Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
4 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would it take?
joz
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 49 (26491)
12-13-2002 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by John
12-12-2002 10:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
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.
And that the dice have already been rolled and at least once a one came up (otherwise you wouldn`t be here to work out the probability of a one coming up).......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John, posted 12-12-2002 10:37 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 49 (27384)
12-19-2002 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by forgiven
12-13-2002 7:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
well if i am missing the point, so are hoyle and wickramasinghe and countless other statiticians, would you agree?
Yes. Both Hoyle and Wickramasinghe base their arguments on assumed values. That 'countless' other statisticians do not accept Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's arguments is evidence that the two did in fact miss the point.
quote:
but my question was, are the posters on this board more qualified than they in this area?
There are a couple of people on this board whom I'd say are at least as qualified as H & W. I do not count myself as one of them. But I am starting classes in January. 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.
oh.... and did you notice that the article you cited is a CRITICISM of the H & W argument and statistical methods?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 12-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by forgiven, posted 12-13-2002 7:08 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by forgiven, posted 12-19-2002 6:52 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 49 (27408)
12-19-2002 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by John
12-19-2002 2:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
There are a couple of people on this board whom I'd say are at least as qualified as H & W. I do not count myself as one of them. But I am starting classes in January. 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.
oh.... and did you notice that the article you cited is a CRITICISM of the H & W argument and statistical methods?
i'm sure there are a few as qualified, there are some smart people posting here... and yes, i even gave an example of one of the criticisms

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John, posted 12-19-2002 2:09 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by John, posted 12-30-2002 3:56 PM forgiven has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5148 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 34 of 49 (27626)
12-22-2002 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
11-30-2002 1:52 PM


thinking HIS thoughts After Him (e.g. after the kinds; before speciation. since deception) for example from biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 11-30-2002 1:52 PM Brian has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 49 (28129)
12-30-2002 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by forgiven
12-19-2002 6:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i'm sure there are a few as qualified, there are some smart people posting here... and yes, i even gave an example of one of the criticisms
I can't tell. Does this mean that you understand why these calculations are flawed?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by forgiven, posted 12-19-2002 6:52 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by forgiven, posted 12-30-2002 6:47 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 49 (28145)
12-30-2002 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by John
12-30-2002 3:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i'm sure there are a few as qualified, there are some smart people posting here... and yes, i even gave an example of one of the criticisms
I can't tell. Does this mean that you understand why these calculations are flawed?

i don't know that they *are* flawed, no more than i [b][i]know[/b][/i] that the math of humphreys is in error and that of his detractors sound... they say their calculations aren't flawed, you say they are... so far it's a "he says they say" thing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by John, posted 12-30-2002 3:56 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by John, posted 12-30-2002 10:40 PM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 49 (28157)
12-30-2002 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by forgiven
12-30-2002 6:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i don't know that they *are* flawed, no more than i [b][i]know[/b][/i] that the math of humphreys is in error and that of his detractors sound...
It has nothing to do with the math. You don't need to know the math. No one-- creationist or evolutionist-- will claim to know precisely what the conditions for abiogenisis are or must be. This is PRECISELY the information needed to work out the figures Humphreys et al propose. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DATA. Humphreys et al apply math to FIGURES THEY HAVE MADE UP. This is flawed, even if the math is impeccable. Why can you not understand this?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by forgiven, posted 12-30-2002 6:47 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by forgiven, posted 12-31-2002 6:20 AM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 49 (28176)
12-31-2002 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by John
12-30-2002 10:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i don't know that they *are* flawed, no more than i [b][i]know[/b][/i] that the math of humphreys is in error and that of his detractors sound...
It has nothing to do with the math. You don't need to know the math. No one-- creationist or evolutionist-- will claim to know precisely what the conditions for abiogenisis are or must be. This is PRECISELY the information needed to work out the figures Humphreys et al propose. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DATA. Humphreys et al apply math to FIGURES THEY HAVE MADE UP. This is flawed, even if the math is impeccable. Why can you not understand this?

john, why do humphrey's critics pretend that they are refuting him? don't they know there isn't enough data? is it possible they don't share your views? maybe they should spend less time in their flawed pursuits and more reading this board, so they won't waste so much time in flawed endeavors

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John, posted 12-30-2002 10:40 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by John, posted 12-31-2002 9:46 AM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 49 (28188)
12-31-2002 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by forgiven
12-31-2002 6:20 AM


My but you are hanging onto this one like a rabid pit-bull. Why? Surely you are smart enough to realize that lack of data makes using that data impossible?
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
john, why do humphrey's critics pretend that they are refuting him?
Pretend? Pointing out that the method is flawed IS a refutation.
quote:
don't they know there isn't enough data?
ummm..... pointing out that the method is flawed IS a refutation. Are you suggesting that Humphrys cannot be criticised BECAUSE there is a lack of information? That is, Humphrys invented data cannot be challenged because the relevant information doesn't exist? It sure seems like the line you are towing.
quote:
is it possible they don't share your views?
The criticism of Humphrys is proof that the relevant information exists? Very twisted, forgiven.
Why don't you check it out? There are thousands of variables involved and most of them are NOT KNOWN.
quote:
maybe they should spend less time in their flawed pursuits and more reading this board, so they won't waste so much time in flawed endeavors
Aren't you 50-something? This is the type of argument I'd expect from of twelve year old. Of course, that is still above the level of understanding you are displaying here.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by forgiven, posted 12-31-2002 6:20 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by forgiven, posted 12-31-2002 5:01 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 49 (28220)
12-31-2002 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by John
12-31-2002 9:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
john, why do humphrey's critics pretend that they are refuting him?
Pretend? Pointing out that the method is flawed IS a refutation.
no john they put their own mathmatics forward in an attempt to refute his... not to show that the computations can't be done, but to show that humphrey's are in error... in spite of your use of "flawed," others (some of whom may actually understand the math involved) disagree
quote:
maybe they should spend less time in their flawed pursuits and more reading this board, so they won't waste so much time in flawed endeavors
quote:
Aren't you 50-something? This is the type of argument I'd expect from of twelve year old. Of course, that is still above the level of understanding you are displaying here.
you seem intent on moving back to your brand of argument, that of attacking a person instead of providing sound arguments... you sound almost petulant

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by John, posted 12-31-2002 9:46 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by John, posted 12-31-2002 9:28 PM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 49 (28227)
12-31-2002 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by forgiven
12-31-2002 5:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
no john they put their own mathmatics forward in an attempt to refute his...
Yes, darling, like this little gem:
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.
Notice the red? This is an example of exactly what I have been saying. The data doesn't exist.
quote:
not to show that the computations can't be done, but to show that humphrey's are in error...
Yes, indeed, like here...
Let us now ignore the experimental evidence and accept that 1 in 106900 is a reasonable estimate of the chance of assembling a catalyst by tinkering with amino acid sequences.
... were we see the authors ASSUME some figures for the sake of argument. And go on to show that the arguments used are silly anyway, but for different reasons.
quote:
in spite of your use of "flawed," others (some of whom may actually understand the math involved) disagree
Nowhere has anything I have said been even remotely challenged. Maybe you should read the article you cited.
quote:
you seem intent on moving back to your brand of argument, that of attacking a person instead of providing sound arguments...
And you are back to your favorite tactic-- no, actually, you have never abandonned it but quite consistently poke and prod and stubbornly repeat yourself until someone pokes back. Then you start pitching stones and crying foul.
As for the quality of my replies, why don't you compare your posts to mine. I have gone to great lengths to explain WHAT is wrong with Humphreys methods. You have repeated "well, other people accept Humphreys .... nah nah nah...." How sound is that argument, darling? Why don't you respond to the details of what I said? Why is it ok to use made up data? Where is the data if it is not made up? Where are the 'countless' statisticians who fall into line with Humphreys? hmmm...? Got answers? I don't think so, because this isn't about the argument. Someone interested in sound argument would address these points and would have done so long ago. It is, I'd wager, about hanging onto something that you need to bolster your faith.
quote:
you sound almost petulant
LOL.........
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 12-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by forgiven, posted 12-31-2002 5:01 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by forgiven, posted 01-01-2003 2:31 AM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 49 (28234)
01-01-2003 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by John
12-31-2002 9:28 PM


i'll try to provide you with more material below, since
quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
no john they put their own mathmatics forward in an attempt to refute his...
Yes, darling, like this little gem:
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.

thanks sugar, but unless i'm mistaken i believe i already included that quote in my original post
quote:
Notice the red? This is an example of exactly what I have been saying. The data doesn't exist.
oic... why? because they *say* it doesn't? and why exactly do you place so much faith in someone who admits their argument is "...one that we have not seen mentioned previously.."?... do you trust this authority more than those who do make statistical analysis? why?
quote:
not to show that the computations can't be done, but to show that humphrey's are in error...
quote:
Yes, indeed, like here...
Let us now ignore the experimental evidence and accept that 1 in 106900 is a reasonable estimate of the chance of assembling a catalyst by tinkering with amino acid sequences.
... were we see the authors ASSUME some figures for the sake of argument. And go on to show that the arguments used are silly anyway, but for different reasons.
ok, so you seem to think this heretofore unknown 'refutation' of h&w is the coffin's nail that proves calculations are impossible... 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."
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
john stockwell argues against borel's law (which, if true, would serve to show the "impossibility" of abiogenesis) by saying, "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."
granted, borel's law doesn't speak specifically to abiogenesis but still, not everyone agrees that computing the odds is impossible...
quote:
quote:
you seem intent on moving back to your brand of argument, that of attacking a person instead of providing sound arguments...
And you are back to your favorite tactic-- no, actually, you have never abandonned it but quite consistently poke and prod and stubbornly repeat yourself until someone pokes back. Then you start pitching stones and crying foul.
oic... the "i know you are but what am i?" peewee herman argument... i might poke and prod, i might be stubborn, i might repeat a point... but i don't personally attack the person... you try to bully people and you resort to personal attacks that are childish and immature...
quote:
As for the quality of my replies, why don't you compare your posts to mine. I have gone to great lengths to explain WHAT is wrong with Humphreys methods. You have repeated "well, other people accept Humphreys .... nah nah nah...." How sound is that argument, darling?
as sound as saying "some don't accept h&w" i guess, sweetie?... ok then, here're some more:
dr. stanley miller (yeah that one) seemed to shoot down a few competing ideas... on meteorites etc, "Certainly some material did come from these sources. In my opinion the amount from these sources would have been too small to effectively contribute to the origin of life."
on panspermia: "That's a different controversy. There are different versions of the theory. One idea is that there was no origin of life, that life, like the universe, has always existed and got to the Earth through space. That idea doesn't seem very reasonable since we know that the universe has not always existed, so life has to happen some time after the big bang 10 or 20 billion years ago."
on submarine vents: "Submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them. Indeed, these vents are one of the limiting factors on what organic compounds you are going to have in the primitive oceans. At the present time, the entire ocean goes through those vents in 10 million years. So all of the organic compounds get zapped every ten million years. That places a constraint on how much organic material you can get. Furthermore, it gives you a time scale for the origin of life. If all the polymers and other goodies that you make get destroyed, it means life has to start early and rapidly. If you look at the process in detail, it seems that long periods of time are detrimental, rather than helpful."
this is telling, imo: "So there are all sorts of theories and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was like. This is major area of dispute. In early 1950's, Harold Urey suggested that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere (f: unlike now) .... Although there is a dispute over the composition of the primitive atmosphere, we've shown that either you have a reducing atmosphere or you are not going to have the organic compounds required for life."
so among the "all sorts" of theories and (yes even) speculations, we have the grandaddy of exobiologists saying that if one of these speculations isn't true "..you are not going to have the organic compounds required for life."
from the university of pittsburg's pro-abiogenesis site:
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.
not one mention of the odds being impossible to calculate, merely an admonishment that, since "life" should be defined simpler, it isn't as bad as it appears
while this one doesn't speak to calculations per se, it is interesting:
"No living cells are present, but entire bacterial genomes are available, together with ribosomes, membranous vesicles, ATP and other energy containing substrates, and thousands of functional enzymes. Once again, would a simple living system arise under these conditions? ...most experimentalists would guess that little would happen other than slow, degradative reactions of hydrolysis, even though virtually the entire complement of molecules associated with the living state is present. The dispersion has lost the extreme level of order characteristic of cytoplasm in contemporary living cells. Equally important is that the ATP would be hydrolyzed in seconds, so that the system still lacks a continuous source of free energy to drive the metabolism and polymerization reactions associated with life." [Micro. Mol. Biol. Rev. Vol.61, No.2 - June 1997]
yet another pro-abio site:
So what are the exact Creationist arguments against the probability of abiogenesis (which they invariably misrepresent as being the same as the theory of evolution)? Well, just remember that 90% of them are based on the strawman assumption that the very first living thing on this planet was a full-blown cell, similar to a modern organism, instead of the simple self-replicating molecule theorized by those who actually perform legitimate research in the field.
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)
alexander mebane wrote:
Robert Shapiro is a chemist who actively participated in the post-1952 experimental investigations of "origin of life by natural chemical evolution", and in 1986 published a very significant book (Origins) summarizing that work and the conclusions to be drawn from it. Dismissing as unrealistic the idea that either DNA or RNA could ever have spontaneously "evolved", because of the complexity of those purine base + sugar + phosphoric acid structures. He asks what could have been the simplest possible "pre-living" chemical assemblage that might have been able to generate the essential quality of life, self-replication. Generously oversimplifying to the maximum degree credible (or beyond), he proposes (p. 296) that the first "proto-life" might conceivably have emerged from a set of as few as ten very small "primitive enzymes", each one a mini-protein of only 25 links, and all constructed from a set of only four amino acids, rather than the twenty that Nature now employs. Assuming for the purpose the real natural occurrence of a "primordial soup" that consisted exclusively of those four amino acids (which is of course, a simply ridiculous postulate), he proceeds to show that, under these absurdly favorable conditions, the probability of "spontaneously", or accidentally, forming the requisite set of molecules would be about 1 in 10^150. So, if something like 10^150 random trials were available, the thing might really have happened. But he had previously calculated (p. 126) that, if one assumes that the Earth was covered by a 10-km-deep layer of "soup", and that random trials went on at the rate of one billion per second in every cubic micrometer (billionth of a cubic millimeter) of that ocean for one billion years (the maximum time that really elapsed before life appeared), only 1.5 x 10^62 separate tries could be made. This number is so invisibly tiny compared to 10^150 (far tinier than a bacterium compared to the whole Solar System!) that the spontaneous natural formation of the ten mini-enzymes is thus demonstrated to be strictly impossible.
there *are* countless other examples that either show the calculations or at worst don't deny the possibility of such calculations... would they be difficult? well of course.. are there things we might not know yet? sure... so what?
yeah it's true, i quote others (as john did)... and it's true that there's no way i can do any of the math... 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... there are a lot of very bright people out there who disagree... of course they disagreed before checking with john, but someone will probably point out their error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by John, posted 12-31-2002 9:28 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by John, posted 01-01-2003 10:59 AM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 49 (28244)
01-01-2003 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by forgiven
01-01-2003 2:31 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by forgiven, posted 01-01-2003 2:31 AM forgiven has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18456
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 44 of 49 (675159)
10-07-2012 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
11-30-2002 1:52 PM


Brian(R.I.P. writes:
What would it take to convince you that God does not exist?
To die and find nothing. (of course, how would I know?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 11-30-2002 1:52 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 10-09-2012 2:27 PM Phat has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 45 of 49 (675270)
10-09-2012 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Phat
10-07-2012 6:29 AM


This suggests that you are beyond all reasoned argument and all evidence no matter what that may conceivably be as long as you are alive.
Is this the case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 10-07-2012 6:29 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 10-09-2012 11:47 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024