|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Simplest Protein of Life | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Percy,
But if you calculate the odds of having been dealt the specific cards in your hand when what you needed was the odds of having the best hand at the table, then you've just committed the Sharpshooter Fallacy. It means that you calculated the odds of what specifically happened to cause the outcome (winning) instead of calculating the odds of any of the set of things that could have caused the outcome. Percy, I have honestly tried decipher your logic. If I am correct, you are trying to place the cart before the horse. My point is that there must be a desired outcome prior to testing an outcome. Consider the following relation. Singular Probability = Desired outcome/possible outcomes
quote: Plainly, without a desired outcome you violate the basic formulation of a probability. Your desired outcome cannot come after testing the event. As to my comment on simplicity (not Occam’s razor). It is important not to confuse ourselves by obscuration.
So if there are "2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences" then the odds you need to calculate are not for one specific protein sequence (the Sharpshooter Fallacy) but the odds for obtaining any in the set of 2.3 x 1093sequences. I cannot deny the context of the used quotation because I do not have the actual material to form an objection to its use. That doesn’t stop me from having reservations about the enormous number cited for alternate functional cytochrome C. For instance this number is not only higher that the total number of atoms in the universe it also exceeds Borel’s limit (10^50) which basically sets a limit on the total number of chemical reactions that could have taken place since the Big Bang. So I am pointing out that since the possible number of chemical reactions in the universe was exceeded by 45 orders of magnitude there could never be 2.3 x 10^93 configurations. I simply need to read the citation. I am in the same boat as another participant here in that I do not have the book. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Can you explain how this is relevant when the point under discussion is identifying the correct "desired outcome" to use ? (I also note that we have no basis for saying that there was a genuinely "desired outcome" prior to the actual event - of necessity we are identifying the outcomes of interest after the fact).
quote: I don't see any valid reason to have reservations.
quote: Why should this be a problem ? We are talking about the number of possible configurations, not actually realised configurations. A sequence of 1,000 bits has 10^300 possible combinations. Does that pose any difficulty to tossing a coin 1,000 times ?
quote: And how is that relevant ?
quote: Obviously you don't even understand what the figure actually refers to. This objection is sheer nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Life is a system of death-avoiding machines, Percy. Your suggestion that the putative ancient proteins were less of an intricate affair implies that death could be more merciful at any place and time than it is known to be presently. That is, requiring fewer tricks to cheat. Is that possible though? The cat thinks not. Full intelligence is needed to do the job. So life must be smartly organised of necessity. Always. Well done. Defining life by stating it is not it's opposite. Get some extra tuck from matron. A more symple system is harders to break than a complex one. You have things backwards. So life does not need to be smartly organised. Always.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Oh, no. Death is not about being broken. It's about active remembrance of staying whole. That takes being smarter than your reasoning here, Larni. Always.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
It's about active remembrance of staying whole. Can I add this to my sig?The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
NoNukes writes: I think Taq provided the citation. Message 33 belongs to Taq. Zaius137 did referred to the quote in a later message, but not in a way that ought to make him responsible for the initial citation. I think it is legitimate for zaius137 to ask for a source. Whoops, thanks! I evidently accidentally hit "3" instead of "4", Zaius's was the next message 34. I fixed my link to Zaius's message. I know Taq provided the original citation, but when Zaius quoted it he included it, and since I copied Zaius's quote I unwittingly included a bad link, which I just fixed, and here it is again:
Hopefully the correct links will help Zaius explain how his misuse of probability constitutes an example of Occam's razor. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Zaius.
zaius137 writes: For instance this number is not only higher that the total number of atoms in the universe it also exceeds Borel’s limit (10^50) which basically sets a limit on the total number of chemical reactions that could have taken place since the Big Bang. I'd never heard of Borel's limit before, so I Googled it. After reading two or three short articles on it, I am obviously still not a world authority on the topic; I am, however, reasonably certain that you are not using it correctly here. It turns out that there is something that creationists regularly call "Borel's law," and it involves the number 1050, so I assume this is what you were talking about. However, what it states is both very different from what you proposed and very mundane in comparison: basically, Borel's law states that very improbable events simply do not occur. mile Borel proposed that the value 1:1050 marks the probability threshold beyond which events are effectively impossible. Of course, this law only works if the event is due to random chance. Here's an example from the first Google hit (which is an essay by Dr Loren Cobb, a mathematician at the University of Colorado):
quote: Source So, if all that sand drifted randomly into that portion of the San Luis valley, it would have violated "Borel's law." However, if we accept "Borel's law" as accurate, it's still pretty easy to see how that sand could still have gotten there without violating "Borel's law," if non-random processes such as the wind and local topography interacted to influence the behavior of the sand. Does this make sense? Edited by Blue Jay, : two "all"s-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
It means little outside of context. Which is the trouble with the concept of origin of life. For it's not just about inert chemicals self-assembling into living motions, it's about inert atoms creating death out of nothing. The concept is likely to be not even wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
For it's not just about inert chemicals self-assembling into living motions, it's about inert atoms creating death out of nothing. There's nothing different about a calcium atom in one of my bones while I'm alive or after I'm dead. Its just a metal atom either way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
You got exactly what I mean, Vatican. Death is nothing to the atom. Nothing at all to avoid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You got exactly what I mean, Vatican. Death is nothing to the atom. Nothing at all to avoid. Atoms don't evolve. Self-replicating molecules could though. And they could build up enough complexity to be considered alive. The sky's the limit from there.
Vatican Don't be a dick.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
No it's not. It is just about chemicals replicating with error.
The concept is likely to be not even wrong. What? Why don't you stop using needlessly prosaic phrases? People only do that to try to sound clever or because they are hopeless twats. Edited by Larni, : Last sentence.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Alfred.
Alfred Maddenstein writes: Life is a system of death-avoiding machines, Percy. I think you're anthropomorphizing the machine a bit here. I wouldn't characterize life as "death-avoiding," because that also sort of entails anthropomorphizing death. Rather, I would characterize it as "self-sustaining." But, that kind of undermines your argument.
Alfred Maddenstein writes: Your suggestion that the putative ancient proteins were less of an intricate affair implies that death could be more merciful at any place and time than it is known to be presently. Are you arguing that complex proteins are better survivors than simple proteins? If you aren't, then you're probably too far off-topic for me to follow you there.If you are, then you're just wrong. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
That's circular, Larn. Errors imply the correct grammar pre-existing. The only rule in the grammar of life is death avoidance though. Where do you get that from? Death is not an acquired habit, it is inherited. Origin of life therefore is a silly creationist concept. Life is not to be created, it can only continue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The only rule in the grammar of life is death avoidance though. Wrong. Reproducing is important too.
Death is not an acquired habit, it is inherited. That's the stupidest thing I've read in a while. That don't even make no sense!
Life is not to be created, it can only continue. Wrong. That would require life to have existed forever. We know that there are times when life did not exist.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024