zaius137 posted the following in
Message 236 on the
How do "novel" features evolve?
quote:
Hi RAZD,
I like your detailed replies and I see a challenge in addressing your thoughtful points. There is a lot to catch up on here and I hope the other participants understand why I cannot get right to the arguments they present although they are just as challenging.
I would like to start with one of the posts you presented and cited namely the 6 points you made.
1. The calculation is a mathematical model of reality and not the reality itself. When a model fails to replicate reality it is not reality that is at fault but the mathematical model. When a hurricane prediction program crashes because it can't model the first hurricane in the South Atlantic on record, the meteorologists don't go out to the hurricane and say "you can't be here, our model does not allow you to be here" ... they fix the model by looking for and taking out the failed assumptions (ie - that all hurricanes are north of the equator). When a model fails to model reality it is a good indication that some aspect of reality has been missed in the model.
The very mathematical models that scientists use to uphold evolution are the very same principles that evolutionists use. If you claim failure in a general sense of mathematical models, you remove the argument from science.
2. The calculation fails to account for the known pre-existing molecules used in the formation of life that are found throughout the universe, and this failure means the calculation with creation-all-at-once including these molecules is unnecessarily extended downward, starting with too much simplicity.
Not all the necessary molecules are present, for instance cytosine is not found in meteorites. The sugar that bonds to the four bases to form the ribonucleotides is very short lived in nature. Many problems exit with the RNA worldview and the SRPs, I hope we can cover them fully. The science has never demonstrated empirically that anything but an all at once approach is possible.
3. The calculation fails to account for the fact that the first life need not be as complicated as a modern cell, that the minimum configuration is much simpler as shown by the LUCA studies. This failure means that the calculation is unnecessarily extended upward, ending with too much complexity.
To date the idea of a LUCA has proven an intractable problem in biology. I have just read a paper of statistical verification of the LUCA by Theobald based on the Markovian substitution model. The claims of Theobald that a LUCA is statistically proven are criticized amongst scientists (not many of which are creationists). I have my own unanswered questions about that paper.
4. The calculation fails to account for combinations of groups of such molecules in smorgasbord fashion instead of in assembly line fashion all at once all from nothing. And further, that all those "failed" experiments are still available to be cut and reassembled into new experiments without having to go through all the preliminaries. It fails to account for actual combination process as used in natural assembly of large organic compounds. Amino acids are assembled into larger molecules like peptides and not from extending amino acids by adding atoms. This failure means that all the ways to reach the final necessary combination are not included and thus it unnecessarily excludes possible combination methods.
Can a failed experiment be available in a new experiment? I think this statement speculates about the stability of the product. I cannot deny if there is intention to preserve some organic molecules from degradation, then yes the experiment can continue. However, natural chemistry has shown no intent to do so. In fact, equilibrium rules the day in natural chemistry. As far as the spontaneous assembly of amino acids are concerned Millers experiments demonstrate a Chirality problem.
5. The probability of winning a lottery by any one ticket is extremely low, but the probability that the lottery will be won is extremely high. How do you reconcile these two very disparate probabilities? By knowing that any one of the millions of tickets is a valid winner if picked..
Well, in low larger ranges of probability I would agree with you, say 1 in 10^6 or 1 in 10^15. However, probabilities in the range of 1 in 10^1000th are not possible given the acceptance that our universe is limited ( I refer to a universal bound of possibilities). Acceptance of limits, say in calculus are necessary in producing an outcome, even in physics (Plank length, Plank time etc.). I suggest that Dembski’s limit would be acceptable in biology.
6. Finally, the improbability of a thing occurring is not proof of impossibility of it occurring.
I can refer you to my objection in point 5 but I think you might benefit by some perspective on the matter. Please comment on my message 228 Please excuse my lack of forum knowledge I am still a Newbe.
The very mathematical models that scientists use to uphold evolution are the very same principles that evolutionists use. If you claim failure in a general sense of mathematical models, you remove the argument from science.
A mathematical model is only as good as the data fed into it and it's ability to make predictions that can be tested by objective empirical evidence. The map is not the mountain. The map can be tested against the mountain and errors and omissions can be found ... in the map (at which point the map needs to be corrected).
Biologists don't use mathematical models to "uphold evolution" but to provide testable predictions. Then they look for errors and omissions, and update the model as necessary, understanding that it is a tentative representation of reality.
Not all the necessary molecules are present, for instance cytosine is not found in meteorites. The sugar that bonds to the four bases to form the ribonucleotides is very short lived in nature. ...
This is making the the tacit (and completely unsupported) assumption that all aspects seen in cells today are necessary to form a first living cell. Properly addressing this question also involves in determining what characteristics are needed to become "life" ... an issue for another thread.
... Many problems exit with the RNA worldview and the SRPs, I hope we can cover them fully. ...
Curiously no one has claimed that the science of abiogenesis has found all the answers, just that they are making progress on finding answers in many places and in many different stages.
... The science has never demonstrated empirically that anything but an all at once approach is possible.
Interestingly there are several scientists that would disagree, imho. As I said in
Message 234 on the
How do "novel" features evolve? thread:
quote:
Premise 3 is debatable, if not just wrong: see Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I) and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) for objective empirical evidence that indicates to me that the probability of life forming is high.
What I see in all the science referenced in those two threads is that people are working on different elements and stages, rather than on the all at once approach.
The place to discuss these issues, however is on the
Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I) and
Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) threads.
To date the idea of a LUCA has proven an intractable problem in biology. I have just read a paper of statistical verification of the LUCA by Theobald based on the Markovian substitution model. The claims of Theobald that a LUCA is statistically proven are criticized amongst scientists (not many of which are creationists). I have my own unanswered questions about that paper.
There is no such thing as "statistically proven anywhere (imho) and certainly not in science. Science does not "prove" a single hypothesis.
And your reply does not address the issue that the first life can be much simpler that life we see today. Let's not go down the rabbit hole of what LUCA is or isn't, but focus on what is necessary for an initial life form. All that is necessary, imho, is for a self-reproducible system that can evolve - where the mechanisms of evolution involving mutation and selection can operate.
Can a failed experiment be available in a new experiment? I think this statement speculates about the stability of the product. I cannot deny if there is intention to preserve some organic molecules from degradation, then yes the experiment can continue. However, natural chemistry has shown no intent to do so. In fact, equilibrium rules the day in natural chemistry. ...
Remember here that the "failed experiments" in this particular discussion are spontaneously formed molecular compounds, and they are only "failed" as self-replicating molecules. These molecules can be short to very long without attaining self-replication, but still be available for further combination with other molecules while remaining in a dynamic chemical equilibrium of on-going reactions.
... As far as the spontaneous assembly of amino acids are concerned Millers experiments demonstrate a Chirality problem.
What problem? (a) the experiments did produce amino acids used in modern life, (b) several other experiments have built on the
Miller Urey Experiment ...
quote:
In recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of the products of "old" areas in "old" genes, defined as those that are found to be common to organisms from several widely separated species, assumed to share only the last universal ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. These studies found that the products of these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller—Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids — only those available in prebiotic nature — than the current one.[25]
... (c) the otherr molecules would be "failed experimant" molecules that are still in the system to be taken apart and reassembled, and finally, (d) this is irrelevant to the question of probability calculations based on a proper modeling of molecular formation, and it would be better discussed on the
Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) thread.
Well, in low larger ranges of probability I would agree with you, say 1 in 10^6 or 1 in 10^15. However, probabilities in the range of 1 in 10^1000th are not possible given the acceptance that our universe is limited ( I refer to a universal bound of possibilities). ...
Curiously, this just shows that calculations of 1 in 10^15 are more likely to be bogus wild-ass guesses than real calculations that model reality.
Of course you could show that I am wrong by presenting the calculations and by showing that all possible avenues for the formation of life are covered, what is necessary for life to begin (and what is "life" in this context, eh?).
I'm betting that you can't show the calculations, but have just copied the number from some bogus creationist site.
... Acceptance of limits, say in calculus are necessary in producing an outcome, even in physics (Plank length, Plank time etc.). I suggest that Dembski’s limit would be acceptable in biology.
Why? Amusingly, I would say that no limit need be considered until one is found, and I believe most scientists would agree.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : replies added.
™ Version 4.2