Koonin on transition from the RNA world

[shunyadragon]

But I have responded, and you have not. Here are the points you need to address:

What is P(A|A), if not 1?


I have responded to your posts, and your response is to say "that's bogus"! But that is not a refutation of my points.


But Koonin's calculations are for molecules that are needed from scratch [meaning from their constituents], and in the case of n-mers, before evolution is taking place.


Yet I insist that they are comparing P(A|A) to P(A), their mistake is in viewing a snowflake after it forms, and then asking what is the probability of forming that snowflake. Which is 100%, given that it is already formed.


P(A|A) is the probability of event A, with the realm of possible events being just the event A, which is 100%.


Can you quote what you are referring to? I'm not understanding this question.

Blessings,
Lee

Post #41

lee_merrill]

The problem here is that they are confusing a probability before the fact with the probability after the fact. They are committing what I call the Bertrand Russell fallacy, who was riding with someone down the road, and asked "What is the probability that we would see this car in front of us with this license plate and color at this moment?" Well, the probability is 100% for an event that just occurred, yet predicting an event like this, or a snowflake, before the fact, would indeed be remotely improbable.

Koonin is viewing the event of construction of an n-mer before the fact, thus his probability calculations are valid.

Blessings,
Lee

You have failed to provide a peer reviewed source that uses probability as you describe in the same manner as Behe and Koonin. Nowhere do scientists in comparable situation reach any such nonsense as a probability of 100%. As I said before. You need to provide references, which describes probability as 100%, and be specific, and not your ENRON calculations.

As referenced probability of 100 % is not probability. It is simply the fact that something happened,

[shunyadragon]

Post #41



You have failed to provide a peer reviewed source that uses probability as you describe in the same manner as Behe and Koonin. Nowhere do scientists in comparable situation reach any such nonsense as a probability of 100%. As I said before. You need to provide references, which describes probability as 100% and be specific, and not your ENRON calculations.

As referenced probability of 100 % is not probability. It is simply the fact that something happened,

To sdd: What you are describing is the probability of 1.0, which is the certainty that an event 'will' happen. Scientists do not determine the probability of a snow flake after it has formed.

[lee_merrill]

What you are describing is the probability of 1.0, which is the certainty that an event 'will' happen.

Correct! P(A|A) is 1.

Scientists do not determine the probability of a snow flake after it has formed.

No they don't, but your reference is saying "Look! improbable events happen all the time," when they are confusing the probability of an event before it occurs (which is remote, in the case of an individual snowflake), with the probability of an event after it occurs (saying look what an improbable snowflake just occurred).

And here is what we need to discuss now: Koonin's calculations are for molecules that are needed from scratch [meaning from their constituents], and in the case of n-mers, before evolution is taking place.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Correct! P(A|A) is 1.


No they don't, but your reference is saying "Look! improbable events happen all the time," when they are confusing the probability of an event before it occurs (which is remote, in the case of an individual snowflake), with the probability of an event after it occurs (saying look what an improbable snowflake just occurred).

My reference says no such thing!!!!

Still failed to back up these odd phony assertions with references in peer review literature as to how probability is used comparable to how Behe and Koonin do it.



There is no such thing as an improbable snow flake. The probability of different snowflakes are limited by Natural Laws and natural processes. The probability of the variation of different

And here is what we need to discuss now: Koonin's calculations are for molecules that are needed from scratch [meaning from their constituents], and in the case of n-mers, before evolution is taking place.

Blessings,
Lee[/QUOTE]

Failure to respond to back up the assertions in your post concerning how 'they(?) determine probability. .


Still waiting . . .

[lee_merrill]

My reference says no such thing!!!!

Well, it does, by implication.

Source: Shuny's reference

Does this astoundingly small probability figure constitute proof that individual snowflakes have been intelligently designed? Obviously not. The fallacy, once again, is presuming a sudden, all-at-once random formation. Instead, snowflakes, like biological organisms, are formed as the product of a series of steps, acting under natural laws with some element of chance.

© Copyright Original Source

What element of chance? They don't say. But clearly they imply that snowflakes with extremely small probabilities form all the time, which means they are confusing probabilities before the fact with probabilities after the fact.

The probability of different snowflakes are limited by Natural Laws and natural processes.

Certainly people compute probabilities by considering natural processes and how they operate.

And here is what we need to discuss now: Koonin's calculations are for molecules that are needed from scratch [meaning from their constituents], considering the relevant natural processes, and in the case of n-mers, before evolution is taking place.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Well, it does, by implication.

Source: Shuny's reference

Does this astoundingly small probability figure constitute proof that individual snowflakes have been intelligently designed? Obviously not. The fallacy, once again, is presuming a sudden, all-at-once random formation. Instead, snowflakes, like biological organisms, are formed as the product of a series of steps, acting under natural laws with some element of chance.

© Copyright Original Source

What element of chance? They don't say. But clearly they imply that snowflakes with extremely small probabilities form all the time, which means they are confusing probabilities before the fact with probabilities after the fact.

Still waiting for citation of references to support your absurd assertions.

I have said numerous times that the only element of chance is the outcome of individual cause and effect events within the range constrained by Natural Laws and natural processes. Each bond formed by the freezing water on a snow flake has a range of possible outcomes, and the growth of the snow flake is limited to those possibilities. The probability of the range of possible bonds forming has the same probability whether it was calculated before or during or after the snowflake formed. Also given the same suitable environment the process of growing snow flake can simply continue to grow. The formation of a snow flake does not have a low probability. The existence and growth of a snow flake is dependent on the environment, Natural Laws and natural processes. It is the possible variations in the snow flake formation that may be calculated in terms of probability in a given environment.

Certainly people compute probabilities by considering natural processes and how they operate.

Certainly?!?!?! I see nothing in the calculations of Behe nor Koonin that take into the constraints of the outcome of individual cause and effect events are constrained by Natural Laws and natural processes.

Still waiting . . .

but I will not hold my breath.

And here is what we need to discuss now: Koonin's calculations are for molecules that are needed from scratch [meaning from their constituents], considering the relevant natural processes, and in the case of n-mers, before evolution is taking place.

Blessings,
Lee

Still unbelievably bogus, because Koonin doe NOT take into consideration the constraints of the out come of cause and effect events constrained by Natural Laws and natural processes. As far as I see they calculate them 'all-in-one' continuous chain as the cause is 'chance or randomness.

Still waiting . . .

. . . but again I will not hold my breath for a consistent answer based on good math and science.

[shunyadragon]

Well, it does, by implication.

Source: Shuny's reference

Does this astoundingly small probability figure constitute proof that individual snowflakes have been intelligently designed? Obviously not. The fallacy, once again, is presuming a sudden, all-at-once random formation. Instead, snowflakes, like biological organisms, are formed as the product of a series of steps, acting under natural laws with some element of chance.

© Copyright Original Source

What element of chance? They don't say. But clearly they imply that snowflakes with extremely small probabilities form all the time, which means they are confusing probabilities before the fact with probabilities after the fact.


Certainly people compute probabilities by considering natural processes and how they operate.

And here is what we need to discuss now: Koonin's calculations are for molecules that are needed from scratch [meaning from their constituents], considering the relevant natural processes, and in the case of n-mers, before evolution is taking place.

Blessings,
Lee

As far as the low probability involved with snow flake formation is referring to the probability of 'individual' snow flakes being the same. There is a very very low probability that two snowflakes will be the same and that the same bonds will repeat.

[lee_merrill]

I have said numerous times that the only element of chance is the outcome of individual cause and effect events within the range constrained by Natural Laws and natural processes.

Well, I would agree with this, and say that Koonin works within the range of natural laws and processes.

As far as I see they calculate them 'all-in-one' continuous chain as the cause is 'chance or randomness.

I'm not sure I understand your statement.

Source: Koonin

An O-region contains 10²² stars, and every tenth star has a habitable planet; hence, 10²¹ habitable planets...

© Copyright Original Source

Where is the "continuous chain" here?

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Well, I would agree with this, and say that Koonin works within the range of natural laws and processes.

There is nothing in his calculations that he indicates he considers the limitations of the outcome of cause and effect events of Natural Laws, natural processes and the environment in his calculations.

I'm not sure I understand your statement.

Source: Koonin

An O-region contains 10²² stars, and every tenth star has a habitable planet; hence, 10²¹ habitable planets...

© Copyright Original Source

Where is the "continuous chain" here?

Blessings,
Lee

Your leaving a lot out of the estimate of probability calculated from the beginning of the universe to the evolution of life on earth.

A simple estimate count of the population is not meaningful as far as any possible estimates of probability. The cause is Natural Laws, natural processes, and the environment that stars and planets form, just as the cause of snow flakes.

I find no references in Behe's and Koonin's work that indicates the constrains the outcome of cause and effect events in their work.

[lee_merrill]

There is nothing in his calculations that he indicates he considers the limitations of the outcome of cause and effect events of Natural Laws, natural processes and the environment in his calculations.

On the contrary, he does nothing but consider natural laws, processes and the environment. He starts by estimating the number of planets, how could this not consider natural processes?

Your leaving a lot out of the estimate of probability calculated from the beginning of the universe to the evolution of life on earth.

Because when I quote more, you just reply "it's all bogus"! I'm trying to get the discussion to be specific.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

On the contrary, he does nothing but consider natural laws, processes and the environment. He starts by estimating the number of planets, how could this not consider natural processes?

It is only mundane counting objects such as planets, and absolutely nothing to do with Natural Laws and natural processes.

Because when I quote more, you just reply "it's all bogus"! I'm trying to get the discussion to be specific.

Blessings,
Lee

. . . because it is bogus and you have not added anything new. It is a fact that the probability of Behe and Koonin they did not consider the factors of Natural Law and natural processes that limit the possible outcomes of cause and effect in nature. You have failed to respond to this problem. Just counting planets has nothing to do with the Natural Laws and natural processes.

[lee_merrill]

It is only mundane counting objects such as planets, and absolutely nothing to do with Natural Laws and natural processes.

But he takes into account what we know of the rate of average planet formation.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

But he takes into account what we know of the rate of average planet formation.

Blessings,
Lee

Rates and numbers of thing do not represent taking into consideration the Laws of Nature, and natural processes that are the cause of how planets form and the chemistry of life..

[DaveB]

Not a coherent response, which is worse than your first.

Let's talk about your education in the science and statistics involved and scientific experience to back up your objections. A good reference from a peer reviewed statistics publication to support your line of reasoning

There are thousands of research articles on these subjects, and I have threads in the past that address, take a look. There are also many available on the internet, but I am affraid your lack of education and ID agenda is a significant barrier for you to remotely understand.

My advice; Do not make foolish unscientific statements, and back peddle to explain them. How about some good references from statistics journals to back up your assertions.

Still waiting . . .

Reread or get a decent education this is a superficial insult to the authors of the article. The comparison concerned the use of probability in cause and effect event outcomes.

As expected, no response.

There is no constraint to a rna sequence.

Your objection is baseless.

[DaveB]

Correct! P(A|A) is 1.


No they don't, but your reference is saying "Look! improbable events happen all the time," when they are confusing the probability of an event before it occurs (which is remote, in the case of an individual snowflake), with the probability of an event after it occurs (saying look what an improbable snowflake just occurred).

And here is what we need to discuss now: Koonin's calculations are for molecules that are needed from scratch [meaning from their constituents], and in the case of n-mers, before evolution is taking place.

Blessings,
Lee

Lee,

I think you are missing a key word in shunyadragon's argument, which is "constraint".

He is saying that there are natural processes that constrain or limit the possible outcomes of a potential rna structure, like a ribozyme, in the same way that a snowflake is constrained as it grows (it can only add to what is already there), and it is invalid to calculate the probabilities of a particular structure unless you take the constraint into account.

The problem is that he is making an invalid apples to oranges comparison. An rna structure, is not formed in the same way that a snowflake is. The rna structure starts as a sequence of nucleotides in a string or chain. The rna string then folds into a 3D structure which gives the rna its function. It doesn't grow into its final shape by adding nucleotides to a growing structure. If there is a constraint to the sequence (not all sequences are physically possible), then calculating the probability based on all sequences isn't valid unless you take the constraint into consideration. But, while the 3D shape is constrained by the sequence of nucleotides, there is no constraint on the sequence itself (it is basically a sequence of "coin-flips"); when adding another nucleotide to the sequence, any of the 4 nucleotides can be added. Since Koonin is calculating the probability of the sequence itself and not the resulting 3D structure, his calculations are completely valid.

Another thing to note is that he has not provided a peer-reviewed paper showing how the constraints of natural law are taken into account when calculating the probability of a snowflake. Did you notice that?