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

  • #91
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    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).
    I allowed for other ribozyme structures by allowing each nucleotide to change, I believe. And I tried to pick an average size molecule, which would address your second concern.

    Therefore, if producing a gram of random RNAs is probable, producing a functional catalytic RNA becomes probable.
    A gram is a huge amount of RNA, as you showed. So what is the probability of forming this, or of forming just one RNA molecule?

    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.
    And it seems we know enough to know that the first biomolecules had to form randomly from their constituents! And are you saying we can never make a calculation without exhaustive knowledge?!

    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


    • #92
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Yockey used the same dishonest unethical applications of probability as Discovery Institute.
      Well, how so?

      Null hypothesis does not apply to scientific hypothesis, because the natural processes and laws of nature are not random as previously cited.
      "Testing ... the null hypothesis … is a central task in the modern practice of science" (Wikipedia)

      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.
      And are you familiar (I ask again) with five sigma? It's probability applied to science, notably to physics, were an event cannot be called a discovery until the probability(!) of it not happening is estimated to be more than five sigmas of standard deviation away from the mean.

      Source: physics.org

      the LHC looks for an excess number of times two photons are produced; with the excess number being produced by the Higgs Boson. Once the excess reaches a 5 sigma level, the Higgs is considered discovered.

      Source

      © Copyright Original Source



      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


      • #93
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        Well, how so?
        Natural LAws and natural processes are not random. Null Hypothesis ONLY applies to randomness as per your reference. As The Lurch indicated and you did not adequately respond concerning his objections to the meaningfulness of calculated Probabilities concerning abiogenesis and evolution. The Lurch has responded to this also.

        "Testing ... the null hypothesis … is a central task in the modern practice of science" (Wikipedia)
        It may be so, but again, again and again . . . the Natural Laws and natural processes involved with abiogenesis and evolution ARE NOT RANDOM. It still remains that falsifiable hypothesis has not been presented that would justify the improbability of abiogenesis and evolution based on probability estimates.

        Still waiting . . .
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-25-2020, 08:57 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


        • #94
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          I allowed for other ribozyme structures by allowing each nucleotide to change, I believe. And I tried to pick an average size molecule, which would address your second concern.
          No, you allowed each nucleotide to change because the majority of nucleotides matter in terms of whether they can base pair, not whether any particular nucleotide is present.

          Your calculation assumes that we're still working with a structural variant of this particular catalytic RNA. If there are completely unrelated structures that work, then you'd need to allow far more base variance than this.

          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          A gram is a huge amount of RNA, as you showed. So what is the probability of forming this, or of forming just one RNA molecule?
          Forming one RNA molecule? High. Forming a gram of RNA molecules? We have no idea, which is precisely the point. I can't tell you what the probability is. You can't tell me what the probability is. So we really have no clue, and therefore can't calculate any other probabilities based on that. Therefore, we're right where i said we were: without any idea of what the probability of this happening through natural mechanism is.

          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          And it seems we know enough to know that the first biomolecules had to form randomly from their constituents! And are you saying we can never make a calculation without exhaustive knowledge?!
          No, what i'm saying should be apparent from your own statement. If we don't know what the probability of forming the constituents are - and we don't - then we can't know what the probability of forming these biomolecules is.

          You appear to actually understand various parts of the big picture, but are somehow unable to put it together.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Natural LAws and natural processes are not random.
            Many natural processes are indeed random:

            Source: Brittanica

            The square of the wave function, Ψ2, however, does have physical significance: the probability of finding the particle described by a specific wave function Ψ at a given point and time is proportional to the value of Ψ2.

            Source

            © Copyright Original Source


            Or even the nightly weather report will give you the probability that it's going to rain.

            It may be so, but again, again and again . . . the Natural Laws and natural processes involved with abiogenesis and evolution ARE NOT RANDOM.
            How is it then that we can speak of the probability of a mutation at a given site?

            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


            • #96
              I'd rather see you respond to The Lurch's substantial responses, rather than nitpicking points of definition with Shunya.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                No, you allowed each nucleotide to change because the majority of nucleotides matter in terms of whether they can base pair, not whether any particular nucleotide is present.

                Your calculation assumes that we're still working with a structural variant of this particular catalytic RNA. If there are completely unrelated structures that work, then you'd need to allow far more base variance than this.
                I can allow a lot of variance with 1087 to work with. How many basic catalytic RNA types do you suppose there are? Thousands? Millions? They all get swallowed up by 1087.

                Forming one RNA molecule? High.
                Well, why so?

                No, what i'm saying should be apparent from your own statement. If we don't know what the probability of forming the constituents are - and we don't - then we can't know what the probability of forming these biomolecules is.
                But I'm granting that the constituents have already formed, all that's needed is assembly.

                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


                • #98
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  Many natural processes are indeed random:

                  Source: Brittanica

                  The square of the wave function, Ψ2, however, does have physical significance: the probability of finding the particle described by a specific wave function Ψ at a given point and time is proportional to the value of Ψ2.

                  Source

                  © Copyright Original Source


                  Or even the nightly weather report will give you the probability that it's going to rain.


                  How is it then that we can speak of the probability of a mutation at a given site?

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  This my friend DOES NOT refer to the randomness of the process, but the randomness of the single cause and effect event for the location of the particle.

                  As cited below.

                  the probability of finding the particle described by a specific wave function Ψ at a given point and time is proportional to the value of Ψ2.
                  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


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    I can allow a lot of variance with 1087 to work with. How many basic catalytic RNA types do you suppose there are? Thousands? Millions? They all get swallowed up by 1087.
                    You're still assuming that so many pieces have to come together. The way your argument works is to try to find the most probable path, and then argue that the probability is still too low to occur naturally. You argue that that the lowest probability is a short sequence of this length, but that assumes that RNA was the starting the molecule. It also assumes that the original organic soup consisted of catalytic chains formed by a series of ribozymes.

                    Those are two very specious assumptions, there is no reason to grant either. So at best case, if your argument was successful, you would have shown that RNA likely had precursors of some sort.

                    So far we know too little to estimate any probability of life occurring de novo. I think the approach of looking at catalytic cycles is the most probably avenue, but what the first cycles consisted of, and whether they were wholly organic or some mixture of organic and inorganic we don't know yet. We don't even have a good grasp of the chemical possibilities.

                    An argument for a creator here is nothing more than a god-of-the-gaps.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      This my friend DOES NOT refer to the randomness of the process, but the randomness of the single cause and effect event for the location of the particle.

                      As cited below.

                      the probability of finding the particle described by a specific wave function Ψ at a given point and time is proportional to the value of Ψ2.
                      And random events make up a random process:

                      Source: Wikipedia

                      In probability theory and related fields, a stochastic or random process is a mathematical object usually defined as a family of random variables. Historically, the random variables were associated with or indexed by a set of numbers, usually viewed as points in time, giving the interpretation of a stochastic process representing numerical values of some system randomly changing over time, such as the growth of a bacterial population, an electrical current fluctuating due to thermal noise, or the movement of a gas molecule.[1][4][5][6] Stochastic processes are widely used as mathematical models of systems and phenomena that appear to vary in a random manner. They have applications in many disciplines including sciences such as biology,[7] chemistry,[8] ecology,[9] neuroscience,[10] and physics[11] as well as technology and engineering fields such as image processing, signal processing,[12] information theory,[13] computer science,[14] cryptography[15] and telecommunications.[16]

                      Source

                      © Copyright Original Source


                      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


                      • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                        The way your argument works is to try to find the most probable path, and then argue that the probability is still too low to occur naturally.
                        Yes.

                        You argue that that the lowest probability is a short sequence of this length, but that assumes that RNA was the starting the molecule. It also assumes that the original organic soup consisted of catalytic chains formed by a series of ribozymes.
                        Well, as I have heard, the RNA-world hypothesis is the leading origin-of-life candidate.

                        So at best case, if your argument was successful, you would have shown that RNA likely had precursors of some sort.
                        I'm not sure I'm understanding you here, if the argument is successful, then natural causes are remotely improbable, pointing to a supernatural cause.

                        An argument for a creator here is nothing more than a god-of-the-gaps.
                        Unless we know enough to reasonably estimate the probability of natural causes. As in forensics, where if a natural cause is unlikely, we presume human intervention.

                        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


                        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          And random events make up a random process:

                          Source: Wikipedia

                          In probability theory and related fields, a stochastic or random process is a mathematical object usually defined as a family of random variables. Historically, the random variables were associated with or indexed by a set of numbers, usually viewed as points in time, giving the interpretation of a stochastic process representing numerical values of some system randomly changing over time, such as the growth of a bacterial population, an electrical current fluctuating due to thermal noise, or the movement of a gas molecule.[1][4][5][6] Stochastic processes are widely used as mathematical models of systems and phenomena that appear to vary in a random manner. They have applications in many disciplines including sciences such as biology,[7] chemistry,[8] ecology,[9] neuroscience,[10] and physics[11] as well as technology and engineering fields such as image processing, signal processing,[12] information theory,[13] computer science,[14] cryptography[15] and telecommunications.[16]

                          Source

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          When the laws of nature and natural processes form predictable falsifiable patterns as in abiogenesis and evolution it is not a random process by definition.

                          Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness



                          In the common parlance, randomness is the apparent lack of pattern or predictability in events.[1][2] A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but since they often follow a probability distribution, the frequency of different outcomes over numerous events (or "trials") is predictable.[3] For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than its haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          In the example given that each sample of an individual household is random, but the process of the over all sampling of the households is constrained by design and repeating the experiment will resulting a repeatable pattern.

                          An example of the problem is the ‘random number generator.’ It is in reality a ‘pseudo number generator, and reality the only thing random is the result of the selection of each individual number, The process of the chain of the numbers selected is not random. The range of possible numbers is constrained by design, and the pattern of the selected numbers is fractal and falls within a predictable range.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-26-2020, 09:19 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


                          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            I can allow a lot of variance with 1087 to work with. How many basic catalytic RNA types do you suppose there are? Thousands? Millions? They all get swallowed up by 1087.
                            I'm just going to suggest you read further into that thread. The paper you were citing for your description of the catalytic RNA calculated the probability of its formation at 1030 - rather substantially lower than yours. And you accepted that value for the remainder of the discussion.

                            Why are you suddenly resurrecting your calculation now? Are you just hoping the rest of us have memories that are as bad as yours?

                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            Well, why so?
                            Because we know a number of chemical conditions that are likely to have been present on the early earth under which RNA can form.

                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            But I'm granting that the constituents have already formed, all that's needed is assembly.
                            Because the probability of assembly is directly proportional to the total volume of constituents formed. Think of it this way: what's the probability of finding iron oxide in your yard? What's the probability if you dump a ton of unprotected iron in the yard? It goes up, right? That's basic statistical mechanics.

                            The formation of biomolecules works the same way - it's all just chemistry.
                            Last edited by TheLurch; 01-27-2020, 08:01 AM.
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • I'm going to step back from the stupidity of these arguments to address the general issue here: can we ever say "we know enough right now to say this is too low probability to happen naturally?" I'd like to remind people of a little history.

                              Several decades ago, we knew of no catalytic RNAs; the RNA world didn't exist as a hypothesis.
                              A couple of decades ago, we didn't know of any catalytic RNAs that linked nucleotides into RNAs.
                              A bit over a decade ago, we identified the first RNA ligase ribozyme. It could link two RNA molecules together, but couldn't add in individual nucleotides.
                              About a decade ago, we discovered a variant of that ligase that could do limited copying of some template RNAs, but wasn't a general polymerase.
                              Later today, a paper will be released describing the first RNA polymerase ribozyme. It's too error prone to maintain itself stably at the moment, but its discoverers are continuing to evolve it.

                              If, at any point in this history, people had said "we know enough to say what the probability is", they would have been blatantly wrong. Yet that's precisely what Lee would have science do.
                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment


                              • 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.
                                Which assumption is not only unjustified, but actually contradicted by your own source, which described a ribozyme with only three conserved nucleotides and gave probabilities 30 orders of magnitude higher than yours.

                                You vanished from that previous thread after your posts were exposed as nothing but quote-mines, hypocrisy, ignorance, evasion, strawmen and outright lies. But here you are making the exact same claims.
                                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X