Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,243 Year: 5,500/9,624 Month: 525/323 Week: 22/143 Day: 12/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would it take?
Brian
Member (Idle past 5075 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 16 of 49 (26196)
12-10-2002 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by forgiven
12-10-2002 7:23 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i'm not sure if you misunderstood my post or not.. i did ask whether or not you had an opinion as to the odds of a car being left, as described, if a tornado blew through a junk yard and how those odds would stack up against the odds of humans existing on earth... iow, which is more likely to occur?
There are so many factors that need to be considered here that havent been addressed, for example, you need to have the correct materials available in the junkyard to have ANY chance of your car being left in the tornado's wake. For the sake of argument we will assume that all components for your car are there. Both scenarios are likely to be in the billions to one category, there is a chance that both COULD happen, even if it is one chance in a billion billion, there is still that chance.
But regarding life on earth, the odds get reduced after each stage of evolution. So, as we know life has evolved, there is no doubt about this, and, as far as I know, no one has seen your car appear after the tornado, or the jumbo jet in the original argument, then life on earth would have the most chance of happening.
As to the question about design and disabled babies, God is meant to be perfect and his designs should also be perfect. If God creates something that has a faulty component then that negates God's omniscience.
Brian.
brian, the odds of life appearing on earth has been calculated (sorry, i don't have the sources) to be greater than the combined total of all electrons in the universe to 1... imagine what had to occur for life to first appear here... those gas clouds had to cool to just the right temperature, gravity had to be just right, energy sources, all the crashing and spinning had to be perfect, not only in this tiny solar system but in each... and this had to occur for 15 billion years (give or take).. if you feel comfortable subtracting 3 or 4 billion so evolution can account for life after the first life, go ahead... the point stands
do you think the tornado is as unlikely to produce that car as bb is to lead to life here? for the odds to hold, there would have to be cars and jumbo jets all over the place
*brian, the odds of life appearing on earth has been calculated (sorry, i don't have the sources) to be greater than the combined total of all electrons in the universe to 1... imagine what had to occur for life to first appear here... those gas clouds had to cool to just the right temperature, gravity had to be just right, energy sources, all the crashing and spinning had to be perfect, not only in this tiny solar system but in each... and this had to occur for 15 billion years (give or take).. if you feel comfortable subtracting 3 or 4 billion so evolution can account for life after the first life, go ahead... the point stands*
Sorry, but I don’t think your point stands at all. Without sources how can you expect me to take this seriously, what factors were considered in the calculation, do we have knowledge of ALL the factors anyway?
*do you think the tornado is as unlikely to produce that car as bb is to lead to life here? for the odds to hold, there would have to be cars and jumbo jets all over the place*
Sorry, but this is a very poor analogy, one that you haven’t thought through.
The big problem with your analogy is that the components used by the tornado to make the car/jumbo jet have been made by the entities formed by the BB and evolution. Unless, of course, your tornado built mines for iron ore and coal, then built moulding shops, then picked cotton, spun the cotton for the seat fabric, shaped this to fit the seatsetc. it is really not a good analogy at all
So the odds for life on earth are far lower than that of the tornado/car/jumbo jet as, you have the odds of life appearing THEN you add to that the odds of the tornado doing it’s stuff!
Do you still believe in God?
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!
[This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 12-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by forgiven, posted 12-10-2002 7:23 AM forgiven has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 49 (26201)
12-10-2002 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by forgiven
12-10-2002 7:23 AM


Hi forgiven
quote:
brian, the odds of life appearing on earth has been calculated (sorry, i don't have the sources) to be greater than the combined total of all electrons in the universe to 1...
Lets think about the chances of you existing....
For this to happen, one of 100 million, say of your father's sperm fertilised your mother's egg. So thats already a 1 in 10^8 probability.
But thats not the whole story - your parents had to be born first to produce you, each with a probability (as above) of 1 in 10^8.
So total is now 1 in 10^24. Except your grandparents now add 10^32. And your great-grandparents add 10^64. Lets also for good measure take your great great grandparents (10^128).
So in five generations, the chances that your great great great grandparents produced you is: 1 in 10^(8+16+32+64+128) = 1 in 10^248. Obviously, the real probability is much less than this - I've only considered five generations. (If we assume a 6000 year earth, we'd have to consider at least 200! )
Now there's about 10^80 atoms in the universe, so therefore you don't exist.
Can you see what's wrong with this analysis?
PE
------------------
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by forgiven, posted 12-10-2002 7:23 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by forgiven, posted 12-11-2002 7:58 PM Primordial Egg has replied

  
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 49 (26209)
12-10-2002 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ten-sai
12-10-2002 7:41 AM


Hello Ten-Sai,
You said:
Your tornado and junkyard have absolutely no parallel with life and the universe.
I say:
Wrong! The parallel was one of probabilities, which is obviously not your field.
You're correct, I'm no probabilitist and no scientist. Forgive me.
For anyone to claim they know the true probability of abiogenesis is talking nonsense. These figure can only be acurately determined if we have knowledge of all contributing factors. If that were the case, the scientific community would hang up their brains tomorrow - we would be all-knowing.
You say:
It's a pointless and irrelevant analogy.
I say:
Again, it wasn't pointless NOR irrelevant; it was an analogy which begs you to delve into the finer points of statistical analysis, information theory, probabilities, et al. The only thing pointless and irrelevant was your bunk knee jerk reaction to the obvious. That is, unless you had some other definition of "pointless" AND "irrelevant" in mind? Love to hear your subjective definitions of the aforementioned words...
An analogy by definition is a comparison based on similarity. I see no similarity, therefore I see it as irrelevant. Though I do now feel I was wrong to use the word pointless - most analogies are merely used to generalise and simplify in such a way that they only serve the users own belief. That is the point I missed.
You say:
As for the deformed babies thing, you seem to be suggesting that deformed babies are designed by God on purpose, or badly designed at least.
I say:
Deformed babies are clear facts AGAINST evolution in yet another example that mutations are bad, bad, bad... as in, opposite of evolution?
It all depends on the mutation. A baby missing a limb has no advantage within it's environment. This also shows imperfection in biological design - God is allegedly perfection, so that doesn't figure.
Kinda like the Fruit Fly experiment...Talk about arguments from utter ignorance;
I don't claim to know enough about the Fruit Fly experiment, which is why I haven't spoken of the subject. Enlighten me as to how it counters claims of imperfection in biology. I really would love to know how this shows me as utterly ignorant.
would you be one of those evos who "believe" in vestiges? Which vestigal organs do you "believe" you are in possession of? Inquiring minds want to know.
Ever had your wisdom teeth pulled out? I have, as they were impacted and extremely painful. I asked the dentist what wisdom teeth were for, he replied, "To keep me in business!"
I later learnt that over 90% of humans grow wisdom teeth, but only a third break through the gumline. These third molars would have been used by herbivore ancestors, but are utterly useless to you and I (unless, of course, you are a dentist.)
These damn teeth are like the pelvic bone of the whale, or the eyes of the blind salamander, or caruncle of some newborn marsupials. Useless.
It's not a case of 'believing' them. They are there for all to see (unless you happen to be a Mexican Tetra.)
In closing, it is one thing to respect another man's faith, but quite another to respect his lack of faith.
So you feel it correct not to give atheists any form of respect? And you proceed to call me a bigot?
Therefore, if you wish to believe in abiogenesis, panspermia, or whatever's the clever "scientific" belief of the day, fine
I'm unsure about panspermia, but it is another possiblity for life on earth that requires continued research, as in all areas of science.
As for "belief of the day", I find it ironic hearing that from a creationist. How many goal posts have you moved in your lifetime?
just don't go tossing around YOUR belief as the end of God. It is quite bigoted.
I never claimed such a thing. I was objecting to the analogy, and nothing more. You've clearly flown off the handle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ten-sai, posted 12-10-2002 7:41 AM Ten-sai has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13085
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 19 of 49 (26226)
12-10-2002 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ten-sai
12-10-2002 7:41 AM


I see no indication that you're following the forum guidelines any more closely than before. Please discontinue personalizing the debate by keeping your focus on the issues rather than on what you feel are deficiencies in your fellow members. The next post violating the guidelines will result in another 24-hour suspension of posting privileges.
If you feel you are being treated unfairly I suggest you appeal via either message or email to Adminaquility, currently the lone ranger of moderators on the Creationist side.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ten-sai, posted 12-10-2002 7:41 AM Ten-sai has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 20 of 49 (26230)
12-10-2002 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ten-sai
12-10-2002 7:41 AM


Ten-sai,
quote:
Talk about arguments from utter ignorance; would you be one of those evos who "believe" in vestiges? Which vestigal organs do you "believe" you are in possession of? Inquiring minds want to know.
(http://EvC Forum: Vestiges -->EvC Forum: Vestiges)
quote:
SLPx:
Gray's Anatomy, 15th Edition. (Chancellor Press, 1985)
"Extensor Coccygis is a slender muscular fasciculus, occasionally present, which extends over the lower part of the posterior surface of the sacrum and coccyx. It arises by tendinous fibres from the last bone of the sacrum, or first piece of the coccyx, and passes downwards to be inserted into the lower part of the coccyx. It is a rudiment of the Extensor muscle of the caudal vertebrae in the lower animals."
A muscle that attaches to the caudal sacrum and the coccyx can have only one function - to extend the coccyx. Can you extend your coccyx? No? maybe you do not have an EC. Or maybe the EC you do have does not function. Take your pick..."
Or perhaps an utterly functionless muscle was designed to be present in some people, but not others, that in mammals with tails, extends the tail?
What function do goosebumps have in humans? In mammals they raise the hairs to trap air & act as an insulator.
Also,
http://EvC Forum: Ten-sai, Evidence, Law, & Science. -->EvC Forum: Ten-sai, Evidence, Law, & Science.
Please.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ten-sai, posted 12-10-2002 7:41 AM Ten-sai has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by blitz77, posted 12-11-2002 4:49 AM mark24 has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 49 (26270)
12-11-2002 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by mark24
12-10-2002 4:07 PM


quote:
What function do goosebumps have in humans? In mammals they raise the hairs to trap air & act as an insulator.
I thought goosebumps force oil into follicles and onto skin, trapping air around the surface of the skin and thus the air provides additional insulation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by mark24, posted 12-10-2002 4:07 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by David unfamous, posted 12-11-2002 7:04 AM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 12-11-2002 8:10 PM blitz77 has not replied

  
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 49 (26275)
12-11-2002 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by blitz77
12-11-2002 4:49 AM


Goosebumps are caused by the contraction of tiny muscles, called arrector pili, attached to the base each hair follicle that causes hair to stand on end. Considering the lack of hair over most of our bodies, this function is useless in humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by blitz77, posted 12-11-2002 4:49 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 49 (26357)
12-11-2002 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Primordial Egg
12-10-2002 11:12 AM


hi p.e.
quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
Can you see what's wrong with this analysis?
PE
i guess i wasn't as clear as i thought i was being... abiogenesis is possibly the leading theory of life on earth amongst the no-Creator branch... this is what i was speaking of, the odds of life *at all* being here... take into account not only the accidental nature of this solar system, but of this planet... then the perfect distances from the sun and moon... tilt of the axis, etc etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-10-2002 11:12 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-12-2002 5:14 AM forgiven has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 24 of 49 (26360)
12-11-2002 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by blitz77
12-11-2002 4:49 AM


quote:
I thought goosebumps force oil into follicles and onto skin, trapping air around the surface of the skin and thus the air provides additional insulation.
Sebacious glands & not goosebumps, cause this. I produce more oil when I'm hot, not cold.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by blitz77, posted 12-11-2002 4:49 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 49 (26386)
12-12-2002 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by forgiven
12-11-2002 7:58 PM


quote:
i guess i wasn't as clear as i thought i was being... abiogenesis is possibly the leading theory of life on earth amongst the no-Creator branch... this is what i was speaking of, the odds of life *at all* being here... take into account not only the accidental nature of this solar system, but of this planet... then the perfect distances from the sun and moon... tilt of the axis, etc etc...
Thats exactly what I thought you were saying, and I've applied the same logic to the chances of you being here and come up with effectively zero. If you can see whats wrong with my analysis then that should make you go back and requestion the odds of abiogenesis you've alluded to above (which are normally far greater than the chances of you existing as calculated in my prev post).
PE
------------------
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by forgiven, posted 12-11-2002 7:58 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by forgiven, posted 12-12-2002 7:40 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 49 (26395)
12-12-2002 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Primordial Egg
12-12-2002 5:14 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
Thats exactly what I thought you were saying, and I've applied the same logic to the chances of you being here and come up with effectively zero. If you can see whats wrong with my analysis then that should make you go back and requestion the odds of abiogenesis you've alluded to above (which are normally far greater than the chances of you existing as calculated in my prev post).
PE
i can't quite wrap my mind around your example, p.e. ... there are too many invariables for a specific human example, such as number of times fertilization was attempted, health of sperm/egg, etc... and i don't know enough about genetics to know whether or not only one spermatozoa of a zillion can result in pregnancy... however, i do find your last sentence interesting... do you mean by it that the odds of all things being perfect for original life (chemically and also the physical sciences aspect) are lower than for one human?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-12-2002 5:14 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-12-2002 9:30 AM forgiven has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 49 (26407)
12-12-2002 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by forgiven
12-12-2002 7:40 AM


quote:
i can't quite wrap my mind around your example, p.e. ... there are too many invariables for a specific human example, such as number of times fertilization was attempted, health of sperm/egg, etc... and i don't know enough about genetics to know whether or not only one spermatozoa of a zillion can result in pregnancy... however, i do find your last sentence interesting... do you mean by it that the odds of all things being perfect for original life (chemically and also the physical sciences aspect) are lower than for one human?
The example I gave was deliberately highly simplified - if you add in more variables then you make the probabilities less, not more.
It serves as an example of how probabilities can be misused, much like they are for any probability of abiogenesis calculations you might have seen. And my misuse of probability is exactly the same as the one you've seen touted as the probability for abiogenesis.
The truth is that nobody can produce a probability, or even estimate one for abiogenesis, and anyone who claims to is probably using probability calculations no different from my example above. To which you have to apply the same standard of credibility to their' conclusions as you would to mine.
PE
------------------
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by forgiven, posted 12-12-2002 7:40 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by forgiven, posted 12-12-2002 9:31 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 49 (26458)
12-12-2002 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Primordial Egg
12-12-2002 9:30 AM


hi p.e.
quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
The truth is that nobody can produce a probability, or even estimate one for abiogenesis, and anyone who claims to is probably using probability calculations no different from my example above. To which you have to apply the same standard of credibility to their' conclusions as you would to mine.
PE
maybe you're right, i certainly don't have the math needed to even attempt such an undertaking... but maybe you're as, if not more, qualified for the endeavor as fred hoyle and chandra wickramasinghe... then again, maybe their work in this area has been superceded by that of other, more qualified, scientists... but here for your amusement are some of the things they have to say (their point is that life could not have originated on earth, full article found here)
They point out that the earth only became inhabitable about 3.8 billion years ago, and they argue that the time available before the appearance of the oldest stromatolites about 3.6 billion years ago leaves too narrow a window for life to have originated on earth.
They then examine the probability that an enzyme consisting of 300 residues could be formed by random shuffling of residues, and calculate a value of 10—250, which becomes 10—500000 if one takes account of the need for 2000 different enzymes in a bacterial cell. Comparing this calculation with the total of 1079 atoms in the observable universe, they conclude that life must be a cosmological phenomenon. They argue that once an unlikely event has produced a viable cell somewhere in the universe the enormous multiplicative power of replication will produce enormous quantities of living material very fast (e.g. a doubling time of 2—3 h implies that one cell can generate the mass of a cluster of galaxies in 20 days).
from the same site is the following new (so the author says) objection to their theory:
The theory of the origin of life favoured by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe depends heavily on their calculation of the probability that an enzyme could be produced by shuffling amino acids is no better than one in 106900. There are many objections to this sort of calculation, but one that we have not seen mentioned previously is that it takes no account of actual observations of the catalytic properties of random co-polymers of amino acids. For example, random co-polymers of glutamate and phenylalanine imitate the bacteriolytic activity of lysozyme quite well, with about 3% of the activity of the enzyme from hen egg white on a weight for weight basis [5], and there are similar observations on other systems from other groups [6].
i left the footnote numbers in because i was too lazy to take them out ... as i said, i don't have *nearly* enough math to either confirm or refute anything either they or their detractors said... but p.e., if you don't either then it might not be wise to say, as you did above, "The truth is that nobody can produce a probability, or even estimate one for abiogenesis...."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-12-2002 9:30 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by John, posted 12-12-2002 10:37 PM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 49 (26461)
12-12-2002 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by forgiven
12-12-2002 9:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
maybe you're right, i certainly don't have the math needed to even attempt such an undertaking... but maybe you're as, if not more, qualified for the endeavor as fred hoyle and chandra wickramasinghe... then again, maybe their work in this area has been superceded by that of other, more qualified, scientists...
You are missing the point that it is impossible to calculate probabilities without the relevant information, and the relevant information does not exist.
Think of trying to calculate the probabilities for getting a 1 when you roll dice. The catch is that you don't know how many dice there are, how many sides are on the dice, what numbers are on the sides, what surface you are going to roll the dice on.... Get it? Yet this is what the "chances for abiogenesis" calculations are like.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by forgiven, posted 12-12-2002 9:31 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by forgiven, posted 12-13-2002 7:08 AM John has replied
 Message 31 by joz, posted 12-13-2002 9:57 AM John has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 49 (26485)
12-13-2002 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by John
12-12-2002 10:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
You are missing the point that it is impossible to calculate probabilities without the relevant information, and the relevant information does not exist.
Think of trying to calculate the probabilities for getting a 1 when you roll dice. The catch is that you don't know how many dice there are, how many sides are on the dice, what numbers are on the sides, what surface you are going to roll the dice on.... Get it? Yet this is what the "chances for abiogenesis" calculations are like.
well if i am missing the point, so are hoyle and wickramasinghe and countless other statiticians, would you agree? but my question was, are the posters on this board more qualified than they in this area?
edited to fix quotes
[This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John, posted 12-12-2002 10:37 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by John, posted 12-19-2002 2:09 PM forgiven has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024