Originally posted by lee_merrill
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
New fossils push back the indisputable origin of life
Collapse
X

Originally posted by rogue06 View PostBut what if after flipping nine of them and having them come up heads, would the odds be of that tenth coin also being heads?
Blessings,
Lee
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostBut these events (occurrence and fixation I'm treating as one event) are independent, so the probability of the combined events is their multiplied probability. Statistical independence is all that's required.
No, the events can occur simultaneously.
That's a good point, but you can still speak of the probability of an event over the lifetime of a species.
No, I'm not assuming anything about the order of events, they can occur in any order.
Lay out ten coins on a table, flip them in any order, the probability of them all coming up heads is the same.
Blessings,
Lee
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by TheLurch View PostIf, once a 90% probability event happens, if it goes to fixation, then every single ensuing event will necessarily occur on a backdrop where the first event happened. In other words, fixation takes any probability, and effectively converts it to a certainty for every subsequent event.
Evolution also works in parallel, so many of those probabilities can be explored simultaneously, rather than in series (which your calculations assume).
Finally, the basic approach is biologically nonsensical, in that there is never a finite probability for an event, since there's not a finite set of generations. You need to talk in terms of probability per generation.
Originally posted by rogue06Assuming mutations must take sequentially.
Lay out ten coins on a table, flip them in any order, the probability of them all coming up heads is the same.
Blessings,
Lee
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by TheLurch View PostMy apologies, i phrased that wrong.
If, once a 90% probability event happens, if it goes to fixation, then every single ensuing event will necessarily occur on a backdrop where the first event happened. In other words, fixation takes any probability, and effectively converts it to a certainty for every subsequent event. Evolution also works in parallel, so many of those probabilities can be explored simultaneously, rather than in series (which your calculations assume).
Finally, the basic approach is biologically nonsensical, in that there is never a finite probability for an event, since there's not a finite set of generations. You need to talk in terms of probability per generation.
How many times has it been now.?
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostMultiplying probabilities is how you compute independent probabilities, though.
If, once a 90% probability event happens, if it goes to fixation, then every single ensuing event will necessarily occur on a backdrop where the first event happened. In other words, fixation takes any probability, and effectively converts it to a certainty for every subsequent event. Evolution also works in parallel, so many of those probabilities can be explored simultaneously, rather than in series (which your calculations assume).
Finally, the basic approach is biologically nonsensical, in that there is never a finite probability for an event, since there's not a finite set of generations. You need to talk in terms of probability per generation.
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by TheLurch View PostPut differently, your math is done assuming absolutely none of those probabilities is independent. Fixation assures that they are independent.
Blessings,
Lee
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostBut I'm assuming they occur and get fixed, each with a 90% probability.
Blessings,
Lee
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostBut I'm assuming they occur and get fixed, each with a 90% probability.
Put differently, your math is done assuming absolutely none of those probabilities is independent. Fixation assures that they are independent.
 1 like
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by TheLurch View PostThat's only the case if absolutely none of the intervening steps gets fixed. Which is exactly the opposite of what evolution proposes.
Blessings,
Lee
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, if each step is 90% probable, then 2000 steps is about 1 in 10^{91}...
That's only the case if absolutely none of the intervening steps gets fixed. Which is exactly the opposite of what evolution proposes.
 1 like
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostSo, several considerations: First, finding early life does not explain how life began.
The references documented the evidence for the earliest life forms, and conditions at the time.
Also, this does not explain the water paradox, where water is both needed and hostile to life's elements. And then ocean water would dilute any of life's molecules, making it difficult for life to get started.
The reference demonstrates that the simple earliest life was found in caverns in the oceans, which is documenting the water as friendly to the earliest life.
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThis article explains the discovery and how life could begin and thrive in subsurface caverns despite the meteor and comet bombardments.
Blessings,
Lee
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIf Mojzsis is correct we're looking at a space of over 700 million years. Let's say he seriously miscalculated and was off by 200 million years. That's still 500 million or half of a billion years.
While a number of phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or earlier, most of the phylumlevel body plans first appear in the fossil record much later on.
This flies in the face of the oft repeated claim made by creationists that, as Jonathan Wells (Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute) puts it, "Most animal forms appear in the form they currently have in the present." Nope. Not even remotely close.
Secondly, the type of photosynthesis that first arose was likely very different than what we think of now. For instance, from a decade and a half ago, but I don't think it is obsolete, the abstract from Photosynthesis in the Archean Era
Look at for instance what conservative estimates are for how long it would take eyes to have evolved
Blessings,
Lee
Leave a comment:

This article explains the discovery and how life could begin and thrive in subsurface caverns despite the meteor and comet bombardments. This discovery and research documents how and when life began. Thank you Lee Merrill for opening this thread.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics  Statistics  Last Post  

Started by TheLurch, 11252022, 04:39 PM

1 response
30 views
1 like

Last Post
by Roy
11282022, 04:33 PM


Started by rogue06, 11102022, 11:36 AM

0 responses
12 views
1 like

Last Post
by rogue06
11102022, 11:36 AM


Started by Teallaura, 10262022, 11:36 PM

17 responses
157 views
1 like

Last Post
by TheLurch
11082022, 08:52 AM


Started by Seeker, 10092022, 09:33 AM

64 responses
565 views
0 likes

Last Post
by TheLurch
11292022, 06:59 PM


Started by rogue06, 01182020, 10:23 AM

86 responses
8,700 views
0 likes

Last Post
by rogue06
11062022, 07:50 AM

Leave a comment: