Definition of "design"?

[AV1611VET]

The answer to that is: Yes, probably.

But nobody knows for certain.

S.

Okay --- that answered it --- thank you!

 

[Thistlethorn]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

The probability for life evolving on Earth is 1, as it has already happened.

I disagree.

If indeed it is a mathematical impossibility, or at least a mathematical improbability, then I will go with it not happening.

And if it is not a mathematical improbability, I will still go with it not happening.

The major hurdle is abiogenesis --- which is a joke.

There's no such thing --- (until the Antichrist performs it during the Tribulation Period).

 

[AV1611VET]

The answer to that is: Yes, probably.

But nobody knows for certain.

S.

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.

 

[Alunyel]

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.

Yup. The probability of anything after the fact is always 1. Exactly.

 

[Mike Elphick]

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.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps someone would calculate 141! for me?

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

What???

Oh, well --- nuts to it.

The Bible says otherwise --- and that settles it.

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.

It sounds now like you're saying Mother Nature had no choice but to kick-start life.

 

[Mike Elphick]

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.

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.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

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 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.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

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.

The point he made is wrong. Improbable does not equal impossible.

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.

What are you talking about?

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Let's just simplify this whole conversation, then.

1/Bible[sub][-][/sub]=0

Which simply means: if the Bible is against it, it didn't happen.

As opposed to: 1/Bible[sub][+][/sub]=1

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

All right, seems the general consensus is that there is a mathematical probability for life to have evolved at least once in the universe. We (life) are here, so there you have it.

So, back OT.

For the purposes of ID/creationism, what is your working definiton of "design."

 

[Sophophile]

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.

Hi AV1611VET

Glad you are thinking this through and performing a little experiment: "Test the spirits".

However, I did explain to you (admittedly without much detail) that such probability calculations are bogus. Do not rely on them for an argument.

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.

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.

Regards
S.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Sophophile]

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.

The citation for the original article is:

Salisbury, Frank B, Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene, Nature 224, 342-343 (25 October 1969)

Note that the author has since stated: "I'm not saying that evolution doesn't work."

Regards
S.

 

[Sophophile]

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.

Fine. I have doubts about chemical abiogenesis myself.

The point is, the argument that Salisbury's 1969 calculation proved the impossibility of abiogenesis is a false argument. The calculation uses assumptions known to be false, and the argument misrepresents Borel's law, as I have shown. What is more, the original author does not agree that the calculation disproves evolution.

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.

Regards
S.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

First it was 1/10[sup]415[/sup].

Then it became n/10[sup]141[/sup].

I wanted to pursue someone calculating 141! for me, then, using that number as the denominator, find the numerator that would reduce it to 1/10[sup]50[/sup], to show that, in my opinion, you would have to have too many variables for evolution to work. (I hope you're following me here.)

Instead, Mike what's-his-name took the wind out of my sails with Post 86, and I lost all interest.

Now, I'm content to just say the Bible says otherwise.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

The error was yours. You have erected a false set of goal posts. You haven't even shown that a single protein is required for life to arise from non-living matter. Until you show which proteins are required, if at all, your argument and probabilities are meaningless.

As an analogy, the odds of getting the correct number 7 out of 1E50 numbers is 1 in 1E50. Therefore, rolling a 7 at the craps table is nearly impossible.