quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
thanks sugar, but unless i'm mistaken i believe i already included that quote in my original post
Then you are capable much willful ignorance.
quote:
because they *say* it doesn't?
No. That would be argumentum ad forgivenum, and a fallacy. This, in fact, is your approach the the Humphreys et al arguments. "They say so!" This is not the only place I have seen this argument, and that they say so really doesn't figure into it. You miss the very damned simple fact that 'the probability that an enzyme could be produced by shuffling amino acids' depends upon the conditions in which the reactions occur. Is gasoline flammable? hmmm.... only in the presence of oxygen and only in the right mix. Without the information about the oxygen content and the mix you cannot calculate how likely the gasoline is to explode. Why are you having such a hard time with this?
quote:
and why exactly do you place so much faith in someone who admits their argument is "...one that we have not seen mentioned previously.."?...
Why does this matter? What do I care what they have seen mentioned or not? It makes no difference to the truth of the proposition. But a logic whiz like yourself would know that.
quote:
do you trust this authority more than those who do make statistical analysis? why?
What authority are you talking about?
quote:
ok, so you seem to think this heretofore unknown 'refutation' of h&w is the coffin's nail that proves calculations are impossible...
What heretofore unknown refutation? You appear to be very lost again. The point is a simple one. THE VALUES ARE ASSUMED.
quote:
ian musgrave admits it is possible to assign probabilities to the monomers to polymers and the formation of catalytic polymers... he doesn't like to go much further however, going on to say "For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm."
Wow... you are good at citing sources! Care to tell us where the full article is located?
But, what you have quoted appears to me to translate to "we might have a line on this thing but more work needs to be done to test the idea." Fine. The guy's hunch isn't a hard number. Eventually, good data will be found. A lot of people are working on it. But right now, that data does not exist. You want this to mean more than it does, I suspect.
quote:
as you can see, musgrave doesn't deny anything here he simply tells what, in his view, would be needed to confirm another aspect of the calculations
Yeah, he tells us what would be needed to make Humphreys premises-- the numbers-- valid. Can you not see that without VALIDATED FIGURES the argument is ridiculous?
quote:
granted, borel's law doesn't speak specifically to abiogenesis but still, not everyone agrees that computing the odds is impossible...
And Stockwell's discussing Borel's law is evidence for your statement? You are reaching very very far here. Stockwell's discussion of Borel's law is actually contrary to your position. Maybe you didn't notice that. Starting an argument with "if calculation-A is accurate" is not the same as claiming THAT calculation-A is accurate or even possible. Yet, this is your tact. Silly boy.
quote:
oic... the "i know you are but what am i?" peewee herman argument...
I find it very irritating to be criticised for being insulting by someone who is equally insulting.
quote:
i might poke and prod, i might be stubborn, i might repeat a point... but i don't personally attack the person...
You are one blind puppy. Sorry.
quote:
dr. stanley miller (yeah that one) seemed to shoot down a few competing ideas...
Why do you think this is relevant?
quote:
on panspermia: "That's a different controversy..."
ummm...... why do you think this is relevant?
quote:
on submarine vents: "Submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them..."
And again? Do you consider misdirection valid argumentation?
quote:
this is telling, imo: "So there are all sorts of theories and speculations.
No kidding? And no one yet knows which, if any, of them are correct. Kinda like what I have been saying.
Arguements against abiogenesis usually include a calculation which indicates that the statistical probability of ending up with complex molecules like RNA by "chance" (random events) is so small as to be "impossible". ("Like a tornado in a junkyard assembling a Porche")
However, the calculation is based on bad assumptions. (Statistics can be used to "prove" anything, if you manipulate the starting assumptions right!) Abiogenesis is staggeringly improbable IF you work on trying to get a particular modern (~300 amino acid long) protein all in one step, but this is not what is proposed.
In modern abiogenesis theories, the end product (the first "living things") are much, much simpler than modern proteins. They are simple molecules probably no more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more co-operative self replicating systems and then finally into simple organisms. Abiogenesis has a number of small steps rather than one BIG one.
I left that, cause you really need to read it again.
quote:
not one mention of the odds being impossible to calculate
I have not said the odds are impossible to calculate, but that the odds are impossible to calculate GIVEN CURRENT KNOWLEDGE. Humphreys skippes this whole "accurate information" bit. That is the problem.
quote:
merely an admonishment that, since "life" should be defined simpler, it isn't as bad as it appears
Humphreys also makes precisely the same error criticised in this paper. This is an error I haven't mentioned, by the way.
quote:
as you can see (yet again), this one also doesn't argue against calculations, it simply states that creationists attack a complex strawman instead of a simpler cell(man)
Forgiven, this is a different criticism of the calculations, not support of your claims. That this is true or not doesn't effect the fact that you must have good information to make the calculations. This is an ADDITIONAL problem with Humphreys claims, not support for his calculations.
quote:
there *are* countless other examples that either show the calculations
All of these use assumed variables and artificial conditions. These are experiments. These are attempts to determine what works and how and under what conditions. These are attempts to DETERMINE the values that Humphreys merely assumes.
quote:
or at worst don't deny the possibility of such calculations...
If one had the correct information the calculation could be made. Humphreys does not have the correct information. No one yet has the correct information. This is exactly the point. Why are you now arguing that the calculations are possible IN THEORY? Big deal. Humphreys calculations are not IN THEORY, they us values that are MADE UP. Give it a hundred years, maybe the math can be worked out. But not TODAY. This is completely and utterly the point.
quote:
would they be difficult? well of course.. are there things we might not know yet? sure... so what?
So what? So the data is pulled out of thin air? Big deal. LOL.......
quote:
but john would have us believe that people disagreeing with the possibility of computing the odds of abiogenesis occuring is tantamount to such computations being impossible...
Never said it is impossible, but that it is impossible with the information available today. Maybe you should review the thread. I have consistently complained that the data Humphreys needs does not exist. Did I say it will never exist? Nope. Somewhere you made that leap.
quote:
of course they disagreed before checking with john
Are you happy now that you got that shot in?
You still have not explained how Humphreys calculations are valid if the numbers are unknown. Avoiding this?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
Nonetheless, it does not take a deep understanding of statistics to figure out that if you don't have the data on which to apply the statistics, you can't do the math.
™ Version 4.2
