs. In the link above they use yeast to produce their chromosome.
Still adding spider DNA to goat doesn't cause the goat to start shooting web out their rear ends. So Spider-Man only exist in stories just like evolution stories.
Remember proteins are very tiny so you need nano-machines to make them. Living cells happen to have the required nano-machines.
Are you saying that we can't even synthesize protein (via chemical reactions among basic components)? It is hard to believe that.
There are limits to what we can know. Might as well ask about the sound of one hand clapping.
__________________ "When a man is getting better he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse he understands his own badness less and less."
~C.S. Lewis
Come away, O human child! To the waters and the wild With a faery hand in hand, For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand.
Plus, we've seen for a long time that companies can make any DNA desired (as Juvi also asked). All you have to do is email them the DNA code, and they can crank it out and mail it to you. Here is one of many:
__________________ Thanks for the good comments! *Maybe learn about what you are going to talk about before talking next time. Sky Writing replied: I'm comfortable with my current process. But thanks! *There was never any real Biblical basis for Heliocentrism. - mark *yes I believe the sun goes around the earth-gradyll *I don't agree with Newton's gravity held moon either. ...the moon remains in the firmament -Doveman
* germ theory. Shown to be erroneous. -Greg
* I deny I'm a Homo sapiens (& mammal)-AV1611VET
The origin of life is about as complicated as the origin of information, in the words of John Lennox.
Um, news flash - John Lennox is not a biologist or chemist. Looking to him for biochemistry answers is like asking Steven Hawking about Basketball strategy. If you want biochemisty expertise, ask a biochemist, not a mathematician.
I'm no mathematician like him, but the odds of life forming by chance are virtually zero. We can argue all we want about how the first cell came about but the real question is, are we capable of knowing the origin of life?
As has been pointed out, the creationist "calculations" are bogus. This is because they are looking for the probability of forming a whole bacterial cell like today's bacteria from basic organic molecules in one fell swoop. That's as silly as calculating the odds of forming a modern human from random collections of organic molecules, or a 747 from a junkyard.
You don't need to form a modern bacterium. You only need to form a molecule that can sometimes make rather poor copies of itself - and many molecules are self-catalytic. Natural selection will select for better copiers, well before life or even cells exist. Have that be enclosed in a vesicle is easy at any place where there are crashing waves and phospholipids. Abiogenesis is a rich field, with a lot of discoveries being made ever year, and to pretend it's like what Lennox proposes only shows that you are clueless about the field.
Plus, creationists use it to argue against evolution, when in fact, abiogenesis is completely irrelevant to evolution, which looks at what happened after life appeared.
For me, I'm perfectly happy to speculate that God miraculously made the first cell (after all, individual cells and especially pre-cells don't fossilize well, so we have comparatively little direct data). However, because it seems quite possible that God used natural means there, I'm reluctant to call a miracle when we have no evidence of such, and especially reluctant to acquiesce to the dishonest tactics creationists use in this area, for fear of losing credibility among the unsaved (not to mention the 8th or 9th commandment, depending on your denominational numbering system used).
Perhaps worst of all, claiming that God used a miracle to start life is bad apologetics - it's a classic God-of-the-gaps claim. Just like claiming that God miraculously started language, or cities, or farming, or Homo sapiens, or mammals, or even the internet, it sets Christianity up to look silly when the natural causes are found, and is unneeded anyway, because God acts through the natural world all the time anyway.
Papias
__________________ Thanks for the good comments! *Maybe learn about what you are going to talk about before talking next time. Sky Writing replied: I'm comfortable with my current process. But thanks! *There was never any real Biblical basis for Heliocentrism. - mark *yes I believe the sun goes around the earth-gradyll *I don't agree with Newton's gravity held moon either. ...the moon remains in the firmament -Doveman
* germ theory. Shown to be erroneous. -Greg
* I deny I'm a Homo sapiens (& mammal)-AV1611VET
Last edited by Papias; 12th June 2012 at 10:13 AM.
The probability about the proteins I heard from John Lennox, the Oxford mathematician. I'm not sure what else he has to say about biology but he always reminds his audience that he is not a biologist. He just knows that we can always describe the universe with something concrete which is math to him. The fact that we can do science on the assumption of a rational universe must mean something. I don't know if you want to take his word for it but that's what I heard from him.
Last edited by Tucansam93; 12th June 2012 at 03:42 PM.
Linear Mode
