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

  • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, how so?


    "Testing ... the null hypothesis … is a central task in the modern practice of science" (Wikipedia)


    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.
    Yes, the Null Hypothesis is widely used in science, nonetheless you are terribly, out of context, misusing Null Hypothesis. I used the Null hypothesis when I was in graduate school when testing. The Null Hypothesis is used in research to validate or reject a null hypothesis within a certain confidence level. It is not used in science as you propose to use it causing confusion.

    Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/null_hypothesis.asp



    The null hypothesis is the initial statistical claim that the population mean is equivalent to the claimed. For example, assume the average time to cook a specific brand of pasta is 12 minutes. Therefore, the null hypothesis would be stated as, "The population mean is equal to 12 minutes." Conversely, the alternative hypothesis is the hypothesis that is accepted if the null hypothesis is rejected.


    Hypothesis testing allows a mathematical model to validate or reject a null hypothesis within a certain confidence level. Statistical hypotheses are tested using a four-step process. The first step is for the analyst to state the two hypotheses so that only one can be right. The next step is to formulate an analysis plan, which outlines how the data will be evaluated. The third step is to carry out the plan and physically analyze the sample data. The fourth and final step is to analyze the results and either accept or reject the null hypothesis.

    Analysts look to reject the null hypothesis to rule out some variable(s) as explaining the phenomena of interest.
    Null Hypothesis Example
    Here is a simple example: A school principal reports that students in her school score an average of 7 out of 10 in exams. To test this “hypothesis,” we record marks of say 30 students (sample) from the entire student population of the school (say 300) and calculate the mean of that sample. We can then compare the (calculated) sample mean to the (reported) population mean and attempt to confirm the hypothesis.

    Take another example: the annual return of a particular mutual fund is 8%. Assume that mutual fund has been in existence for 20 years. We take a random sample of annual returns of the mutual fund for, say, five years (sample) and calculate its mean. We then compare the (calculated) sample mean to the (claimed) population mean to verify the hypothesis.

    Usually, the reported value (or the claim statistics) is stated as the hypothesis and presumed to be true. For the above examples, hypothesis will be:

    Example A: Students in the school score an average of 7 out of 10 in exams.
    Example B: Annual return of the mutual fund is 8% per annum.
    This stated description constitutes the “Null Hypothesis (H0)” and is assumed to be true – the way a defendant in a jury trial is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the evidence presented in court. Similarly, hypothesis testing starts by stating and assuming a “null hypothesis,” and then the process determines whether the assumption is likely to be true or false.

    The important point to note is that we are testing the null hypothesis because there is an element of doubt about its validity. Whatever information that is against the stated null hypothesis is captured in the Alternative Hypothesis (H1). For the above examples, the alternative hypothesis would be:

    Students score an average that is not equal to 7. The annual return of the mutual fund is not equal to 8% per annum. In other words, the alternative hypothesis is a direct contradiction of the null hypothesis.

    © Copyright Original Source

    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 TheLurch View Post
      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.
      Well, I was asked for my calculation.

      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.
      But I've granted unlimited resources, unlimited constituents, all that is 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


      • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        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.
        And all of these require a ribozyme, which appears to be inordinately improbable to form.

        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.
        Well, not blatantly wrong. In all these scenarios, you still need major biomolecules to form randomly, which is the sticking point throughout.

        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 shunyadragon View Post
          The Null Hypothesis is used in research to validate or reject a null hypothesis within a certain confidence level. It is not used in science as you propose to use it causing confusion.
          I'm not proposing, I'm quoting how people in science use it, have you heard of five sigma? But nature is full of random processes, and you are denying this.

          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


          • Next post. Is probability use in the science of evolution and abiogenesis? Yes.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-27-2020, 07:48 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'm not proposing, I'm quoting how people in science use it, have you heard of five sigma? But nature is full of random processes, and you are denying this.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              Yes you are! If not why even bring it up?
              They use it in design of research projects as I described, and NOT as you propose to use it.
              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
                Well, I was asked for my calculation.
                Well, if you've been asked to provide a value that you already know is wrong, wouldn't the honest thing be to acknowledge that, and provide the right one?

                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                But I've granted unlimited resources, unlimited constituents, all that is needed is assembly.
                Then it's inevitable. Given enough time and enough raw materials, any low probability event will eventually occur.

                You really don't get probabilities, do you?
                Last edited by TheLurch; 01-27-2020, 07:50 PM.
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  Well, if you've been asked to provide a value that you already know is wrong, wouldn't the honest thing be to acknowledge that, and provide the right one?
                  Well, I did call my estimate a back-of-the-envelope. But I would be glad to focus on Hubert Yockey's estimate or the estimate in this other paper.

                  Then it's inevitable. Given enough time and enough raw materials, any low probability event will eventually occur.
                  Then the question becomes, do we have enough time? Life appears almost (geologically speaking) immediately upon conditions being compatible with life.

                  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


                  • In the science of evolution probability is used to falsify hypothesis in calculating the rate of mutation using genetic algorithms in for example estimating genetic drift. What you have to have first a falsifiable hypothesis. For example:

                    Source: http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch245.pdf



                    Genetic drift, selection and the evolution of the mutation rate

                    Michael Lynch, Matthew S. Ackerman, Jean-Francois Gout, Hongan Long,
                    Way Sung, W. Kelley Thomas and Patricia L. Foster

                    Abstract | As one of the few cellular traits that can be quantified across the tree of life, DNA-replication fidelity provides an excellent platform for understanding fundamental evolutionary processes. Furthermore, because mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, clarifying why mutation rates vary is crucial for understanding all areas of biology. A potentially revealing hypothesis for mutation-rate evolution is that natural selection primarily operates to improve replication fidelity, with the ultimate limits to what can be achieved set by the power of random genetic drift. This drift-barrier hypothesis is consistent with comparative measures of mutation rates, provides a simple explanation for the existence of error-prone polymerases and yields a formal counter-argument to the view that selection fine-tunes gene-specific mutation rates.

                    As mutation affects essentially every aspect of biology, the development of a unifying theory for mutation-rate evolution is highly
                    desirable. There is much to be explained. For although the base-substitution mutation rate (u) in all organisms is low
                    (<10–7 mutations per nucleotide site per generation), the rates in some species are more than 1,000-fold below this level. This
                    large range of variation implies that the accuracy of DNA replication and repair in most, if not all, species is less than what is
                    possible at the biochemical level. It has been argued that mutation rates, even at the single-gene level, have been fine-tuned by natural selection
                    to maximize long-term survival and evolvability1–4, yet there is no direct empirical or theoretical evidence that this is generally the case. If such adaptive
                    mutation-rate arguments are valid, they will need to explain why the evolved mutation rate in microorganisms is 100- to 1,000-fold lower than that in vertebrates.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-27-2020, 09:23 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
                      Well, I did call my estimate a back-of-the-envelope. But I would be glad to focus on Hubert Yockey's estimate or the estimate in this other paper.


                      Then the question becomes, do we have enough time? Life appears almost (geologically speaking) immediately upon conditions being compatible with life.
                      Even in geology, 400 million years is not "immediately".
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                        Even in geology, 400 million years is not "immediately".
                        But where are you getting 400 million years from?

                        Source: Wikipedia

                        The earliest known life forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms found in hydrothermal vent precipitates.[1] The earliest time that life forms first appeared on Earth is at least 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years,[1] or even 4.5 billion years;[3][4] not long after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2][5][6] The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks.

                        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 lee_merrill View Post
                          But where are you getting 400 million years from?

                          Source: Wikipedia

                          The earliest known life forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms found in hydrothermal vent precipitates.[1] The earliest time that life forms first appeared on Earth is at least 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years,[1] or even 4.5 billion years;[3][4] not long after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2][5][6] The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks.

                          Source

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          None of these dates reflect 'immediately,' They are simply fossil evidence we have at present for the earliest life forms.

                          Life did form near the time that continental drift began and oceans formed, but the range in time is ~millions? of years by the present evidence. The pre-life necessary chemicals and desirable environment, of course, would exist in this time range, but there is no evidence that it happened 'immediately.'

                          It is possible that life formed in in a range of time from hot spring environments around early ocean floor spreading to actual early oceans, may be in the range of half a billion years. Simply life eventually did form sometime in this time frame.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-27-2020, 11:01 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
                            But where are you getting 400 million years from?

                            Source: Wikipedia

                            The earliest known life forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms found in hydrothermal vent precipitates.[1] The earliest time that life forms first appeared on Earth is at least 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years,[1] or even 4.5 billion years;[3][4] not long after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2][5][6] The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks.

                            Source

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            Always worth checking the actual references. For the "maybe 4.5 billion", one is a press release for a paper, the second is the actual paper, which simply says >3.9 billion years.

                            So, the gap between the formation of the earth and confirmed evidence is over 700 million years. 400 was a conservative estimate, allowing that life is probably older than the first clear evidence.
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              Always worth checking the actual references. For the "maybe 4.5 billion", one is a press release for a paper, the second is the actual paper, which simply says >3.9 billion years.

                              So, the gap between the formation of the earth and confirmed evidence is over 700 million years. 400 was a conservative estimate, allowing that life is probably older than the first clear evidence.
                              Did you notice this, though?

                              Source:

                              We find that the last universal common ancestor of cellular life (LUCA) predated the end of late heavy bombardment (>3.9 Ga)

                              Source

                              © Copyright Original Source


                              Though they say that the late heavy bombardment would not have sterilized the planet, this indicates that life got an early start, under hostile conditions, even.

                              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
                                Did you notice this, though?

                                Source:

                                We find that the last universal common ancestor of cellular life (LUCA) predated the end of late heavy bombardment (>3.9 Ga)

                                Source

                                © Copyright Original Source


                                Though they say that the late heavy bombardment would not have sterilized the planet, this indicates that life got an early start, under hostile conditions, even.

                                Blessings,
                                Lee
                                '. . . under most horrible conditions,even.' represents your over the top religious agenda not science. The scientific evidence in the beginnings of the ocean and the mid ocean ridge may be severe by our comfortable standards, but it was the same environment that occurs now in the mid ocean ridge of today's oceans, a rather severe environment where we could not survive.

                                This selective bias with a religious agenda does not equate to 'immediate,' but yes, millions of years. Yes the bombardment did not sterilize the planet, but most likely delivered the necessary amino acids for the formation, found in meteorites and nit naturally present on earth, for the first life. The problem remains the phony dishonest use of probability concluding abiogenesis taking place cannot put any sort of 'time limit' of your bogus claim of improbability to the point of not possibly, actually impossible, to happen as in your response here:

                                Originally posted by Leonhard
                                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.
                                Originally posted by lee-merrill
                                Yes.
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-28-2020, 10:59 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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by TheLurch, 01-18-2021, 12:27 PM
                                46 responses
                                203 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by lee_merrill, 01-16-2021, 03:43 PM
                                2 responses
                                36 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post TheLurch  
                                Started by rogue06, 01-15-2021, 04:43 PM
                                14 responses
                                80 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by TheLurch, 01-15-2021, 07:40 AM
                                36 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 01-13-2021, 04:55 PM
                                7 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X