Jump to content
Science Forums

Round Two: God vs. Darwin


Fishteacher73
 Share

Recommended Posts

If the probability were actually 10^-65 for hitting a new functional protein, we'd not have these multiple examples.
This my last attempt to explain this to you. The issue is NOT that the odds are 1 in 10^65 to produce a functional protein. I don't know what the odds are to produce any random fuctional protein.

 

The issue is that the odds are extraordinarily low to produce a MATCH to a functional protein. In an enzyme sequence, we need specific proteins in sequence, not 6 to 10 proteins with random functionality. The odds of my neighbor having a birthday are 1/1. The odds of him having my birthday ar 1/365. It is the specificty that lowers the odds.

 

You were corrected earlier on the identical issue by another poster when you suggested that the odds of a specific mix of gasses in the room were 1 in 10^50, and yet the mix is there. But the odds of ANY gas mix existing in the room is 1/1. The odds of MATCHING it again are FAR SMALLER. Did you understand her point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html )

How likely is it that even a single bacterium could form by chance in the primordial sea? Not very likely, that's for sure, and creationists have been only too happy to provide ludicrously huge numbers purporting to be the odds against such a thing. However, even if these calculations are correct, they are irrelevant, as modern theories of abiogenesis require nothing of the kind to happen. This article briefly illustrates what abiogenesis really is and shows why the creationists' probability calculations do not matter.

 

 

Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html )

Creationists have asserted that a statistical principle called "Borel's Law" mathematically demonstrates that abiogenesis is impossible. This article explains what Borel's Law is and shows that Borel himself clearly understood that his law was not relevant to the probability of the origin of life.

 

Just for the Rest of the Story on this. "Borel's Law", does not exist as a mathematical theorem, nor is there a universally decided upon "minimum probability" among the physical sciences community. Rather, Borel's Law originated in a discussion in a book written by Emil Borel for non-scientists. Borel shows examples of the kind of logic that any scientist might use to generate estimates of the minimum probability below which events of a particular type are considered negligible. It is important to stress that each of these estimates are created for specific physical problems, not as a universal law. The first is Probability and Life, a 1962 Dover English translation of the French version published in 1943 as Le Probabilites et la Vie. The second is Probability and Certainty, a 1963 Dover English translation of the French version published in 1950 as Probabilite et Certitude. Both of these books are "science for the non-scientist" type books rather than scholarly treatments of the theory of probability.

 

In Probability and Life, Borel states a "single law of chance" as the principle that "Phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur". At the beginning of Chapter Three of this book, he states:

 

When we stated the single law of chance, "events whose probability is sufficiently small never occur," we did not conceal the lack of precision of the statement. There are cases where no doubt is possible; such is that of the complete works of Goethe being reproduced by a typist who does not know German and is typing at random. Between this somewhat extreme case and ones in which the probabilities are very small but nevertheless such that the occurrence of the corresponding event is not incredible, there are many intermediate cases. We shall attempt to determine as precisely as possible which values of probability must be regarded as negligible under certain circumstances.

 

It is evident that the requirements with respect to the degree of certainty imposed on the single law of chance will vary depending on whether we deal with scientific certainty or with the certainty which suffices in a given circumstance of everyday life.

 

The point being, that Borel's Law is a "rule of thumb" that exists on a sliding scale, depending on the phenomenon in question. It is not a mathematical theorem, nor is there any hard number that draws a line in the statistical sand saying that all events of a given probability and smaller are impossible for all types of events.

 

Borel continues by giving examples of how to choose such cutoff probabilities. For example, by reasoning from the traffic death rate of 1 per million in Paris (pre-World War II statistics) that an event of probability of 10-6 (one in a million) is negligible on a "human scale". Multiplying this by 10-9 (1 over the population of the world in the 1940s), he obtains 10-15 as an estimate of negligible probabilities on a "terrestrial scale".

 

To evaluate the chance that physical laws such as Newtonian mechanics or laws related to the propagation of light could be wrong, Borel discusses probabilities that are negligible on a "cosmic scale", Borel asserts that 10-50 represents a negligible event on the cosmic scale as it is well below one over the product of the number of observable stars (109) times the number of observations that humans could make on those stars (1020).

 

To compute the odds against a container containing a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen spontaneously segregating into pure nitrogen on the top half and pure oxygen on the bottom half, Borel states that for equal volumes of oxygen and nitrogen the odds would be 2-n where n is the number of atoms, which Borel states as being smaller than the negligible probability of 10-(10(-10)), which he assigns as the negligible probability on a "supercosmic" scale. Borel creates this supercosmos by nesting our universe U1 inside successive supercosmoses, each with the same number of elements identical to the preceding cosmos as that cosmos has its own elements, so that U2 would be composed of the same number of U1's as U1 has atoms, and U3 would be composed of the same number of U2's as U2 has U1's, and so forth on up to UN where N=1 million. He then creates a similar nested time scale with the base time of our universe being a billion years (T2 would contain a billion, billion years) on up to TN, N=1 million. Under such conditions of the number of atoms and the amount of time, the probability of separating the nitrogen and oxygen by a random process is still so small as to be negligible.

 

Ultimately, the point is that the user must design his or her "negligible probability" estimate based on a given set of assumed conditions.

 

From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126:

 

The Problem of Life.

 

In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments.

 

When we calculated the probability of reproducing by mere chance a work of literature, in one or more volumes, we certainly observed that, if this work was printed, it must have emanated from a human brain. Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth. Is it not possible to infer that the probability that this brain may have been produced by the blind forces of chance is even slighter than the probability of the typewriting miracle?

 

It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance.

 

Moreover, certain of these properties of living matter also belong to inanimate matter, when it takes certain forms, such as that of crystals. It does not seem possible to apply the laws of probability calculus to the phenomenon of the formation of a crystal in a more or less supersaturated solution. At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit."

 

In short, Borel says that probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless.

 

 

In short, find someone besides Borel to base you're claims on. The man himself clearly believed different than you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, the point is that the user must design his or her "negligible probability" estimate based on a given set of assumed conditions. ....

 

From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126:

...If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of magnitude....it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance. .... We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit."

 

In short, Borel says that probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless.

(emphasis added ) Outstanding post, paultrr-

 

I have never read Borel, but this is certainly a relevant post. The assertions I made ealier about the plausibility of unlikelihood of abiogenesis are certainly simplistic, so I could only assume that hundreds of folks smarter that I had noticed them before. Borel's thoughts above are interesting, but I don't think they add much to the discussion, mainly because:

 

1) He sidesteps the argument of low probability for abiogenesis by making a slighly bizarre faith statement which I emphasized above. And...

 

2) He sidesteps the assessment of the probability of discrete evolutionary events by suggesting that evolution is generally accepted, and the calculations are too complex. This latter point is similar to Behe's warning that calculation of probability in complex systems is challenging. I certainly agree with that point.

 

What non-random events could Borel be possibly referring to that would obviate the apparent low-probability argument? Parapharasing, Borel essentially said that we should agree with the gradualists tha rely on massive complexity to allow gradualism, becasue the idea is "generally accepted." Further, we should assume that the source of this complexity is beyond our undedrstanding, ergo we ought to just accept it.

 

Hmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, ID is Creationism with a new outward skin.
I don't think I can speak for IDers on this, but I can tell you that I personnaly never gave any credence at all to classic Creationism (young earth, flood geology, 7 day creation, fully mature creation, etc) but ID as an idea is seductive. Hence, for me, the two camps are not related.

 

Again, I am not suggesting that ID should be "believed in". I just think it is worth investigating.,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html )

How likely is it that even a single bacterium could form by chance in the primordial sea? Not very likely, that's for sure, and creationists have been only too happy to provide ludicrously huge numbers purporting to be the odds against such a thing. However, even if these calculations are correct, they are irrelevant, as modern theories of abiogenesis require nothing of the kind to happen. This article briefly illustrates what abiogenesis really is and shows why the creationists' probability calculations do not matter. ...

Paultrr- I extracted the attached from the reference above:

 

"Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

 

Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont [8] and Woese calls a progenote [4]), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms [2, 5, 10, 15, 28]. An illustration comparing a hypothetical protobiont and a modern bacteria is given below."

 

I do understand this argument, but I still think it sidesteps the central issue by making a circumferential reference. It essentialy deines the use of random probability assessment because the systems have been pre-ordered into non random elements. I think it is a little disingenuous to deny random calculations because previous random event have created ordered complexity that makes current events less random. All this does is push the complexity argument to an earlier point in time.

 

Granted, the VAST majority of folks that quote these kinds of numbers aren't all that strong in arithmetic. But tht fact that lots of the messengers are biased does not obviate the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original source of all the math arguments was not designed to disprove evolution. If you read the whole articles the math was disgned by a person who believed in evolution to strickly speak about pure randomness and odds. In fact, the guy himself goes on to show that actually none of this applies to evolution at all for one major reason being the processes that took place in the early period of this universe may have conditions a bit different from those we find ourselves in today. Basically, that author that all the ID crowd and others loves to quote said it right. At the present time there is still too little understood on all this to make a determination about odds at all. There is also the mention that none of this about odds is an exact science to begin with and has no strong support either way.

 

Boil it all down, the ID crowd wants to believe. That's fine. Its their right, so to speak to believe the way they do just the same as the old creationist position is just as much based upon bottom line faith. Evolutionists do not have all the answers yet. If those answers are out there only time will provide them and further insight on all this. But, at the current time one cannot use laws on chance as a way to rule either side out or for. What one is stuck with, and most of the ID camp and Creationist tend to ignore this is forgetting all the odds, crap and looking at what the storyline in nature here on earth tells us. On that avenue the Evolutionist camp is way ahead of the others and tends as such to be far more scientific than the others.

 

The idea is to teach science when it comes to explaining the origin of this universe and of life. That's the job the educational system has before it. At the current time the other two positions cannot be termed real science. Should the alternatives be looked at? Yes, I'd say they should. Should some group within the ID camp forget for once their own religious beliefs and perhaps try and find some hard evidence using real science? Yes, they should. What I am saying then is simply perhaps ID is a solution to the few problems that do plague evolutionary theory. But I doub't one would find that whoever the Great Designer was that the picture exactly fits the old interpretations out of standard religion also. There is too much we already know as fact that argues for something a lot different if anything is argued for.

 

I'd asked a question a bit back. Is the designer you believe in the Christian God for a reason. Most every presentation I have ever seen on this is blindsided simply because of that belief. Perhaps if you guys started with just an open assumption that perhaps there is evidence out there for a Designer with no admixture of faith to begin with you might get a bit further in you're own presentation and in talking to the rest of the scientific community. It does not work to disguise presenting the Biblical idea of God or any other God under scientific terms and examples to try and win people to you're position. It tends to be the first thing that most of us get turned off on. From then on all you end up with is turned off people listening to partial science mixed in with discussions of chance and the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Again, I am not suggesting that ID should be "believed in". I just think it is worth investigating.,

So how exactly would you go about investigating ID? Testing the evidence? What evidence?

 

It's all speculation. First, understand the scientific theory of evolution, then set up the alternative hypothesis and try to verify it. If that can't be done, then it remains speculation. I am not aware of any legitimate scientist who is looking into ID as a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, the guy himself goes on to show that actually none of this applies to evolution at all for one major reason being the processes that took place in the early period of this universe may have conditions a bit different from those we find ourselves in today.
True, but I still think he seems a little inconsistent. He references Oparin's experiments that were designed expressly to attempt to replicate the early primordial environment. They were certainly crude, but the intent of those experiments was is to build a case the trace elements of "life" could surface randomly from a hypothetical primordial system.

 

Basically, that author that all the ID crowd and others loves to quote said it right. At the present time there is still too little understood on all this to make a determination about odds at all. There is also the mention that none of this about odds is an exact science to begin with and has no strong support either way.
This assessment would put ID on equal footing with a naturalism-oriented interpretation of evolution. Is that what you meant to say?

 

Boil it all down, the ID crowd wants to believe. That's fine. Its their right, so to speak to believe the way they do just the same as the old creationist position is just as much based upon bottom line faith. Evolutionists do not have all the answers yet.

Sure, ID folks believe things. I contend that the Naturalism crowd wants to believe too. Equally hard. I do not think that the source data supporting evolutionary elements (gradualism generally, naturaly selection in particular, paleontology, etc, ) supports Naturalism any more than it supports a Creator. Facts are facts. To demonstrate genetic drift is one thing. To extrapolate that drift to the conclusion that the "first cause" was random is unsupported.

 

That's the job the educational system has before it. At the current time the other two positions cannot be termed real science. Should the alternatives be looked at? Yes, I'd say they should.
I think the issue is NOT evolution vs Creation, or Darwinism vs Intelligent Design. I think the issue is fact vs theory. The Christian folks get their dander up because schools associate evolution with Naturalism, and then teach Naturalism as a "fact". I think that connection is unsupported by facts or by the scientific method.

 

I'd asked a question a bit back. Is the designer you believe in the Christian God for a reason. Most every presentation I have ever seen on this is blindsided simply because of that belief. Perhaps if you guys started with just an open assumption that perhaps there is evidence out there for a Designer with no admixture of faith to begin with you might get a bit further....
Hmmm. The problem I have with this question is that is imparts an uneven view of bias. I think that all truth is God's truth (which I think is quoting Francis Schaeffer) and that God tends to use cause-and-effect to accomplish His ends. That fundamental proposition drove Copernicus, Einstein and Newton. These guys believed that God was rational, and that the details of His creation could be understood becasue He designed it in a rational way. It would be a stretch that suggest that these three gentlemen did not believe in the scientific method.

 

I have no presupposition about whether God uses miraculous techniques or reproducible cause-and-effect. I think that makes me unbiased, not biased. Let's investigate which one occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how exactly would you go about investigating ID? Testing the evidence? What evidence?

 

It's all speculation. First, understand the scientific theory of evolution, then set up the alternative hypothesis and try to verify it. If that can't be done, then it remains speculation. I am not aware of any legitimate scientist who is looking into ID as a possibility.

Hmmm. Good question.

 

Sure it is speculation. I think ALL initiaives that generate well-designed experiments begin with speculation. If you look at Oparin's experiments (from the '50s as I recall) he tried to set up some hypothetical model of the primodial environment, and then challenge that environment with assaults that might have been extant. As I recall, he took ammonia, methane and water and ran electricity through it for awhile to see what showed up. I frankly can't recall which organic compounds surfaced, but something did (somebody help me here. I haven't read about this since 1973 or 4).

 

When I first read about this stuff, I was struck by the open issues and non sequiturs (e.g., the environment was increasing hostile to organization, and certainly not heading toward a sustainable life-like environment). Now, granted, he only ran these experiements for a couple of weeks. As I remember, a couple of weeks is slightly shorter than a billion years. But what always made me chuckle is that most readers took this as evidence that organics products could organize, wherease I took it as the reverse. That is, is was not the FACTS at issue, it was the INTERPRETATION of facts. We could easily envision a contemporary extension to the old Oparin experiments to demonstrate that destructive products outweigh constructive products in any testable environment, and then builkd a probabilistic case on the results. I don't think the conclusions would ever be truly affirmative of ID, but they certainly could circumscribe a hole that is very difficult to close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how exactly would you go about investigating ID? Testing the evidence? What evidence?

 

It's all speculation. First, understand the scientific theory of evolution, then set up the alternative hypothesis and try to verify it. If that can't be done, then it remains speculation. I am not aware of any legitimate scientist who is looking into ID as a possibility.

 

 

I agree, take the starting point that evolution uses and make the assumption that if the ID perspective where correct there ought to be evidence out there on a designer and then follow the evidence out and see if one can or cannot find the evidence. Evolutionists, and I am one of them generally ascert that all the evidence thus far says there is not an intelligent designer behind it. This is the general position most of us tend to hold even inspite of the few who occasion speculate a bit different. If that position is correct then someone who starts with using the same basics should come to the same conclusion.

 

But here is where an admitted problem comes into play that actually answers the issue about side stepping and possible non-variables. We are all talking when it comes to the start of life itself about a period in earth's history when there are few if any real preserved evidences from. There was an article in one of the major publications, forget which right now, that actually mentioned this huge gap when it comes to our knowledge. Guys like Steven Hawking put it right not every condition we find now may have fully been the same then. As such there could be other processes that where involved which lower those so-called porbabilities way down into something more probably. What they where is strickly at this point a matter of conjecture because we were not there and we do not fully know for sure. So yes, this is still a big gap to both parties on this debate.

 

Its also true that if something conspired to allow one of these often considered major events that seem to defy current probability then that in itself makes the rest far more likely to have occured. That's one thing about all this that I notice the ID camp does not bother to realize. When it comes to probability there is such a thing as a snowball effect where once one thing becomes more possible and actually occurs that a lot of other unlikely events tend to take place because of that one event changing the odds. Its almost like a rigged game from that point onward. One even sees this somewhat when it comes to quantum events. One simple altering can bring about a whole series of events. This is often overlooked in all this quoting of odds against something. So actually the real case may not be as weighted against a certain event as people tend on the surface to assume it is.

 

Now, even given all this there is actually nothing that actually says that an Intelligent Designer could not have used natural built in process like we have in evolution to achieve his or her's or itss ends. There is also nothing in the way of a Law that says there has to be an intelligent designer. Basically boil it down some people feel more comfortable with one and some don't. On a personally level I think both avenues can be approached from the perspective that its just part of human nature that some perfer it one way or another. For a Christian that would seem to discount faith. But so what. All camps on this should be after the truth because even with science that is what we are supposed to be after.

 

So let's start with using normal science methods. Forget for the moment the whole odds thing. It really is no more of a real solid answer than any of our best theories on a period in earth's history when there is little hard evidence on. Science is supposed to rely upon observation and experimental evidence. When it comes to the period when life first evolved from something far simplier, say like a soup of amino acids, etc, there is no real evidence around anymore to observe and fully experiment with. Current modeling has also begun to suggest that the ideas of some simple warm sea of sort are off also. So neither camp starts out with any better evidence than the other except we do see evidence left in the earth that suggests things evolved from simple to the more complex. How it actually did so is open to speculation. We all have our own ideas here. So lets start there in this kind of quest.

 

Now someone in the ID camp could ask the question in the recorded record we do have is their evidence of interference or say, prebuilt in patterns that seem to be working towards an end. Someone in the evolution camp could try and determine how its possible this prebuilt in patterning or path could be just of natural causes alone. I might add, if I was a smart supporter of the ID position, just to be sure, I'd be trying to determine the type of designer this being would actually be if the evidence is really there.

 

Think about all this a moment. If evolutionists ever discover there was some basic hidden code in creation that seemed to imply some intelligence behind creation we'd sure be wanting to learn who this designer really was. I've seen few in the ID camp and no one out of the Creationist's camp even willing to entertain or examine that one. I suspect its because deep down they haul their own personal beliefs into the whole research to begin with. In fairness, we scientists tend to assume we are right about the start of life simply because we find everything else after that point works. Two assumptions do tend to make an *** out of you and me is an old saying with a lot of truth in it. The assumption on our part tends to blind us somewhat to possible hidden details that might or might not be there. Assumptions on their part against the real truth no matter what it is might end up being a shock to them also and their world view.

 

So my suggestion is instead of arguing over odds which can be well argued all day either way why not start on some common ground a bit more united and see what is really there.

 

I keep getting asked what type of signature would a creator leave if any? That depends on a lot of things including what this creator really is and what that creator is really like. I'm not actually suggesting there is any real evidence there either. One simple example I can think of is trying a lot better than we have in the past to try and in a lab to duplicate different early conditions and see if we can bring living order out of inanimate materials. Yes, there was those old experiments with lightening going into a chamber with certain chemicals in it and ending up with the building blocks found in everything alive. But chemicals stringing themselves together is still a long way from live replicating life forms, even simple ones. If somehow we discovered in all that that the only way one can get things right is by someone forcing everything to work then that could constitute hard evidence that some designed was involved.

 

I'd also be willing to agree that one had evidence that this designer was personal, was someone or something that desired creating life and someone outside of the known universe at present. He or she or It could be like us and they could be different. Beyond that we'd still have no evidence on anything else except that intelligent designer seems to be the case. I do not know if that example helps any. Its just a suggestion and nothing else. But it would be following scientific methods towards an end to persue something along those lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you're even disagreeing with yourself. YOU are the one that said I was not a Creationist earlier.

 

(1) Where did I say you weren't a Creationist?

 

What I remember is:

 

1) I said that true ID is not the same as Creationism, as the term is generally used.

 

and

 

2) I asked why someone was trying so hard to label you a Creationist.

 

Neither of those, nor the two combined, says that you are not a Creationist.

 

So until you show otherwise, nope, I didn't contradict myself.

 

(2) Where did I say you were a Creationist? You are responding to this statement of mine.

 

TeleMad: Nope. I said more than that. How dishonest of you to selectively leave out material. Just like a Creationist.

 

I don't call you are Creationist in that statement.

 

So until you can show us both where I (1) said you weren't a Creationist and (2) said you were a Creationist, your attempt a showing a self-contradiction in my statements fails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly, you could make an identical argument against naturalism. Specifically, if one were to believe (as some Darwininians do) that we are all the result of random interaction of particles ...

 

Nope, Darwinians don't believe that. Creationists often misrepresent Darwinians on this, just as you have done here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But let's go back to the statements.

 

Biochemist: If you are going to impute that all human behaviors are condoned by God …

 

TeleMad: Nope, not at all what I said or implied. Learn to read...learn to think ... learn to understand.

 

Have you spent the time to see why my reply was appropriate? Does the bolded and italicized word give you a clue?

 

 

 

 

Finally, what’s your hang-up in accepting that God condoned rape? Hell, God condoned multiple murders – giving Satan the thumbs up to kill Job’s servants and Job’s children. God also condoned torture – giving Satan the okay to cover Job from head to toe with painful sores. If I were you, I’d worry more about God’s condoning multiple murders than his condoning two rapes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biochemist: The issue is that the odds are extraordinarily low to produce a MATCH to a functional protein. In an enzyme sequence, we need specific proteins in sequence, not 6 to 10 proteins with random functionality.

 

You keep harping on SPECIFIC this and that, yet you continue to FAIL to present any specific enzymes or any specific metabolic pathways. Why? Are you afraid to commit yourself?

 

Are you still talking about glycolysis, which you haven't mentioned for a week or so? If you want to talk specifics, then give specifics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biochemist: You were corrected earlier on the identical issue by another poster when you suggested that the odds of a specific mix of gasses in the room were 1 in 10^50, and yet the mix is there. But the odds of ANY gas mix existing in the room is 1/1. The odds of MATCHING it again are FAR SMALLER. Did you understand her point?

 

1) The person who responded to me did not correct me. I was correct and she was wrong.

 

2) You are wrong here. The odds of ANY gas mix existing in the room is NOT 1/1. For example, what are the odds that the room she was in had 99% CO2 and 1% helium? Are you saying that it was 1:1???????

 

3) Your emphasized word - MATCHING - was MY original point: the lack of a specification. Events of extremely small probability occur all the time. But add a specification and they don't.

 

Another interesting trickster. Take my own point and try to make it look like it counters me! Some of you people are amazing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The person who responded to me did not correct me. I was correct and she was wrong.
You are amazing. She was absolutely correct. Incontrovertibly. And you were absolutely wrong. Incontrovertibly. This is math, not opinion.

 

I think with a little more lithiium and a little more haloperidol you might be able to negotiate these conversations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...