Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   mihkel4397: Fred Hoyle's calculation of probability of abiogenesis
Sumer
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 50 (344749)
08-29-2006 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by fallacycop
08-29-2006 6:47 AM


Edited by Sumer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by fallacycop, posted 08-29-2006 6:47 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by kuresu, posted 08-29-2006 3:15 PM Sumer has replied
 Message 35 by fallacycop, posted 08-29-2006 7:27 PM Sumer has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2514 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 32 of 50 (344764)
08-29-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Sumer
08-29-2006 2:12 PM


If there is no proven synthesis beyond Lithium by the laws of nature
I take it you've never opened a chemistry book, let alone looked at the table of elements?
One of the heaviest, naturally occuring, elements is Uranium-238. The radioactive isotope responsible for destroying either Nagasaki or Hiroshima (the other bomb had plutonium in it, as I recall)
When it decays, one of the potential decay paths leads to lead. Which is a lot heavier than lithium. Li (lithium) has a weight of 5. something. It's got three protons. Lead (Pb) is easily in the fifties, and uranium (U) is in the nineties, proton number wise.
Carbon's easy to make. When our sun dies--the core will have a lot of iron. again, Fe (iron) is heavier than lithium, and heavier than carbon.
In other words, I call bull on that statement you made.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Sumer, posted 08-29-2006 2:12 PM Sumer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 08-29-2006 3:18 PM kuresu has replied
 Message 40 by Sumer, posted 08-30-2006 10:01 AM kuresu has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 33 of 50 (344765)
08-29-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by kuresu
08-29-2006 3:15 PM


Steller nucleosynthesis
I think, kuresu, that you are nearly right.
The physics of supernovae is reasonably solid and that is where iron comes from. I don't think that our sun will reach the point where iron will be synthesized to any great degree.
In any case, that detail doesn't negate the call of bull.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by kuresu, posted 08-29-2006 3:15 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by kuresu, posted 08-29-2006 4:45 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 08-29-2006 8:02 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2514 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 34 of 50 (344794)
08-29-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NosyNed
08-29-2006 3:18 PM


Re: Steller nucleosynthesis
okay.
well, at least we know one thing--the center, right now, isn't iron. unlike what the phycists(?) thought prior to E = mc squared.
thanks for the correction.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 08-29-2006 3:18 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 35 of 50 (344862)
08-29-2006 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Sumer
08-29-2006 2:12 PM


Sumer writes:
We were discussing OOL calculation by Hoyle. What does TOE have to do with it? Where did we discuss it in this post? Isn't it true that the majority of the evolutionists SPECIFICALLY draw a distinction between abiogenesis and speciation?
the calculation is also irrelevant for the theory of abiogenesis.
Let me play a little game over here. Let's assume that I made your comment (changing the word "wrong" for "right," of course).
"The probability calculation is RIGHT because it is calculating the probability of something that IS relevant to the theory of evolution."
there is no symmetry here. If something is irrelevant, it is wrong to apply its conclusions even if there are no obvios math mistakes. On the other hand, if something is relevant, that does not make its conclusions necessarily correct.
In other words, the standard for something being correct is not symmetric to the standard of it being wrong. For something to be correct ALL its logical steps must be correct. For something to be wrong it is enough that ONE step be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Sumer, posted 08-29-2006 2:12 PM Sumer has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 36 of 50 (344875)
08-29-2006 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NosyNed
08-29-2006 3:18 PM


Re: Stellar nucleosynthesis
The physics of supernovae is reasonably solid and that is where iron comes from.
Nitpick: Iron is made in ordinary stars like the Sun, although most of it is made in larger stars. It's heavier elements that require supernovae. Creation of the Heavier Elements:
quote:
After the bulk of a star’s hydrogen has been converted to helium by either the proton-proton or carbon-nitrogen-oxygen process, the stellar core contracts (while the outer layers expand) until sufficiently high temperatures are reached to initiate “helium-burning” by the triple-alpha process; in this process, three helium nuclei (alpha particles) are fused to make a carbon nucleus. By successive additions of helium nuclei, the heavier elements through iron-56 are built up. The elements whose atomic weights are not multiples of four are created by side reactions that involve neutrons. Because iron-56 is the most stable of the elements, it is very difficult to add an extra helium nucleus to it. However, iron-56 will readily capture a neutron to form the less stable isotope, iron-57. From iron-57, the elements through bismuth-209 can be synthesized. The elements more massive than bismuth-209 are radioactive; that is, they spontaneously break apart. However, during a supernova, an extremely intense flux of neutrons is generated and nuclear reactions proceed so rapidly that the radioactive elements do not have enough time to decay, resulting in the rapid creation of the radioactive elements up to and beyond uranium.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 08-29-2006 3:18 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by fallacycop, posted 08-29-2006 8:10 PM JonF has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 37 of 50 (344878)
08-29-2006 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by JonF
08-29-2006 8:02 PM


Re: Stellar nucleosynthesis
Nitpick: Iron is made in ordinary stars like the Sun, although most of it is made in larger stars. It's heavier elements that require supernovae.
Not all ordinary stars ever get to the point of making iron. only the heavier ones do. And even if they do, we will never get our hands on this iron unless they go supernovae.
Edited by fallacycop, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 08-29-2006 8:02 PM JonF has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 38 of 50 (344924)
08-29-2006 11:32 PM


while we're off the topic, aren't we forgetting that Sol is too small in virtually every aspect to go supernova?
The only way that it could be done would be to remove a subsantial amount of mass from the star at once to cause instability. Anyone got a wormhole handy?

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 50 (344926)
08-29-2006 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Sumer
08-29-2006 4:15 AM


All these examples show that the people involved portray the theory in question as something that actually occurred.
This claim is refuted at Message 1, soyou can apologizethere. It is off topic here.

I openly admit that I do not posses "expertise, knowledge, ability OR capability" in the filed of math on the same scale as Sir Hoyle had.
So you don't have the ability to judge whether he is blowing hot air or not. Good of you to admit it.
As to your calculation, I have already pointed to a very obvious shortcoming in your reasoning.
Those "shortcomings" are no different than the shortcomings in Dr Hoyles calculations. They are intentionally chosen to do so.
Again, either both are equally valid or each are equally invalid. your choice.
"10^+84" (wow, that's some number! You'd need all atoms in the observed Universe for that and then some more, ...
To more accurately mirror Dr Hoyle's calculation I should have used an infinite sea, as he assumes a sea with zero other molecules. Of course it is ridiculous. Equally ridiculous.
But what if we use the same number of molecules as there are atoms in 1 liter of water instead okay?
The number of atoms in a litre of water is 1.0038x10^26
from "How many atoms are in the human head?"
Questions and Answers - How many atoms are in the human head?
The number of moles is 1000/18 = 55.556 moles. The number of molecules is therefore 6.022x10^23 x 55.556 = 3.346x10^25 molecules. The number of atoms is 3 times larger because each molecule has three atoms, so there are 1.0038x10^26 atoms in a liter of water.
1 liter = 1.0x10^26 atoms
Well, the probability that one would NOT form is 0.75^26 = 0.0005, so the probability it would happen in that small a volume is 99.95% -- how many liters do I need to get one forming?
How many liters cover the surface of the earth with a 1 mm thick film?
Earth - Wikipedia
The surface of the earth is 510,065,600 km^2 = 5x10^8km^2
1 km^2 = 1000 x 1000 m^2 = 10^6 m^2
So the surface of the earth is 5x10^8 x 10^6 m^2 = 5x10^(8+6) m^2 = 5x10^(14) m^2
1 m^3 = 1000 liters
1 mm = 1 m/1000
5x10^14 m^2 x (1 m/1000) x (1000 liters/ m^3) = 5x10^14 liters
That's a lot of liters, when just a few will do eh?
Also, very importantly, do you suggest several primordial soups? Also, did you consider the medium, temperature? What is the size of the sea (concentration), etc. Also, where are the other reactions? Why there is no breakdown of the compounds?
The real answer is "we don't know" -- you don't know what prevents it and you don't know what encourages it. To base a calculation on something we know so little about is absolutely ridiculous.
The intermediate molecules could form, breakdown, reform, breakdown, form in new combinations, etcetera. We don't know what the factors are: that is why the calculation is ridiculous eh?
We have some ideas. Those ideas are being tested. There are no definitive conclusions, but there are a lot of possibilities that show promise.
And your answer was either an evasion, or a failure to analyze what I asked.
You are making the claim that all contingencies are covered -- demonstrate it.
But take these questions into consideration:
What is the minimum molecule that we need to make? How do you know?
Will similar molecules with added or extra sections NOT work? How do you know?
Will similar molecules with different sections in some places NOT work? How do you know?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : updated link to promoted version

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Sumer, posted 08-29-2006 4:15 AM Sumer has not replied

  
Sumer
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 50 (345012)
08-30-2006 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by kuresu
08-29-2006 3:15 PM


Edited by Sumer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by kuresu, posted 08-29-2006 3:15 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Wounded King, posted 08-30-2006 10:32 AM Sumer has not replied
 Message 42 by kuresu, posted 08-30-2006 12:25 PM Sumer has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 41 of 50 (345015)
08-30-2006 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Sumer
08-30-2006 10:01 AM


Prior to Hoyle's stroke of genius, there was no proof that carbon can be naturally synthesized, therefore, how would the proponents of the Miller's experiment defend a claim that he used a "God-created" element--carbon--in his investigation? Therefore, without the Hoyle's contribution, Miller et al would be irrelevant.
This only makes sense if you have the deluded opinion that Miller's work was somehow intended to be some sort of disproof for the existence of god. Since this isn't the case the origin of carbon is totally irrelevant to Miller's investigations.
If you want to produce a totally naturalistic history of the universe then arguably the lack of Hoyle's nucleosynthetic concept is important. If all you want to do is show the formation of some organic compounds from inorganic precursors is possible in given conditions then there is no need to refer to nucleosynthesis.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Sumer, posted 08-30-2006 10:01 AM Sumer has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2514 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 42 of 50 (345033)
08-30-2006 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Sumer
08-30-2006 10:01 AM


you claimed that there were no natural laws that could allow for the production of carbon. that's where I was calling bull. No one makes uranium--we find it naturally. Now then, how can it be made naturally?
well, supernovae.
AND
miller's experiment was in the fifties--after Hoyle proposed how elements such as carbon can be made by naturally occurring processes.
so . . .
I think you are putting the cart in front of the horse. This time, it's just that Hoyle's discovery took place after the Miller Urey experiments.
And even if Hoyle didn't come up with it, we were beginning to understand the processes of fusion--I think the first fusion bomb came out in the early fifties--like 51.
In fact, without einstiend's E = mc squared, Hoyle wouldn't be able to have even proved his concept.
And what does uranium have to do with all this--you made the erroneus claim that carbon can't be made. So I told you that elements more than ten times as heavy can be made naturally. So if those can be made, why not carbon?
I still call bull.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Sumer, posted 08-30-2006 10:01 AM Sumer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Sumer, posted 08-30-2006 2:24 PM kuresu has replied

  
Sumer
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 50 (345073)
08-30-2006 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by kuresu
08-30-2006 12:25 PM


Edited by Sumer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by kuresu, posted 08-30-2006 12:25 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by kuresu, posted 08-30-2006 3:23 PM Sumer has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2514 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 44 of 50 (345084)
08-30-2006 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Sumer
08-30-2006 2:24 PM


well, apparently carbon IS easy to make.
Our entire core is made of iron--which is harder to make than carbon. (core for earth, that is).
And I'm not positive, but I'd say there is more iron in the core of our earth than their is carbon on the surface.
and how else to you interpret the state "much less relevant until they explain carbon".
and, just so you know--how did God make life?
all abiogenesis means is that life came from from non-life. And seeing as how god made man from dust (which is non life--especially if the dust is soil, which is what seems to be implied by statements like from dust you came, to dust you go (or whatever that cliche is).
As far as I can tell--God made life from non-life, and considering that he is all powerful, why can't, or couldn't he?
You have this idea in your head that science is anti-god. you've got the wrong philosophical base for that. science is methodological naturalism. ontological naturalism is the philosophy that says there is no god, period. the former doesn't care either way.
so, that means that science is doing this--finding out how the world works, regardless if God is behind the laws and theories or not. science does not have an official position on god. got it? get it? good. now quit whining about the atheistic conspiracy of science and how it tries to stamp out god.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Sumer, posted 08-30-2006 2:24 PM Sumer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Sumer, posted 08-30-2006 5:49 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Sumer
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 50 (345127)
08-30-2006 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by kuresu
08-30-2006 3:23 PM


Edited by Sumer, : No reason given.
Edited by Sumer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kuresu, posted 08-30-2006 3:23 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by ringo, posted 08-30-2006 5:53 PM Sumer 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