- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,328
- 52,689
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
Okay --- that answered it --- thank you!The answer to that is: Yes, probably.
But nobody knows for certain.
S.
I disagree.The probability for life evolving on Earth is 1, as it has already happened.
Sophophile, just FYI, I did [some of] the math*, and it indeed goes way beyond 10[sup]50[/sup].The answer to that is: Yes, probably.
But nobody knows for certain.
S.
The probability for life evolving on Earth is 1, as it has already happened. Any probability calculation beyond that is going to fail because of the fact that evolution isn't a random process.
Are you telling me, Mike, that there's enough variation in the configuration to reduce 10[sup]415[/sup] power down to below 10[sup]50[/sup] power?
And remember, he starts off with the most viable of conditions.
What???No he does not. In origins of life chemistry we're not talking about a SINGLE attempt to produce ONE molecule in a linear series of chance events, but of multiple PARALLEL events, taking place over much of the surface of the globe*, producing an uncountable variety of molecules.
* The present hydrosphere occupies a volume of 1.386 × 10^9 cubic kilometres.
If you guys are going to keep moving the goalposts from the original link I posted, until evolution becomes a "must", then I'm out of this conversation.
But I like the way he worded it, he said that we can say with certainty that it didn't happen.An event is impossible if the probability of it happening is 0. Anything else is possible, and it doesn't matter if the chance is 1:10^415 or 1:10^4150. Low probabilities do not an impossibility make.
The point he made is wrong. Improbable does not equal impossible.But I like the way he worded it, he said that we can say with certainty that it didn't happen.
But again, I don't need math to tell me that --- just the Bible.
I didn't realize you guys have got so much bologna programmed into your computers that this point he made is now obsolete.
What are you talking about?What started out in this conversation was 1/10[sup]415[/sup].
Then it went to n/10[sup]415[/sup].
Now it's 1.386 × 10[sup]9[/sup]/10[sup]415[/sup].
And the tares just keep growing.
Let's just simplify this whole conversation, then.The probability for life evolving on Earth is 1, as it has already happened. Any probability calculation beyond that is going to fail because of the fact that evolution isn't a random process.
Sophophile, just FYI, I did [some of] the math*, and it indeed goes way beyond 10[sup]50[/sup].
* 141 x 140 x 139 x 138 x 137...
However, since you point out that there are more ways than 1 that can produce viable life, I will need the exact figure, as I'm only using 1/10[sup]50[/sup].
I would say that even 10/10[sup]50[/sup] is too much --- but I'm guessing.
I'm familiar with the argument that these proteins 'dovetailed' into each other, as opposed to having just 'met by coincidence.'Part of the reason is, that atoms and molecules do not just join together completely randomly as you are assuming with your straight factorial calculation. Instead, they are rather like those magetic toys, where if you just shake the parts in a bag they automatically join together in structured ways. The sciences that seek to understand this are chemistry and statistical mechanics.
In truth, I am a very staunch denier of abiogenesis.The true answer is nobody knows if life forming was probable or improbable. It is too hard to work out, because there are too many unknown variables. Thus, all such "proofs" of the mathematical impossibility or improbability of abiogenesis are purely rhetorical, and not a sound basis for any sort of argument one way or the other.
No one has moved the goal posts. If you will get your information from a site which claims it "is dedicated to defending truth and exposing error", you can expect a response when errors are found on that site.
It amazes me how the very same calculation can be found on may be 1,700 creationist sites (Google: "Frank Salisbury" DNA impossibility life), yet I cannot find the original calculation to check out how he did it! Creationists are copy-cats.
I'm familiar with the argument that these proteins 'dovetailed' into each other, as opposed to having just 'met by coincidence.'
However, since they are both theoretical, and since I am not a TE anyway, I'll forego a conclusion.In truth, I am a very staunch denier of abiogenesis.
It is a bogus [lack of] explanation, as far as I'm concerned.
Life came first, according to the Bible.
God (the Life) --- then angels --- then plants, animals, and man.
Abiogenesis is a joke.
I'll agree that one should not rely on error to make a point.If you have the truth, you should not be relying on error to make your case. Truth cannot be supported by error. So much should be obvious.
I'll agree that one should not rely on error to make a point.
Truth of the matter is, when I first heard that 10[sup]50[/sup] argument against evolution years ago, I was elated.
Then I heard that these proteins dovetailed into one another, but that would still require a mathematical improbability.
Then, when I came to this thread, the goalpost started moving, and every time I caught up, it moved again.
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?