Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Shemjaza]

Recipes also require a mind and intelligence to write out the series of steps that must be performed to create a meal - so your little analogy disproves absolutely nothing.

Silly logic. They also are only read by humans, so God can't exist.

 

[Frank Robert]

Deleted duplicate

 

[Frank Robert]

No, it’s a complex biological programming code language that is the operating system that runs cells, and not an inorganic electronic computer programming code language , but the analogy is right on the money - as has been stated by many people, such as those researching how to synthesize DNA and reprogram a cell, by inserting a new gene sequence into a cell to make it do something new.

Computers use a two letter binary programming code language that runs hardware, and cells are run by a four letter programming code - both contain specified complex information that takes intelligence and a mind to write.

Now you are jumping from a false analogy to argument from incredulity. Try again!

 

[chad kincham]

What happens following steps (i) to (iii) in post #1624, is that a much larger collective autocatalytic set emerges spontaneously as a phase transition. (This is called 'constraint closure’, which is more or less historically analogous in meaning with the more mystic term: ‘life force’ .. as metabolism forms from sets with subsets within them, catalysing shorter parts of ever lengthening and ligating molecules).

What all this means is that:
-molecular reproduction simply need not be based on template replicating RNA .. (that claim is outright false).
Template replication from an RNA 'information' source, may be one way to molecular reproduction .. but it is not a necessary way. There is no 'programmer' of the template. It forms as the most stable/efficient set .. consuming the available resources of 'the soup' .. creating its own niche .. and continues replicating and becoming more complex.

The entire prebiotic soup hypothesis has been shown to be impossible in reality.

The odds of a living cell arising naturally is 1 to the 97 billionth power - not just impossible but ridiculously impossible.

If the early atmosphere was oxygen reducing, UV radiation would destroy any primordial soup forming.

If the atmosphere was oxygen present, it would oxidize and destroy any such primordial soup.

And ocean hydrothermal vents are also untenable, as DNA cannot form in water - key components are hydrophobic and destroyed in water.

And forming on clay still has the problem of oxygen reducing or oxygen present atmosphere being destructive.

After decades of research you now have scientists like Professor Dean Kenyon, who went from writing a book promoting chemical evolution to eventually becoming a creationist, and others like Paul Davies who admit the evidence of design is overwhelming.

Of course you have an entire industry of scientists and Professors making careers and taking research grants to continue research, who have a vested interest in continuing, and therefore hype and exaggerate their findings as much as possible while ignoring anything counter indicative - which others have to point out.

 

[Astrophile]

Professor A E Wilder-smith with three earned doctorates in chemistry, still has lectures and books available online wherein he shows that DNA consists of complex information, and that there is no natural mechanism whatsoever that can create and write information.

Professor Wilder-Smith died in September 1995, and I think that there have been advances in genetics since them. You might learn something from reading A. E. Wilder-Smith - Wikipedia , particularly the last paragraph.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If the early atmosphere was oxygen reducing, UV radiation would destroy any primordial soup forming.

If the atmosphere was oxygen present, it would oxidize and destroy any such primordial soup.

And ocean hydrothermal vents are also untenable, as DNA cannot form in water - key components are hydrophobic and destroyed in water.

And forming on clay still has the problem of oxygen reducing or oxygen present atmosphere being destructive.

What makes you think (molecular) oxygen was present in the atmosphere of pre-biotic Earth?

The geological evidence is that life exist for about 1 billion years before free oxygen existed in the atmosphere.

 

[chad kincham]

Waves sort pebble on a beach, with no gods to help them.

You obviously have no clue concerning the difference between

i) small protein#1 catalyses the formation of protein #2 from protein #2 parts and;
ii) small protein#2 catalyses the formation of protein #1 from protein #1 parts.
iii) Nothing catalyses its own formation.

Totally disingenuous.

We already know amino acids bond to each other easily.

Small protein chains assemblingby chance prove exactly nothing.

Left handed Amino acids purified in a lab with the R handed molecules that are always present in a prebiotic scenario removed from the mixture, and seeing formation of small protein chains is light years away from proving abiogenesis into a living cell.

Even one R handed amino acid would inactivate the entire protein - the chirality problem remains unsolved in every possible prebiotic scenario.

DNA directs formation of extremely long and complex protein chains and all the other complex stuff needed to form a living cell.

I won’t even say close but no cigar, because that’s not even remotely close to proving abiogenesis.

 

[chad kincham]

Waves sort pebble on a beach, with no gods to help them.

Wow, you show that you have no clue about the difference between order as is found in crystalline structure, (or your rocks on the beach scenario), and specified complexity and information as is necessary for formation of a living cell.

Quote:

The tendency to confuse the qualitative distinction between “order” and “information” has characterized self-organizational research efforts and calls into question the relevance of such work to the origin of life. Self-organizational theorists explain well what doesn’t need explaining. What needs explaining is not the origin of order (whether in the form of crystals, swirling tornadoes, or the “eyes” of hurricanes), but the origin of information–the highly improbable, aperiodic, and yet specified sequences that make biological function possible.

To see the distinction between order and information, compare the sequence “ABABABABAB ABAB” to the sequence “Time and tide wait for no man.” The first sequence is repetitive and ordered, but not complex or informative. Systems that are characterized by both specificity and complexity (what information theorists call “specified complexity”) have “information content.” Since such systems have the qualitative feature of aperiodicity or complexity, they are qualitatively distinguishable from systems characterized by simple periodic order. Thus, attempts to explain the origin of order have no relevance to discussions of the origin of information content. Significantly, the nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content–that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software.

Yet the information contained in an English sentence or computer software does not derive from the chemistry of the ink or the physics of magnetism, but from a source extrinsic to physics and chemistry altogether. Indeed, in both cases, the message transcends the properties of the medium. The information in DNA also transcends the properties of its material medium.

 

[chad kincham]

What makes you think (molecular) oxygen was present in the atmosphere of pre-biotic Earth?

The geological evidence is that life exist for about 1 billion years before free oxygen existed in the atmosphere.

It was either oxygen present OR oxygen reducing- either one makes abiogenesis impossible.

Geological evidence in rocks doesn’t show how hydrogen gas and oxygen were released on the primordial earth from water, as current research indicates was very probable.

Makes no difference, because either scenario doesn’t work for abiogenesis, as I already made clear.

 

[Frank Robert]

The entire prebiotic soup hypothesis has been shown to be impossible in reality.

The preboiotic soup hypothesis is an archaic theory of spontaneous generation.

The odds of a living cell arising naturally is 1 to the 97 billionth power - not just impossible but ridiculously impossible.

Depends on how you calculate the odds. The best one I have come across comes from a Quora discussion
See: How close are scientists to developing a working theory of abiogenesis (other than random happenstance)?

If the early atmosphere was oxygen reducing, UV radiation would destroy any primordial soup forming.

If the atmosphere was oxygen present, it would oxidize and destroy any such primordial soup.

See above

And ocean hydrothermal vents are also untenable, as DNA cannot form in water - key components are hydrophobic and destroyed in water

And forming on clay still has the problem of oxygen reducing or oxygen present atmosphere being destructive..

See: Life's Building Blocks Form In Replicated Deep Sea Vents

After decades of research you now have scientists like Professor Dean Kenyon, who went from writing a book promoting chemical evolution to eventually becoming a creationist, and others like Paul Davies who admit the evidence of design is overwhelming.

They are entitled to their opinions.

Of course you have an entire industry of scientists and Professors making careers and taking research grants to continue research, who have a vested interest in continuing, and therefore hype and exaggerate their findings as much as possible while ignoring anything counter indicative - which others have to point out.

As far as I know, Christian clergy earn a living by taking money and donations from their parishioners, many clergy ignore anything that conflicts with their biblical interpretations.

Don't forget that many Christians believe that God set the laws of nature in motion. There is plenty of evidence for the laws of nature.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Wow, you show that you have no clue about the difference between order as is found in crystalline structure, (or your rocks on the beach scenario), and specified complexity and information as is necessary for formation of a living cell.

Quote:

The tendency to confuse the qualitative distinction between “order” and “information” has characterized self-organizational research efforts and calls into question the relevance of such work to the origin of life. Self-organizational theorists explain well what doesn’t need explaining. What needs explaining is not the origin of order (whether in the form of crystals, swirling tornadoes, or the “eyes” of hurricanes), but the origin of information–the highly improbable, aperiodic, and yet specified sequences that make biological function possible.

To see the distinction between order and information, compare the sequence “ABABABABAB ABAB” to the sequence “Time and tide wait for no man.” The first sequence is repetitive and ordered, but not complex or informative. Systems that are characterized by both specificity and complexity (what information theorists call “specified complexity”) have “information content.” Since such systems have the qualitative feature of aperiodicity or complexity, they are qualitatively distinguishable from systems characterized by simple periodic order. Thus, attempts to explain the origin of order have no relevance to discussions of the origin of information content. Significantly, the nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content–that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software.

Yet the information contained in an English sentence or computer software does not derive from the chemistry of the ink or the physics of magnetism, but from a source extrinsic to physics and chemistry altogether. Indeed, in both cases, the message transcends the properties of the medium. The information in DNA also transcends the properties of its material medium.

We ask again, for a quantifiable definition of information as regards DNA so that we can actually discuss what is or is not possible beyond gut feelings. So far you are just repeating assertions that something exists and we should think about it.

 

[chad kincham]

"specified complex information"

Still haven't defined those terms in a useful fashion. Metric? Objective method of measurement?

Ordered properties such as crystalline structure vs specified complexity and information:

What needs explaining is not the origin of order (whether in the form of crystals, swirling tornadoes, or the “eyes” of hurricanes), but the origin of information–the highly improbable, aperiodic, and yet specified sequences that make biological function possible.

To see the distinction between order and information, compare the sequence “ABABABABAB ABAB” to the sequence “Time and tide wait for no man.” The first sequence is repetitive and ordered, but not complex or informative. Systems that are characterized by both specificity and complexity (what information theorists call “specified complexity”) have “information content.” Since such systems have the qualitative feature of aperiodicity or complexity, they are qualitatively distinguishable from systems characterized by simple periodic order. Thus, attempts to explain the origin of order have no relevance to discussions of the origin of information content. Significantly, the nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content–that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software.

Yet the information contained in an English sentence or computer software does not derive from the chemistry of the ink or the physics of magnetism, but from a source extrinsic to physics and chemistry altogether. Indeed, in both cases, the message transcends the properties of the medium. The information in DNA also transcends the properties of its material medium. Because chemical bonds do not determine the arrangement of nucleotide bases, the nucleotides can assume a vast array of possible sequences and thereby express many different biochemical messages.

If the properties of matter (i.e., the medium) do not suffice to explain the origin of information, what does? Our experience with information-intensive systems (especially codes and languages) indicates that such systems always come from an intelligent source — i.e., from mental or personal agents, not chance or material necessity. This generalization about the cause of information has, ironically, received confirmation from origin-of-life research itself. During the last forty years, every naturalistic model proposed has failed to explain the origin of information — the great stumbling block for materialistic scenarios. Thus, mind or intelligence or what philosophers call “agent causation” now stands as the only cause known to be capable of creating an information-rich system, including the coding regions of DNA, functional proteins, and the cell as a whole.

Because mind or intelligent design is a necessary cause of an informative system, one can detect the past action of an intelligent cause from the presence of an information-intensive effect, even if the cause itself cannot be directly observed. Since information requires an intelligent source, the flowers spelling “Welcome to Victoria” in the gardens of Victoria harbor in Canada lead visitors to infer the activity of intelligent agents even if they did not see the flowers planted and arranged.

Scientists in many fields now recognize the connection between intelligence and information and make inferences accordingly. Archaeologists assume a mind produced the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone. SETI’s search for extraterrestrial intelligence presupposes that the presence of information imbedded in electromagnetic signals from space would indicate an intelligent source. As yet, radio astronomers have not found information-bearing signals coming from space. But molecular biologists, looking closer to home, have discovered information in the cell. Consequently, DNA justifies making what probability theorist William A. Dembski calls “the design inference.”

 

[Speedwell]

Great cut-and-paste. It is customary to provide a reference...

 

[chad kincham]

Depends on how you calculate the odds. The best one I have come across comes from a Quora discussion
See: How close are scientists to developing a working theory of abiogenesis (other than random happenstance)?

This is what you purport to be real evidence of abiogenesis?

Did you actually read it?

They got molecules to bond together by twos and sometimes four?

And only after injecting a chemical artificially to cause bonding?

This is EXACTLY like adding water to mud and claiming it’s evidence that mud huts can spontaneously form without a hut builder.

Protein chains in living cells require hundreds of linked amino acids of specified complexity.

And that’s a small part of the very complex cell.

Discussing a pitiful result such as that and seriously trying to claim that it proves that incredibly complex DNA could have formed in water when key components of it are destroyed in water, is incredibly problematic, to put it mildly.

First the very complex cell membrane would have had to be there, which is essential to protecting DNA, and no one can even begin to try and create a functioning cell membrane, even under perfect laboratory conditions.

Why do you think research has shifted to clay on dry land, for abiogenesis evidence?

 

[Bradskii]

The odds of a living cell arising naturally is 1 to the 97 billionth power - not just impossible but ridiculously impossible.

I just knew I was wasting my time...

Now come on, Chad. It's been explained to you twice why the figures you are scattering about like so much confetti are nonsensical. Ignoring that explanation doesn't make make you right. Keep making the same mistake and I'll keep pointing out that you are wrong. Maybe you want to discuss it?

And while I'm here...

You're making another mistake in starting with a specific outcome and then trying to work out the odds of it happening. Which is not how an evolutionary process works. There is no aim. So that in itself knocks your figures into a cocked hat before we even start to consider how the process doesn't rinse and repeat but builds on what has already happened.

But again, I feel that's a couple of mintues I've wasted typing that. But we live in hope...

 

[chad kincham]

I just knew I was wasting my time...

Now come on, Chad. It's been explained to you twice why the figures you are scattering about like so much confetti are nonsensical. Ignoring that explanation doesn't make make you right. Keep making the same mistake and I'll keep pointing out that you are wrong. Maybe you want to discuss it?

And while I'm here...

You're making another mistake in starting with a specific outcome and then trying to work out the odds of it happening. Which is not how an evolutionary process works. There is no aim. So that in itself knocks your figures into a cocked hat before we even start to consider how the process doesn't rinse and repeat but builds on what has already happened.

But again, I feel that's a couple of mintues I've wasted typing that. But we live in hope...

Wrong,

I’m not trying to do anything other than cite what evolutionists such as Hubert Yockey, and Fred Hoyle, Dean Kenyon, who was a famously huge proponent of chemical evolution, and many others have computed as to the odds.

And that’s the odds for the simplest organism that could be classified as being life.

Quote:

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist's burden of evidence to see where it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability."7

Richard Dawkins implicitly agreed with Yockey by stating, "Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one."8The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in 1050 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of magnitude.9

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of Small Probability.9

I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski's one chance in 10150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not chance, as Dembski's criterion and Yockey's probability may prove it is not, then it must have happened by design, the only remaining possibility.

Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in 1075, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski's criterion of one chance in 10150. The simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,10 If these raw materials could be evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell's construction site, then we may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has 4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that standard.

References
1 Darwin, F., ed (1888) The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, London: John Murray, vol. 3, p. 18.
2 Shelley, Mary W. (1831) Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus, London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, Introduction, p. 9.
3 Huxley, Thomas H. (1870) "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis" in (1968) Collected Essays of Thomas H. Huxley, vol. 8, Discourses Biological and Gelogical, New York: Greenwood Press, p. 256.
4 Behe, Michael J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, New York: Touchstone, pp. 262-268.
5 Denton, Michael (1986) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, p. 263.
6 Johnson, Phillip E. (1993) Darwin On Trial, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, p. 9.
7 Yockey, Hubert P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255, 257.
8 Dawkins, Richard (1996) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., p. 146.
9 Dembski, William A. (1998) The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5,209,210.
10 Morowitz, H. J. (1966) "The Minimum Size of Cells" in Principles of Biomolecular Organization, eds. G.E.W. Wostenholme and M. O'Connor, London: J.A. Churchill, pp. 446-459.

 

[chad kincham]

Addendum: the odds of abiogenesis occurring.

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist's burden of evidence to see where it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability."7

Richard Dawkins implicitly agreed with Yockey by stating, "Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one."8The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in 1050 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of magnitude.9

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of Small Probability.9

I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski's one chance in 10150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not chance, as Dembski's criterion and Yockey's probability may prove it is not, then it must have happened by design, the only remaining possibility.

Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in 1075, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski's criterion of one chance in 10150. The simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,10 If these raw materials could be evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell's construction site, then we may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has 4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that standard.

References
1 Darwin, F., ed (1888) The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, London: John Murray, vol. 3, p. 18.
2 Shelley, Mary W. (1831) Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus, London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, Introduction, p. 9.
3 Huxley, Thomas H. (1870) "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis" in (1968) Collected Essays of Thomas H. Huxley, vol. 8, Discourses Biological and Gelogical, New York: Greenwood Press, p. 256.
4 Behe, Michael J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, New York: Touchstone, pp. 262-268.
5 Denton, Michael (1986) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, p. 263.
6 Johnson, Phillip E. (1993) Darwin On Trial, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, p. 9.
7 Yockey, Hubert P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255, 257.
8 Dawkins, Richard (1996) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., p. 146.
9 Dembski, William A. (1998) The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5,209,210.
10 Morowitz, H. J. (1966) "The Minimum Size of Cells" in Principles of Biomolecular Organization, eds. G.E.W. Wostenholme and M. O'Connor, London: J.A. Churchill, pp. 446-459.

 

[chad kincham]

We ask again, for a quantifiable definition of information as regards DNA so that we can actually discuss what is or is not possible beyond gut feelings. So far you are just repeating assertions that something exists and we should think about it.

Since you’re so hung up on the quantifiability of DNAs specified complexity and information - the specified complexity of coded information in DNA for the simplest cell would fill 1,000 encyclopedia sized volumes,

 

[Bradskii]

I’m not trying to do anything other than cite what evolutionists such as Hubert Yockey, and Fred Hoyle, Dean Kenyon, who was a famously huge proponent of chemical evolution, and many others have computed as to the odds.

And that’s the odds for the simplest organism that could be classified as being life.

But they omitted to tell you how the process would operate. They assumed that you'd think it was a rinse and repeat exercise. Like Hoyles 747 example.

Look, you and I aren't experts in this field. So we rely on what others tell us. But some of theses guys are being less than honest with you. It's been explained how. So all I can do it urge you to investigate the actual process so that you'll realise it for yourself.

Do I know the actual odds of something like abiogeneis happening? No I don't. But I do know that the precepts these guys are using for their calculations are misleading. There isn't a tornado causing junk. And then another doing the same. And yet another. Small inconsequential steps are made by purely random methods. Which are then built on.

It's more like the Wright brothers building something that didn't fly, scrapping it and starting again. That's not how it worked. The fiddled. They added bits. They took bits away. And if it stayed in the air a second or two longer then they kept the changes.

Yes, there was no-one actually thinking 'let's add this or try that' with abiogeneis. But a whole planet's worth of trial and error was going on billions of times a second for billions of years. Between you and me, it would be astonishing if we didn't get some sort of result.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Since you’re so hung up on the quantifiability of DNAs specified complexity and information - the specified complexity of coded information in DNA for the simplest cell would fill 1,000 encyclopedia sized volumes,

And how much is that, if you claim that it is to much for a given process you should be able to demonstrate why.