the self replicating watch argument

[Anguspure]

As I said, creationists are horrendous at determining probabilities and knowing how to apply them.

This little excerpt has nothing to do with what we were talking about, and is in no way analogous to...um...I'm not even sure what it was supposed to be compared with.

Do you aknowledge that an unlikely event (such as the accidental "invention" of a functional device) needs sufficient probalistic resourcing in order for it to take place?

 

[Anguspure]

I'm fine with probability and statistics, I'm asking how one measures "Design" in biological organisms with it. I don't see how it could be done, hence the post.

I also noted that as a Creationist, wouldn't everything be designed in your point of view? If so, then the point is moot to start with, and why even present this?

A string of amino acids arranged in such a way as to form a functional protein provides one way.
We know roughly how many Amino acids occur naturally and what types they are. We know the sequence for a basic functional protein.
So what is the probability that we can get this exact sequence without intelligent intervention?
Clearly the calculation will not take into account many of the variables, and many of these are incalculable. But a simple calculation of probability using the basic knowledge will only give us a higher probability than the real world one, so will work in favour of the non-intelligence argument.

 

[46AND2]

Do you aknowledge that an unlikely event (such as the accidental "invention" of a functional device) needs sufficient probalistic resourcing in order for it to take place?

No, I do not.

The chances that you, specifically you, are alive based on probabilistic calculations even 6000 years ago are astronomical, yet here you are. Every one of your ancestors needed to mate at precisely the time they did in order for you to be here.

In 4000 BC, if you calculated even the basic variables of how likely it would be for YOU to be born, you would get a number far exceeding that of most estimates I have seen for the likelihood of, say, abiogenesis. And THAT only takes into account a creationist timeframe. When you multiply that by the MANY MANY MANY more generations which have ACTUALLY occurred, the numbers are mind boggling.

The fact that YOU were born, using the misapplication of probability used by creationists, is far more unlikely than anything you have presented...by a ridiculously wide margin.

 

[46AND2]

Yes, manipulative video editing. You can read all about Dawkins' response to it, and how it was edited to take things out of context. He does not support the idea of panspermia.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Why? Yes I beleive that everything is designed, and the evidence presented provides some confirmation of my beleif, thus strengthening my faith in what I beleive.

then how could you possibly be impartial if you believe everything is designed?? Back to my original question then, why even bother if you already think it's all created by a designer, the point is moot.

Conversely, many years of observing the evolutionary circus and the way in which anybody who questions Darwins dogma is attacked and maligned, have only served to reduce my faith in Scientism.

Well unfortunately for doubters, Evolution is an applied science - that is, it is applied practically to real world problems and it yields predictable and useful results that could only be possible if it was true. it is used extensively in the Medical science, pharmaceutical research and development, genetic disease prevention and cure research, cancer research, it's also used to find natural resources like oil and coal seams because of the timeframes required to create the biological material that compact down to leave these resources.

All the denial you can muster won't ever make these facts go away.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

A string of amino acids arranged in such a way as to form a functional protein provides one way.

except it doesn't just come together by chance. You'd know this if you did some basic research so this method fails before it even gets out of the gate.

We know roughly how many Amino acids occur naturally and what types they are. We know the sequence for a basic functional protein.

Right. Perhaps you've come across the Miller-Urey experiments I imagine? These experiments have yielded an incredible set of results over the mere 60 or so years it's been running (it continues to run btw), it shows unequivocally that spontaneous production of proteins occur naturally and proliferate very easily in the early earth conditions. Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

Imagine what is possible if it had hundreds of millions, or even billions of years to spontaneously react?

So what is the probability that we can get this exact sequence without intelligent intervention?

with Evolution, not only is it probable - we have living examples everywhere you look today.

Clearly the calculation will not take into account many of the variables, and many of these are incalculable. But a simple calculation of probability using the basic knowledge will only give us a higher probability than the real world one, so will work in favour of the non-intelligence argument.

I don't believe you. This method is demonstrably inaccurate because of the faulty premise you want to feed into it.

 

[xianghua]

I didn’ say it was impossible.

if so its possible according to evolution to find a 500 my old mammal fossil.

I said it was not predicted by TOE.

see above. its an evolutionery prediction at all. just after-the-fact explanation.

 

[Larniavc]

if so its possible according to evolution to find a 500 my old mammal fossil.



see above. its an evolutionery prediction at all. just after-the-fact explanation.

Do you understand that if sometimes happens that is not predicted by a theory we can begin to doubt the validity of the theory?

If mammals evolved twice identically we would be well on the road to a falsification of TOE.

To be clear: mammals appearing twice is a potential falsification of TOE.

You simple refuse to admit it.

 

[Ophiolite]

Self replication is a difficult property to do half-way well.

My gut bacteria seem to have the methodology cracked. What makes you think it is difficult?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

we also observe non- hiierarchy. so if a nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution then non hierarchy should be evidence against it.

I already explained this logical error you keep making - you didn't query it then, so why repeat it now?

 

[Anguspure]

then how could you possibly be impartial if you believe everything is designed?? Back to my original question then, why even bother if you already think it's all created by a designer, the point is moot.

Everybody starts with a hypothesis. My hypothesis is that Darwinian evolution does not explain biological origins and recognises that the best explanation for the appearance of design in biological forms is a designer.

Well unfortunately for doubters, Evolution is an applied science - that is, it is applied practically to real world problems and it yields predictable and useful results that could only be possible if it was true. it is used extensively in the Medical science, pharmaceutical research and development, genetic disease prevention and cure research, cancer research, it's also used to find natural resources like oil and coal seams because of the timeframes required to create the biological material that compact down to leave these resources.

All the denial you can muster won't ever make these facts go away.

Yes, elements of the science used by evolutionists have been particularly useful, nobody is denying that.

However making inferences that go way beyond the evidence because of this success is not warranted, is not science and brings the whole undertaking into disrepute.

 

[SkyWriting]

My gut bacteria seem to have the methodology cracked. What makes you think it is difficult?

I said it's difficult to half-way replicate. How does one practice for the first reproduction cycle?

 

[Anguspure]

except it doesn't just come together by chance. You'd know this if you did some basic research so this method fails before it even gets out of the gate.

I have researched, everybody from Dawkins to Maddox aknowledges that we simply do not know how it all came together.
There are only 3 possible ways by which things such as this come together. They are: Chance, Physical Law or Design.
You are denying chance, which is fair enough because the probabilities are inconceivably small.
No physical law has been identified capable of producing the observed effect inspite of concerted efforts to find one (this research ironically stifled and maligned by Darwinists).
That leaves the 3rd possibility as being the best explanation and where all of the available evidence leads us.

Right. Perhaps you've come across the Miller-Urey experiments I imagine? These experiments have yielded an incredible set of results over the mere 60 or so years it's been running (it continues to run btw), it shows unequivocally that spontaneous production of proteins occur naturally and proliferate very easily in the early earth conditions. Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

Muller-Urey demonstrated that compounds that are used in biological things are able to be formed under certain conditions.
It has long been recognised that the conditions they designed were not representative of any real world, nor where they conducive to conditions required for the subsequent formation of functional proteins.

Imagine what is possible if it had hundreds of millions, or even billions of years to spontaneously react?

There are about 250 naturally occuring amino acids that occur in either L or D types. Only 20 of these are used biologically and only the L type. In order to build a single functional protein a string of specific Amino acids must be arranged in a certain order and then folded in the right way. Get it wrong and the protein is not functional (never mind what the function might be).
You do the math. It simply does not stack up (fantastically improbable), for one protein let alone the many thousands of different molecules that need to come together in order for even one self replicating organism to come together in the correct manner, by accident.

with Evolution, not only is it probable - we have living examples everywhere you look today.

This is called begging the question.

I don't believe you. This method is demonstrably inaccurate because of the faulty premise you want to feed into it.

What you beleive is irrelevant. The mathematics is well proven and serves very succesfully in many fields, the only reason it is denied in biology is because some, who are fearful, wish to keep the foot of God out of the door.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Muller-Urey demonstrated that compounds that are used in biological things are able to be formed under certain conditions.
It has long been recognised that the conditions they designed were not representative of any real world, nor where they conducive to conditions required for the subsequent formation of functional proteins.

That's true; but since it became clearer what the conditions were really like, things have moved on - such experiments have been repeated in simulations of a variety of different ancient Earth environments - and the results have been more productive than Miller or Urey could have dreamed. It's even been shown that RNA and other biopolymers can form in some conditions. Here's a readable BBC article on developments in the field.

 

[46AND2]

What you beleive is irrelevant. The mathematics is well proven and serves very succesfully in many fields, the only reason it is denied in biology is because some, who are fearful, wish to keep the foot of God out of the door.

That's because you misapply the math.

If the math is well proven, and you are using it correctly, please provide the respective design probabilities for both the flagellum and, say, water.

Show your work, please.

 

[mnorian]

Mod hat on

This thread has gone thru a small clean-up
for
Goading.
Please address the subject of the post and not it's author's character.
Carry on.
​

 

[Anguspure]

That's true; but since it became clearer what the conditions were really like, things have moved on - such experiments have been repeated in simulations of a variety of different ancient Earth environments - and the results have been more productive than Miller or Urey could have dreamed. It's even been shown that RNA and other biopolymers can form in some conditions. Here's a readable BBC article on developments in the field.

RNA world theory has it's own Chicken/Egg or problems.
The observations of so called intelligence free organic compounds remain functionally incoherent and so demonstrate little apart from the fact that many molecules and interactions used in biological forms occur in other parts of creation under certain conditions.

 

[Anguspure]

That's because you misapply the math.

If the math is well proven, and you are using it correctly, please provide the respective design probabilities for both the flagellum and, say, water.

Show your work, please.

Specifically how is the math missapplied?
If I have a choice of 500 amino acids and only wish to use 20 of these in a specific sequence of say 50 aminos, what is the probability that I could construct my desired sequence by pulling it blindly out of a hat?

This is easy and yields a fantastically large number revealling an equally fantastic and impossibly low probability.
(500×500×500....for 50 times, because at each point there is a 1 in 500 chance we might pick the correct amino out of the hat, this assuming that all of the corrrect aminos are present in the hat at all times).

If we find that the probability is such that the probalistic resources (number of repeats, amino acid molecules, and time available) that we have are exhausted and yet somehow we have pulled the correct sequence from the hat, what should this tell us?

What if this same event repeated a few thousand times in a row (as might be required to build a basic functionally coherent replicator)

Me? I would say that somebody had been monkeying with the hat, rigging the game somehow. A designer of some sort.

You? You would say that my suggestion is silly and that it is completely unremarkable for such improbability to be overcome repeatably over millions of years. Besides, you might say, there must surely be some law at work that magically overcomes the laws of probability and that one must just have faith that one day Scientism will discover this law and then there will be no need to think about somebody who might be playing a game we don't like.

 

[Anguspure]

My gut bacteria seem to have the methodology cracked. What makes you think it is difficult?

Half replication cracked? ROFL.

 

[46AND2]

Specifically how is the math missapplied?
If I have a choice of 500 amino acids and only wish to use 20 of these in a specific sequence of say 50 aminos, what is the probability that I could construct my desired sequence by pulling it blindly out of a hat?

This is easy and yields a fantastically large number revealling an equally fantastic and impossibly low probability.
(500×500×500....for 50 times, because at each point there is a 1 in 500 chance we might pick the correct amino out of the hat, this assuming that all of the corrrect aminos are present in the hat at all times).

If we find that the probability is such that the probalistic resources (number of repeats, amino acid molecules, and time available) that we have are exhausted and yet somehow we have pulled the correct sequence from the hat, what should this tell us?

What if this same event repeated a few thousand times in a row (as might be required to build a basic functionally coherent replicator)

Me? I would say that somebody had been monkeying with the hat, rigging the game somehow. A designer of some sort.

You? You would say that my suggestion is silly and that it is completely unremarkable for such improbability to be overcome repeatably over millions of years. Besides, you might say, there must surely be some law at work that magically overcomes the laws of probability and that one must just have faith that one day Scientism will discover this law and then there will be no need to think about somebody who might be playing a game we don't like.

I'll get to this post more thoroughly when I get to my computer....but to start, are you aware that "impossibly low probability" is an oxymoron for any non-zero probability? 0 is the ONLY impossibly low probability. 1 in 10 to the Google power is not even impossibly low.

So when you ask if I acknowledge that an event requires a reasonable possibility in order for it to occur, I ABSOLUTELY do not concur...and I gave you an example...your "impossibly low probability" is shown to be possibly fulfilled, literally, every second of every day by events around the world.

And that, in and of itself, defeats the argument that one must CONCLUDE design based solely on improbability of nature.

But it's much worse than that for you, as I'll explain when I get online, and show how you are misapplying the math.