Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,175 Year: 5,432/9,624 Month: 457/323 Week: 97/204 Day: 13/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would it take?
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 then again, maybe their work in this area has been superceded by that of other, more qualified, scientists...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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024