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
See more
See less

Origin of life status

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    We can estimate the probability of certain events in nature, such as the formation of a biomolecule randomly.
    Only if we know every possible pathway by which it can form. Which takes us back to my earlier point: we will never know if there is something that we don't know about yet.


    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Yes, I have read it, and it seems reasonable to me.
    Well, let's go through it, shall we? For starters, it dates from 1976, which means it's so far out of date on the biology that it's essentially meaningless. But hey, why should it matter, given the person writing it wasn't a biologist, so shouldn't be expected to know the field anyway.

    Next, he's calculating the probability of life arising by calculating the probability of the instant appearance of an entire genome, which nobody who knows biology thinks actually happened. Then he suddenly switches to negative entropy, making the typical creationist mistake of assuming the earth is a closed system (which it's not). He then switches to Cytochrome C, a mature, highly evolved protein complex, which is completely unlike anything that would have existed at the origin of life. Yet he uses its probability of appearing at random as if it's relevant. He then refers to amino acid length as "too short to code a living system", apparently unaware that amino acids don't encode genetic information. Then he switches to geology, and makes a completely unsubstantiated and irrelevant claim. And then he accuses his opponents of having faith.

    It's a hot mess, an incoherent mix of fragments of standard creationist arguments presented in random order.

    If it seems reasonable to you, the only conclusion i can reach is that you are simply not reasonable, in that you'll accept anything, no matter how incoherent, if you think it supports what you want to believe.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      Only if we know every possible pathway by which it can form. Which takes us back to my earlier point: we will never know if there is something that we don't know about yet.
      No, we only need to be able to say our knowledge of the situation is reasonably comprehensive.

      Next, he's calculating the probability of life arising by calculating the probability of the instant appearance of an entire genome, which nobody who knows biology thinks actually happened.
      No, he's using cytochrome c as an analog for a complex first biomolecule.

      Then he suddenly switches to negative entropy, making the typical creationist mistake of assuming the earth is a closed system (which it's not).
      Well, he says there's no such thing as negative entropy, and instead says let's use complexity, in the information theoretic sense. This would not seem to imply that the earth is a closed system.

      He then switches to Cytochrome C, a mature, highly evolved protein complex, which is completely unlike anything that would have existed at the origin of life. Yet he uses its probability of appearing at random as if it's relevant. He then refers to amino acid length as "too short to code a living system", apparently unaware that amino acids don't encode genetic information.
      Well, again, this is only used as an analogous biomolecule. You may substitute nucleotides for amino acids if you wish.

      Then he switches to geology, and makes a completely unsubstantiated and irrelevant claim. And then he accuses his opponents of having faith.
      Do you mean his statement about geological evidence? I think that includes biological evidence on a geological timescale.

      To refute him you must therefore refute his argument.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        No, we only need to be able to say our knowledge of the situation is reasonably comprehensive.
        And how do we say that about possible chemical environments on the early earth? There's been dozens of papers about possible unrecognized chemical pathways in the last few years alone. You're willing to declare we know all we need to right now, even as scientists are busy studying additional ones?

        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        To refute him you must therefore refute his argument.
        He doesn't make an argument. He makes a bunch of nonsensical statements, many of which we already know are bogus.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          We can estimate the probability of certain events in nature, such as the formation of a biomolecule randomly.
          Biomolecules do not form randomly as previously documented.

          My point was that forensic analysis is acceptable and widely acknowledged.
          Only in forensic medicine.

          Yes, I have read it, and it seems reasonable to me.

          Source: Hubert Yockey

          Taking into account only the effect of the racemic mixture the longest genome which could be expected with 95 % confidence in 109 years corresponds to only 49 amino acid residues. This is much too short to code a living system so evolution to higher forms could not get started.

          © Copyright Original Source

          You lack the knowledge of the biological sciences to realize this is gibberish.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-22-2020, 11:04 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            And how do we say that about possible chemical environments on the early earth? There's been dozens of papers about possible unrecognized chemical pathways in the last few years alone. You're willing to declare we know all we need to right now, even as scientists are busy studying additional ones?
            I think we know enough to estimate the probability of a biomolecule forming randomly.

            He doesn't make an argument. He makes a bunch of nonsensical statements, many of which we already know are bogus.
            He does indeed make an argument, good enough to be published. Are you implying that the editors of the Journal of Theoretical Biology were duped?!

            Blessings,
            Lee
            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              I think we know enough to estimate the probability of a biomolecule forming randomly.
              Then show us your probability calculations and justify any assumptions you make.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                I think we know enough to estimate the probability of a biomolecule forming randomly.
                How can that possibly be true if we're still discovering completely unknown chemical pathways to their formation?

                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                He does indeed make an argument, good enough to be published. Are you implying that the editors of the Journal of Theoretical Biology were duped?!
                No, i'm saying they did a poor job. If you see a single, coherent argument there—one that hasn't already been refuted—please spell it out. Because the abstract certainly didn't.
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                  Then show us your probability calculations and justify any assumptions you make.
                  The problem is that probability no matter how many calculations one makes. The assumptions of probability are highly flawed, and based on a religious agenda.

                  Probability calculations cannot lead to falsifiable hypothesis.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                    Then show us your probability calculations and justify any assumptions you make.
                    Well, that's what Hubert Yockey did, isn't it? "A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory."

                    And I did a back-of-the-envelope for a ribozyme in another thread, and came up with 1 in 4 x 1087, assuming all the nucleotides are interchangeable with one other nucleotide.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    Last edited by lee_merrill; 01-24-2020, 07:49 PM.
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      How can that possibly be true if we're still discovering completely unknown chemical pathways to their formation?
                      Because the probability calculations start with the constituents already formed, and just needing assembly.

                      No, i'm saying they did a poor job. If you see a single, coherent argument there—one that hasn't already been refuted—please spell it out. Because the abstract certainly didn't.
                      I'd have to buy his paper to justify his conclusions--but presumably the editors thought his conclusions were reasonable.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Probability calculations cannot lead to falsifiable hypothesis.
                        They do all the time, it's called falsifying the null hypothesis, in statistics. "Testing (accepting, approving, rejecting, or disproving) the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are (or there are not) grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science; the field of statistics, more specifically hypothesis testing, gives precise criteria for rejecting or accepting a null hypothesis within a confidence level." (Wikipedia, emphasis mine)

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          They do all the time, it's called falsifying the null hypothesis, in statistics. "Testing (accepting, approving, rejecting, or disproving) the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are (or there are not) grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science; the field of statistics, more specifically hypothesis testing, gives precise criteria for rejecting or accepting a null hypothesis within a confidence level." (Wikipedia, emphasis mine)
                          Null hypothesis does not apply to scientific hypothesis, because the natural processes and laws of nature are not random as previously cited. The Laws of NAture and NAtural processes determine the outcome over time, and NOT the randomness of individual events. Also as cited before the probability calculations used by Creationists at the Discovery Institute are dishonest, unethical, and unsupported by a scientific hypothesis. Also as shot down by The Lurch.

                          This has been repeated demonstrated with references in the past by both The Lurch and myself.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-24-2020, 09:05 PM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Null hypothesis does not apply to scientific hypothesis, because the natural processes and laws of nature are not random as previously cited. The Laws of NAture and NAtural processes determine the outcome over time, and NOT the randomness of individual events.
                            To repeat, "Testing ... the null hypothesis … is a central task in the modern practice of science" (Wikipedia) Many natural processes (notably chemical reactions) are describable as random processes. And have you heard of "five sigma"?

                            Source: physics.org

                            5 sigma is a measure of how confident scientists feel their results are. If experiments show results to a 5 sigma confidence level, that means if the results were due to chance and the experiment was repeated 3.5 million times then it would be expected to see the strength of conclusion in the result no more than once.

                            Source

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Also as cited before the probability calculations used by Creationists at the Discovery Institute are dishonest, unethical, and unsupported by a scientific hypothesis. Also as shot down by The Lurch.

                            This has been repeated demonstrated with references in the past by both The Lurch and myself.
                            But I'm talking about Hubert Yockey and his work, no friend of ID.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              To repeat, "Testing ... the null hypothesis … is a central task in the modern practice of science" (Wikipedia) Many natural processes (notably chemical reactions) are describable as random processes. And have you heard of "five sigma"?

                              Source: physics.org

                              5 sigma is a measure of how confident scientists feel their results are. If experiments show results to a 5 sigma confidence level, that means if the results were due to chance and the experiment was repeated 3.5 million times then it would be expected to see the strength of conclusion in the result no more than once.

                              Source

                              © Copyright Original Source




                              But I'm talking about Hubert Yockey and his work, no friend of ID.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              Yockey used the same dishonest unethical applications of probability as Discovery Institute.

                              Again . . . Null hypothesis does not apply to scientific hypothesis, because the natural processes and laws of nature are not random as previously cited. The Laws of Nature and Natural processes determine the outcome over time, and NOT the randomness of individual events.

                              Natural processes over time are not random, because the causes are known as Laws of Nature, an the outcome can be predicted over time by objective verifiable evidence.

                              You need to respond coherently to The Lurch.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-24-2020, 10:53 PM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                And I did a back-of-the-envelope for a ribozyme in another thread, and came up with 1 in 4 x 1087, assuming all the nucleotides are interchangeable with one other nucleotide.
                                We'll leave aside the fact that your calculation completely ignored the fact that other ribozyme structures may be functional, and that the same structure could also be formed by different length RNAs (ie - your probability is wrong). Even if we were to accept that value, it doesn't mean that forming the molecule is improbable.

                                In fact, i showed that in the earlier discussion, where i did the calculations to show that any specific 98-base long RNA will show up, on average, in a batch of random RNAs that weighs less than a gram. Therefore, if producing a gram of random RNAs is probable, producing a functional catalytic RNA becomes probable.

                                (This was something you'd never responded to, other than indicating you really didn't get it.)

                                In any case, that's why the following statement is irrelevant:

                                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                Because the probability calculations start with the constituents already formed, and just needing assembly.
                                The probability of getting a specific RNA will necessarily depend on how frequently the assembly of RNAs take place. And that frequency will be dependent upon how readily some prebiotic chemistry can form them. Which, in turn, can't be known without a complete catalog of all the reactions that can form them.

                                Thus, without that complete catalog - which we clearly don't have - you can't say anything about these probabilities.

                                From which we can only conclude that your argument is wrong.
                                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by TheLurch, 01-18-2021, 12:27 PM
                                8 responses
                                41 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post lee_merrill  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 01-16-2021, 03:43 PM
                                2 responses
                                33 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post TheLurch  
                                Started by rogue06, 01-15-2021, 04:43 PM
                                8 responses
                                50 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by TheLurch, 01-15-2021, 07:40 AM
                                19 responses
                                72 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 01-13-2021, 04:55 PM
                                5 responses
                                27 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Working...
                                X