- Oct 12, 2022
- 2,494
- 1,314
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And how much is glossed over to present to an interviewer.?So if his calcs are based on an incorrect understanding of entropy, then they're pretty much useless.
No, I haven't read it. and I won't claim I'll understand it if I do. But there is a pdf link posted above and I have it on screen and will tackle it when I'm a little more awake.I don't think you've read (or understood) the paper.
You brought up physics with your basic physics examples. A lot of things in this general area abuse physics for their own uses including creationists and "information theory".Approximation shows up in places besides physics. Each year I have to model some information for work. For years I modeled each piece to combine it the finished model. Then it finally dawned on me that for some numbers, all of that was baked-in. Modeling those numbers produced the same results with significantly less work. No doubt a smarter person would have realized that from the start, but so it goes.
We have plenty of clues and do understand what the basic chemical components of a proto-cell would be and several models for how one would assemble. Researchers have shown how most (if not all) of these basic components could self assemble in natural environments.The problem, from a complex systems chemistry standpoint, is that we don't have a clue as to how abiogenesis would actually occur. There has to be approximations to even tackle the problem and hope the results are at least in the ballpark. It does give a sense of what's required, and that's the point.
Once the selection event happens (the draw of the numbers) the probability shifts. At that point we can only talk of what the probability of winning was prior. Even then it is only from such regular systems, the pre-biotic chemistry is quite that simple. It also isn't in equilibrium.That's like saying that if I bought a lottery ticket and won, the probability of me winning is 1. No. Even if I won, the probability of me winning would be good ol' n!/(r!*(n-r)!) to 1.
The problem with probability in this context (OOL) there just isn't a way to accurately compute any probabilities. Ergo, the probability argument is GIGO. (The so-called "fine tuning" argument relies on similarly impossible to compute "probabilities".)Probabilities are important. If we go into a game and notice the probabilities aren't working out, then our understanding of the game is off. Maybe we don't have a good grasp of the rules or maybe it's fixed. Either way, it shows when something funny is going on.
Then we need to check the detector rates and the theory behind the production and background. It happens all the time and it is a huge part of what particle physicists due.In particle physics, what would you think if a certain particle showed up more or less often than the numbers indicate it should?
Yes, the probabililty that you will hold a winning lottery ticket is very small. But the probability that somebody will win is close to 100%.Approximation shows up in places besides physics. Each year I have to model some information for work. For years I modeled each piece to combine it the finished model. Then it finally dawned on me that for some numbers, all of that was baked-in. Modeling those numbers produced the same results with significantly less work. No doubt a smarter person would have realized that from the start, but so it goes.
The problem, from a complex systems chemistry standpoint, is that we don't have a clue as to how abiogenesis would actually occur. There has to be approximations to even tackle the problem and hope the results are at least in the ballpark. It does give a sense of what's required, and that's the point.
That's like saying that if I bought a lottery ticket and won, the probability of me winning is 1. No. Even if I won, the probability of me winning would be good ol' n!/(r!*(n-r)!) to 1.
Probabilities are important. If we go into a game and notice the probabilities aren't working out, then our understanding of the game is off. Maybe we don't have a good grasp of the rules or maybe it's fixed. Either way, it shows when something funny is going on. In particle physics, what would you think if a certain particle showed up more or less often than the numbers indicate it should?
Just more discernment would be enough.The power of numbers should not be underestimated. I Kings 8 says that to consecrate the temple Solomon sacrificed 144000 animals over a two week period. The sacrifice was a "fellowship offering" -- essentially a BBQ where everyone involved gets a piece of the animal.
Now, if there one altar (and that is all we "know" about) then each animal had to be put on the altar, BBQ'd to be edible, and taken off within 8.4 seconds (around the clock for 14 days!) (To say nothing of clean-up.)
Now this website, https://www.thespruceeats.com/roasting-a-whole-lamb-331593, suggests (under pit cooking) that it'd take about 18 hrs to be cooked properly.
Lets be nice. Let's assume that we're cooking it only to be preserved well enough for the parties to take their portion home and finish the cooking there. Whadya think? 1/2 hr?
To get 144000 sheep BBQ'd enough within 2 weeks (around the clock, mind you) it'd take at least 214 additional altars (which of course the text doesn't indicate). So maybe 500 altars?
(The text indicates a mixture of sheep, goats, and cattle. Cattle would definitely take more time than sheep.)
The point here is that the numbers indicate that a lot of these stories should be viewed with a huge dose of skepticism.
That is a myth and wishful thinking repeated so often by those who want to believe it that it became “a fact.“We have plenty of clues and do understand what the basic chemical components of a proto-cell would be and several models for how one would assemble. Researchers have shown how most (if not all) of these basic components could self assemble in natural environments
Since @Hans Blaster specifically referenced protocells ("We have plenty of clues and do understand what the basic chemical components of a proto-cell would be and several models for how one would assemble"):That is a myth and wishful thinking repeated so often by those who want to believe it that it became “a fact.“
That entire statement is pseudoscience.
Those who study it objectively discover a big fat void between simple chemicals and the simplest known cell (which is horrendously complex ,) and only pure speculation , with no pathway proposed ,and zero evidence it ever happened.
The crutches on which believers lean of Autocatalytic sets and RNA world do not help In the big picture.
you are welcome to believe it happened , but not on the basis of your statement above which is false
iIf you dispute that then offer an example process for how it may have happened? . You can’t.
Since you cant say how the process happened you have no idea what components were needed Let alone how they came to be.
Simple question for true believers of your statement above:
. What was the structure of the first genome allowing evolution to present day cells? You can’t.
not even close. There is a void before the horrendous complexity of DNA/ RNA and no pathway to it or precursor even conjectured.
Ive noted several books which review this area, I suggest you read them.
they draw my conclusions.
It’s my frustration posting here, and why i no longer post.
People want to echo false conclusions (like your statement above) without putting the hard yards in to discover the truth.
Hardly. It is a summary to the best of my understanding of the basic state of OOL research as I remembered it. It was based on material I have heard discussed by knowledgeable people.That is a myth and wishful thinking repeated so often by those who want to believe it that it became “a fact.“
That entire statement is pseudoscience.
I said nothing of the "simplest known cell", but rather proto-cells. There is a lot of development between them. You seem to be out of date on pre-biotic chemistry. As I recall, all of the basic sub-components of the needed bio-molecules can form in a variety of environments, some of them also self-polymerize.Those who study it objectively discover a big fat void between simple chemicals and the simplest known cell (which is horrendously complex ,) and only pure speculation , with no pathway proposed ,and zero evidence it ever happened.
Believers? This is not religion.The crutches on which believers lean of Autocatalytic sets and RNA world do not help In the big picture.
you are welcome to believe it happened , but not on the basis of your statement above which is false
If I dispute what? You've offered no mechanism to dispute.iIf you dispute that then offer an example process for how it may have happened? . You can’t.
Since you cant say how the process happened you have no idea what components were needed Let alone how they came to be.
You seem confused about the difference between how science functions and how religion functions. I am not interested in your understanding of religion and I do wish you understood the operation of science as well as you think you do.Simple question for true believers of your statement above:
I think the proto-cells I mentioned are along way from a "genome" and certainly from DNA.. What was the structure of the first genome allowing evolution to present day cells? You can’t.
not even close. There is a void before the horrendous complexity of DNA/ RNA and no pathway to it or precursor even conjectured.
You have not been seen for since a month before this thread was started. You could not and have not made any book recommendations. (I'm not sure why it is books and not a review paper. Again, science is not built on books.)Ive noted several books which review this area, I suggest you read them.
Perhaps you should keep it that way if you find communicating with science frustrating.they draw my conclusions.
It’s my frustration posting here, and why i no longer post.
Is this going to be like the other areas where everyone needs to read your favorite obscure source or they are not properly informed or "dedicated"?People want to echo false conclusions (like your statement above) without putting the hard yards in to discover the truth.
Each of us, for example, is "unimaginably difficult." Yet here we all are. The biggest error, for those thinking of assembly of molecules to form living things, is that they imagine it to happen in an open environment. But there's a clue in that the most essential cellular organelle, the cell membrane, is the simplest of them all, and spontaneously forms enclosed vesicles from molecules known to have existed on the early Earth.I also feel that looking at anything through a mathematical lense of chance will always end up looking bad, since if you number crunch anything hard enough, you can virtually say that anything is, to use the article's own words, 'unimaginably difficult'.
We do have God's word that abiogenesis is the way life began. He says the Earth brought forth living things as He intended. As time goes on, we have more and more evidence showing that God is right.Abiogenesis has never been observed, so it's taken to have existed because we exist.
The observation about entropy in open systems also holds here. With the sun and geothermal providing energy from outside the system, you can have a seeming reduction in entropy. With God creating life, that's places the origin of life outside the system. Abiogenesis in the modern sense supposedly occurs without the action of deity.We do have God's word that abiogenesis is the way life began. He says the Earth brought forth living things as He intended. As time goes on, we have more and more evidence showing that God is right.
We do have God's word that abiogenesis is the way life began. He says the Earth brought forth living things as He intended. As time goes on, we have more and more evidence showing that God is right.
Abiogenesis in the modern sense supposedly occurs without the action of deity.
That's what happened, according to God. You do think Earth is non-living, right? If God chose to create by using natural processes, what do you find offensive about that? After all, He used natural processes to create your living body.Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life on Earth arose from non-living matter through natural processes.
No seeming about it. In a local system, with energy inputs, entropy can decrease.The observation about entropy in open systems also holds here. With the sun and geothermal providing energy from outside the system, you can have a seeming reduction in entropy
He says it happened within the Earth's systems. What is wrong with God using nature to create life? That's what He says He did. He does most things in this world by natural means.With God creating life, that's places the origin of life outside the system.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?