How did we get our moon?

[Jazer]

So evolution is guided, then?

Is a calculator, computer, webbot or artificial intelligence guided?

 

[Cabal]

Odds are for random things.

Evolution is not random.

No, odds apply to non-random things also. "Random" in a statistical sense means equiprobable - a dice roll is random because all outcomes are equally likely - you'd have a perfectly flat distribution of outcomes if you rolled a fair dice lots of times.

Other situations like the outcomes of a chemical solution at a certain temperature and pressure are not random, but in chemical reactions the odds of the reaction occurring are much higher than other outcomes occurring - here's the rub - even though those numbers are very small on an everyday level. But it is the everyday sense of numbers that creationists appeal to to convince people with these arguments.

We are not talking about Random, we are talking about chaos and complexity theory.

Then don't use the word random if you don't know what it means. Random has a specific meaning in probability theory.

We are JUST dealing with the evolution of protein in the cell. This is a very small part of all that is involved in evolution.

Yes, I know. The topic is still irrelevant because of the complete fail of a probability argument that accompanies it.

Harold Morowitz, distinguished Yale biophysicist and former master of Pierson College,

Funny how you flatter scientists when you think they back you up, isn't it? The rest of time we're all responsible for whatever evil du jour you can imagine up.

Or did you just not bother to edit your copypastes?

wrote in his book, Energy Flow in Biology, that the evolution of the theoretically simplest cell, requiring no less than about 124 proteins, would occur in 1:10 to the 340,000,000 power. How big is this number, and what is its significance?

The mathematical number for impossibility is 1050.

This again? No, it isn't. 10^-50 is 10^-50. Not zero, not impossible.

Go shuffle a deck of cards and lay them all out in a row.

I'll wait.

Congratulations, you're Jesus. The odds of that combination coming up were less than 1 in 10^66.

(52 ! = 8.06581752 × 10^67)

Borel's law was NOT a universal limit. He was suggesting limits for events depending on the number of objects under discussion. And even so, they were rules of thumb, not hard limits.

Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions

Read to the end - Borel himself addresses the issue of life arising and he says the same thing that everyone's been saying - claiming that abiogenesis is a random process while neglecting all the non-random parts like chemistry is flat-out wrong.

And lest we forget, I already posted court testimony from Morowitz himself stating why these creationist appeals to probability don't work. So forget your cheap flattery - I already know the guy doesn't agree with you, and you don't have to talk him up to try and convince me otherwise - falling for authority figures with flash talk is a Christian failing, not mine.

The entire universe is estimated to contain "only" 1080 sub-atomic particles. 1080 is a very big number of unfathomable dimension. In opf ther words, the probability of 1:10340,000,000 is incomprehensibly impossible.

Rubbish. This is a poorly-disguised appeal to incredulity - just because the average creationist schlub isn't used to handling large numbers does not mean they are impossible. It just means they are incomprehensible on an everyday level.

The theory of evolution along with it's artificial intelligence works well for Chess. Because there is a limited number of moves available.

By your logic, playing chess is impossible. There are estimated to be 10^123 different games. So how could any game possibly even begin? That number is bigger than 10^50 - it must be impossible

So the theory is far from useless. But to take a good theory and try and stetch it as far as they do from micro to macro is absurd to say the least. The more complex the system the faster the theory breaks down.

Come back when you actually know something about probability theory instead of copy-pasting - then you can be in a position to tell whether a theory is useless.

 

[Naraoia]

Harold Morowitz, distinguished Yale biophysicist and former master of Pierson College, wrote in his book, Energy Flow in Biology, that the evolution of the theoretically simplest cell, requiring no less than about 124 proteins, would occur in 1:10 to the 340,000,000 power.

Hogwash. The theoretically simplest cell that includes all functions that characterise modern cellular life forms (growth, replication, metabolism) does not require a single protein. All it requires is some lipids and nucleic acid.

Besides, any conceivable biological function can be carried out by a multiplicity of protein (and probably RNA) sequences, making the odds much, much better. How do we know?

(1) Homologous proteins that have the same function across the living world, such as cytochrome c, can differ in something like half of their sequences and still do the same job. And cyt c is a famous example of evolutionary conservation. There are protein domains whose relatedness can only be inferred from the similarity of their 3-dimensional structures, because there is literally no detectable sequence similarity between them.

(2) The same function can be fulfilled by completely different proteins. These don't share any recognisable similarity in their sequences or their structures.

The theory of evolution along with it's artificial intelligence works well for Chess. Because there is a limited number of moves available. So the theory is far from useless. But to take a good theory and try and stetch it as far as they do from micro to macro is absurd to say the least. The more complex the system the faster the theory breaks down.

Ironically, complexity can be simpler to evolve than simplicity

So evolution is guided, then?

The opposite of random is deterministic, not guided.

No, odds apply to non-random things also. "Random" in a statistical sense means equiprobable - a dice roll is random because all outcomes are equally likely - you'd have a perfectly flat distribution of outcomes if you rolled a fair dice lots of times.

I'm reasonably certain that "random" is simply a synonym for "not deterministic". A random variable with a non-uniform distribution is still a random variable. AFAICT all randomness means is that given identical starting conditions, there is more than one possible outcome.

(Think of throwing two dice and adding up the pips. Each die throw has six equiprobable outcomes, but the possible sums are no longer equiprobable. Does that make the throws non-random?)

 

[Tiberius]

So evolution is guided, then?

No, evolution has non-random components in it.

Why do you think non-random means guided?

 

[Doveaman]

Right, and just because something could be falsified, doesn't mean it will.

So you end up with six moon formation theories that may never be falsified, right?

That way you will never be proven wrong. How convenient.

 

[Doveaman]

AFAICT all randomness means is that given identical starting conditions, there is more than one possible outcome.

So biological evolution might not have been the outcome if the earth (dice) had rolled differently, right?

(Think of throwing two dice and adding up the pips. Each die throw has six equiprobable outcomes, but the possible sums are no longer equiprobable. Does that make the throws non-random?)

So biological evolution is the result of a random event. Got it.

 

[pdudgeon]

Where is the "God created it as a night light" choice? I want to vote for that one.

me too!

 

[AV1611VET]

So you end up with six moon formation theories that may never be falsified, right?

That way you will never be proven wrong. How convenient.

Science runs on the No True Scotsman principle.

Only if they suspect we using it, they call it the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Belk]

Science runs on the No True Scotsman principle.

Only if they suspect we using it, they call it the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Yup, science is useless. Guess we best scrap it and head back to attempting to cure illness by driving the demons out of people.

Conversely it could be that you are as ignorant of science as you claim to be and therefore we should take your sweeping generalizations as the hyperbolic attempts at provoking a reaction they are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yup, science is useless.

Try "myopic".

Guess we best scrap it and head back to attempting to cure illness by driving the demons out of people.

This has nothing to do with six different moon-theories.

You're building a hayman -- (or whatever it's called).

Conversely it could be that you are as ignorant of science as you claim to be and therefore we should take your sweeping generalizations as the hyperbolic attempts at provoking a reaction they are.

Wow -- look at all those accurate terms!

Misapplied, but technical nonetheless.

 

[metherion]

So you end up with six moon formation theories that may never be falsified, right?

Wrong. Six moon formation HYPOTHESES.

And remember, falsifiability doesn't mean they will be proven wrong, it means they COULD be proven wrong. There is some hypothetical evidence that, if it existed, could show whatever it is wrong.

Example: Let's look at cell theory. Cell theory states that living organisms are made up of one or more distinct cells, right? So how is it falsifiable? Well, if a human baby was born that had no distinct cells, but was just one human blob of protoplasm that somehow was still human but didn't have any distinct cells, that would falsify it. It would be a natural event that would prove cell theory wrong. Do we ever see it? No. So, cell theory is falsifiable, because there is a hypothetical natural event that could show it to be wrong... but since it is correct, that hypothetical natural event doesn't happen. If it DID happen, cell theory would be tossed out.

So the our moon formation hypotheses. If none of them ever figures out how to explain all the evidence, if none of them ever reaches the level where the scientists advocating them say "Well, if Moon Formation Hypotheses #1 is correct, X, Y, and Z events happened, so if we find evidence of events P, Q, and R instead, Moon Formation Hypothesis #1 is wrong", then none of them will ever get beyond hypothesis.

So the important thing is that everything in science must have some event, that if found, COULD prove the whole thing baloney. And if it is correct, that event doesn't ever happen in the universe... but if it DID, then that theory would be kaput. But the possibility has to exist that someone could make an experiment, carry it out, and if a certain result were to happen, prove it wrong... but if the theory is correct, that certain result never happens.

Science runs on the No True Scotsman principle.

How do you get this one? There are actually fairly well established rules as to what science is and is not. Can you show me one case where science has No True Scotsmanned itself?

And I was wondering if you read/what you think of my lawyer/engineer analogy back in post 83.

Metherion

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong. Six moon formation HYPOTHESES.

THEORIES, chief.

Five Serious Theories

SOURCE

Let me guess what you're going to say now: tomato/tomatto; potato/potatto?

 

[metherion]

From the first sentence after the hypotheses:

A detailed comparison of the properties of Lunar and Earth rock samples has placed very strong constraints on the possible validity of these hypotheses.

From the last sentence of the article:

At present the fifth hypothesis, that the Moon was formed from a ring of matter ejected by collision of a large object with the Earth, is the favored hypothesis; however, the question is not completely settled and many details remain to the accounted for.

Given that the website has astr161 in the url, my guess is that it is for a lower level course, as the 100 level classes tend to be, and in the syllabus had 'theory' there in the colloquial sense for a lower level class instead of the scientific sense.

Metherion

 

[AV1611VET]

From the first sentence after the hypotheses:


From the last sentence of the article:


Given that the website has astr161 in the url, my guess is that it is for a lower level course, as the 100 level classes tend to be, and in the syllabus had 'theory' there in the colloquial sense for a lower level class instead of the scientific sense.

Metherion

How do these higher levels start out?

"Class, what was called 'theory' when you were freshmen and sophomores, will now be referred to as 'hypothesis' from now on."

 

[jay1]

How do these higher levels start out?

"Class, what was called 'theory' when you were freshmen and sophomores, will now be referred to as 'hypothesis' from now on."

Congregation, what was called 'Judaism' will now be referred to as 'Christianity'

 

[Naraoia]

So biological evolution might not have been the outcome if the earth (dice) had rolled differently, right?
So biological evolution is the result of a random event. Got it.

Good job twisting my words out of context. You may have noted that I was not talking about biological evolution...

Science runs on the No True Scotsman principle.

Argumentum ad lolcat:

Example: Let's look at cell theory. Cell theory states that living organisms are made up of one or more distinct cells, right? So how is it falsifiable? Well, if a human baby was born that had no distinct cells, but was just one human blob of protoplasm that somehow was still human but didn't have any distinct cells, that would falsify it.

Do fruit fly embryos falsify cell theory?

How do these higher levels start out?

"Class, what was called 'theory' when you were freshmen and sophomores, will now be referred to as 'hypothesis' from now on."

Sadly, there's a fair chance that they'll never learn about these terms in any depth.

Of course, scientists amongst themselves rarely spend their days quibbling over the definition of a theory. They are usually too busy testing theories or hypotheses or whatever you will (let's call them all "ideas", eh?), and frankly, it doesn't matter much unless you have to explain things to a non-scientist.

 

[Belk]

Try "myopic".

Very well, myopic. It only tries to address the things it is designed to address.

This has nothing to do with six different moon-theories.

Yes it does. You see scientific knowledge progresses by degrees. Prior to the germ theory of disease we knew that washing hands reduced infection. That there where multiple theories that explained why did not discredit what we did know. It certainly did not discredit that we knew the earth to be older then 6,000 years.

You're building a hayman -- (or whatever it's called).

Play pretend you don't know what it is called with someone else AV. I have seen you post enough to know you are neither ignorant nor stupid, even if you sometimes pretend. No, it is not a straw man. It is in point of fact a Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You fight to keep science contained in the borders you feel comfortable with and try really hard to equate lack of evidence with evidence. I am sorry that science threatens your beliefs so much but that is the price we pay for discovery.

Wow -- look at all those accurate terms!

Misapplied, but technical nonetheless.

Ah, you know it is true. Good. You're never more truthful then when employing the artful dodge.

 

[metherion]

Do fruit fly embryos falsify cell theory

Doubt it, because cell theory would have changed to incorporate how that works. I, of course, am not a biologist, and was unaware of that quite fascinating stage in fruit flies. If you would be so kind as to explain either a) how I mangled cell theory or b) how it works in cell theory, I would LOVE to hear about it.

How do these higher levels start out?

"Class, what was called 'theory' when you were freshmen and sophomores, will now be referred to as 'hypothesis' from now on."

More like “Class, now that you’re learning scientific terminology, here’s the difference between the colloquial definition of theory and the scientific one. We’ll be using the scientific one from now on.”

Lower level sciences tell you the basics. Higher level ones tell you more about them, when they don’t apply, and so on. Let’s take an example from chemistry. At the university I currently go to as a grad student, and the one I went to as an undergrad, in Chem 111 (intro chem for non science/math/nursing type people) and 133 (intro chem for science/math/nursing/etc) [or their equivalent at my old school], we tell the students that only fluorine can oxidize oxygen. Once you get to advanced organic chem, and inorganic chem, we find out that isn’t true, and that high oxidation state transition metals can oxidize oxygen, and in fact, Osmium +8 WILL do so, Manganese +7 can try but as soon as it is reduced to Mn+5 more oxygens will re-oxidize it, and that’s part of how the OsO[sub]4[/sub] and KMnO[sub]4[/sub] oxidations work. It works this way because at lower levels they’re not ready for more advanced knowledge like that. As far as they are concerned, and as far as their classwork is concerned, and situations they’ll encounter in real life, only fluorine would oxidize oxygen, until they get farther along.

Metherion

 

[Naraoia]

Doubt it, because cell theory would have changed to incorporate how that works. I, of course, am not a biologist, and was unaware of that quite fascinating stage in fruit flies. If you would be so kind as to explain either a) how I mangled cell theory or b) how it works in cell theory, I would LOVE to hear about it.

Sorry, I forgot to take my tongue out of my cheek I don't seriously think that a cell with a lot of nuclei (which is basically what a syncytium - or an ordinary skeletal muscle cell - is) overturns cell theory. Now, when you get into the twilight zone between life and non-life - viruses, various hypothetical steps in abiogenesis, etc. -, that's quite another kettle of fish...