Ask Darwinists

[Gator]

PA, I belive the "study" you posted is poor impletmentation of statistics. Basically it is bad.

Ignoring the basic misrepresentations and just obvious lack of proper statistics, the "paper" concludes with:

"With all of these assumptions, we find that the probability of
assembling the RNA required for even the most primitive (12-14)
cell by random processes in the time available is no more than one
in 1079."

He pays lip service to "Oh my assumptions are simple" and "its so complex that it needs fine tuning", but in the end HE SAYS IT IS POSSIBLE!

So I thank the author of this paper for the thought experiment and so clearly stating it as possible that life can evolve without a creator.

Thanks.

 

[جوري]

PA, I belive the "study" you posted is poor impletmentation of statistics. Basically it is bad.

I disagree that it is a poor 'implementation' what are you basing your opinion on? he uses all the variables known and needed for that random first assembly with known documented data, if you think it is bad, perhaps you can point out what he has missed and what you'd offer instead using the same scientific approach?

Ignoring the basic misrepresentations and just obvious lack of proper statistics, the "paper" concludes with:

"With all of these assumptions, we find that the probability of
assembling the RNA required for even the most primitive (12-14)
cell by random processes in the time available is no more than one
in 1079."

I'd rather you not ignore the basic misrepresentation and proper statistics, I have no reservation on abjuring conclusions reached in this paper should you actually sit down and offer a counter sound and scientific rebuttal-- further on the matter of (12-14), that would be in fact the smallest number used to have a 'functional' protein and that is actually much smaller than viruses, try to visualize the size of a virus to that of a cell and then go smaller...had you actually continued on reading ---
viruses aren't considered living organisms by modern day standards, in other words they need a host cell to function and hijack its enzymes or 'machinery' for replication and functionality! I don't think he can go any lower than 12-14 coming in together on their own volition based on some random environmental phenomenon, and have it be realistic, and still 12-14 in and of itself still needs some other support system to enable it to thrive and survive!
He uses this of course because all the theories of early 'life forms' point to evolution from a single celled organism!

He pays lip service to "Oh my assumptions are simple" and "its so complex that it needs fine tuning", but in the end HE SAYS IT IS POSSIBLE!

So I thank the author of this paper for the thought experiment and so clearly stating it as possible that life can evolve without a creator.

Thanks.

That is not what he is saying at all...Perhaps you have skimmed over most of it? and thought we have done the same? he has covered all grounds, from the age of the earth, conditions of the sun that make life on this earth favorable, to random assembly of a simple life form all the way to a complex one, starting in the first 1.1 billion yrs using carbon dating and known fossilized elements, and in fact leaves you two or three websites http://www.uni-muenster.de/GeoPalaeontologie/Palaeo/Palbot/seite1.html
with the earliest dated fossils which he has included in his research and further calculates the possibilites having given the earth even a few more billion yrs under its belt for a few trials and errors along the way... thus in the end it is open for you to draw your own conclusion and interpretation with the science presented, which is the most any scientist can really offer you...
You are free to challenge him on the same grounds, not merely because it doesn't appeal to you on a personal level!


cheers!

 

[Gator]

That is not what he is saying at all...!

Does he give a positive probabililty to the possibility of the structure he defined.

Thanks.

 

[جوري]

Does he give a positive probabililty to the possibility of the structure he defined.

Thanks.

I am sorry I don't understand your question?...

The number he uses is the lowest number that he can possibly use for it to be a 'functional AA' and that is the operative word... he uses a number below known viruses

<< 12-14 is smaller than that, and still 12-14 amino acids would not be self-sustaining. As a virus is not considered living until it infects a cell and hijacks its machinery, like so

and he takes it from there and then making ample room for error, and accounting for all the variables in mathematical equations...I couldn't possibly summarize for you a paper that is in and of itself a summary as so stated on the first page.. I suggest you read it and then ask pertinent questions or challenge him on statistical or molecular biology error..

cheers

 

[Gator]

The number he uses is the lowest number that he can possibly use for it to be a 'functional AA' and that is the operative word...

Hey PA, I did read it. Sorry I did but I did read it.

I repeat my question with regards to the structure you say he uses above. The question is relevant, in my view. If its not in yours please ignore and let me know what happened to the Satan thread.

Thanks.

 

[جوري]

Hey PA, I did read it. Sorry I did but I did read it.

I repeat my question with regards to the structure you say he uses above. The question is relevant, in my view. If its not in yours please ignore and let me know what happened to the Satan thread.

Thanks.

I am sorry I don't understand your question?...perhaps you can take into account that I am a meek woman from the middle east whose first language isn't English and explain it in terms I can understand?

I don't know what happened to your 'satan thread'? I am not a mod, perhaps you can direct your question with regard to other threads to them..

thank you
cheers

 

[Woodrow]

I am certain statistics is an interesting field of study. However, the problem with statistical analysis is it can only measure what it is designed to measure and often that is not visible or is lost in the process.

If possible let us get away from the math. math only gives most of us headaches and is not even understood by most of us.

The best answers are those that are the simplest and can be stated with either yes or no.

Is it a possibility that life came about as the result of a creator's plan. Yes

Is it probable it could come about by random chance. No

Is it possible that whatever or whoever directed the creation of life, did so with intellectual foresight. Yes

Could life have come about by simple interaction of chemical reactions. Yes
Would that result in a very limited life form: Yes

Do I believe life is the deliberate planning of Allaah(swt) Yes

Have I seen evidence of that? Yes

 

[Gator]

I am certain statistics is an interesting field of study. However, the problem with statistical analysis is it can only measure what it is designed to measure and often that is not visible or is lost in the process.

If possible let us get away from the math. math only gives most of us headaches and is not even understood by most of us.

The best answers are those that are the simplest and can be stated with either yes or no.

Is it a possibility that life came about as the result of a creator's plan. Yes (Yes)

Is it probable it could come about by random chance. No (Yes).

Is it possible that whatever or whoever directed the creation of life, did so with intellectual foresight. Yes (Yes)

Could life have come about by simple interaction of chemical reactions. Yes (Yes)
Would that result in a very limited life form: Yes (No)

Do I believe life is the deliberate planning of Allaah(swt) Yes (No)

Have I seen evidence of that? Yes (No)

Your right, without math its much easier.

Thanks.

 

[Woodrow]

Your right, without math its much easier.

Thanks.

True and we have just reduced the problem to the few areas we actually disagree with.




Is it probable it could come about by random chance. No (Yes).



Could life have come about by simple interaction of chemical reactions. Yes (Yes)
Would that result in a very limited life form: Yes (No)

These last 2 are strictly personal experience and neither can be disputed

Do I believe life is the deliberate planning of Allaah(swt) Yes (No)

Have I seen evidence of that? Yes (No)

Which leaves us with just these 2 areas of disagrement:

Is it probable it could come about by random chance. No (Yes).



Could life have come about by simple interaction of chemical reactions. Yes (Yes)
Would that result in a very limited life form: Yes (No)

Of these only one question needs to be disputed or discussed:

Is it probable it could come about by random chance. No (Yes).

 

[Woodrow]

Now that we have this down to one statement which is:

Is it probable it could come about by random chance. No (Yes).[/QUOTE]

and since it is impossible to prove a negative the burin of proof falls upon the one accepting the positive aspect,

so please offer proof : "that life probably came about by random chance."

 

[Gator]

True and we have just reduced the problem to the few areas we actually disagree with. OK

Is it probable it could come about by random chance. No (Yes).

Could life have come about by simple interaction of chemical reactions. Yes (Yes)
Would that result in a very limited life form: Yes (No)

These last 2 are strictly personal experience and neither can be disputed. Do you mean the last two above or the next two?

Do I believe life is the deliberate planning of Allaah(swt) Yes (No)

Have I seen evidence of that? Yes (No)

Which leaves us with just these 2 areas of disagrement:

Is it probable it could come about by random chance. No (Yes).



Could life have come about by simple interaction of chemical reactions. Yes (Yes)
Would that result in a very limited life form: Yes (No)

Of these only one question needs to be disputed or discussed:

Is it probable it could come about by random chance. No (Yes). Why just this one?

OK, I didn't quite get the jist of this but I will follow where you go.

 

[Gator]

Now that we have this down to one statement which is:

Is it probable it could come about by random chance. No (Yes).

and since it is impossible to prove a negative the burin of proof falls upon the one accepting the positive aspect,

so please offer proof : "that life probably came about by random chance."

There is no proof in Philosophical discussions. This end here unless you want to rephrase your question.

Perhaps "why do you believe that it is possible that life came about by random chance".

thanks.

 

[Woodrow]

OK, I didn't quite get the jist of this but I will follow where you go.

Quite simple all of the other questions are dependent on the answer to this one.

Is it probable it could come about by random chance. No (Yes). Why just this one?

Therefor it is the only question that needs to be answered.

Show me why it is probable life came about by Random chance and I will have no factual basis to back up any of my claims.

 

[Gator]

Quite simple all of the other questions are dependent on the answer to this one.

Is it probable it could come about by random chance. No (Yes). Why just this one?

Therefor it is the only question that needs to be answered.

Show me why it is probable life came about by Random chance and I will have no factual basis to back up any of my claims.

Well what if life is actually the result of a definitive chemical reaction with no randomness invovled at all? What if randomness doesn't exist and its just a subjective probablity matrix we impose on the universe because we can't fathom the gaussian (non-random and highly complex) process that underlies existence?

In that case the "it is possible that life evolved from chemical reactions" is also in play.

 

[Woodrow]

Well what if life is actually the result of a definitive chemical reaction with no randomness invovled at all? What if randomness doesn't exist and its just a subjective probablity matrix we impose on the universe because we can't fathom the gaussian (non-random and highly complex) process that underlies existence?

In that case the "it is possible that life evolved from chemical reactions" is also in play.

It is impossible to disprove a possibility as a possibility merely says "some thing can be, if the conditions for it, can be met."

Therefore it is possible to shove a 34,000 ton, 12 legged, flying green rhinoceros through the left nostril of a Ruby Throated humming bird, without harming the bird. All I have to do is find the proper conditions. If I can't find the conditions, it could just mean I am looking in the wrong places. If I learn what the right conditions to do it are, I can do it.

 

[Gator]

Agreed.

Look, these discussions are just philosophical right. From your earlier post, each one of these questions is a matter of personal view. We don't know for sure.

That's why I said it was possible that a god could have created everything eventhough I myself believe its it not what happened.

The only thing we can do is to discuss why we believe what we believe.

If you want to continue on this level ok. If you want 100% locked down scientific proof, let's call it a day.

Thanks.

 

[جوري]

Well what if life is actually the result of a definitive chemical reaction with no randomness invovled at all? .

When you say no randomness was involved, you are in fact admitting to a guided process and that is the 'creationist approach' which would render this argument self-defeating as far as any atheist is concerned!
here is a good book on the mathematics behind molecular biology.. Indeed I'll agree that most people who read this book will conclude that there is an intelligent thought to life and not simply favorable happenstances!

http://books.google.com/books?id=_E...ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=VihWMWC9sNwd45Puvv9i55WtsCo


cheers!

 

[Gator]

When you say no randomness was involved, you are in fact admitting to a guided process and that is the 'creationist approach' which would render this argument self-defeating as far as any atheist is concerned!

HA! Good try.

Like when water turns to ice when it gets below a certain temperature. I'll be sure to thank the ice god next time I have a Slushy (mmmm....Slushy).

Thanks.

Interesting. I'll read the link.

 

[جوري]

HA! Good try.

Like when water turns to ice when it gets below a certain temperature. I'll be sure to thank the ice god next time I have a Slushy.

Thanks.

I have no idea what that means or how it is applicable to the topic at hand? It is perhaps something in the human psychology to want to render everything that challenges one's own mantra to some low common fraction, and have it be an object of ridicule; and in that is some gratification that averting the vision to what is so evidently obvious to most is in fact justified!

Look, I have said it once and I'll say it a million times if need be, just because an atheist holds on to a certain belief and that is in fact what it is a belief, should it set them apart from the rest of the 'creationists' -- the way some of you use the term as if some sort of revilement...

we can in fact amicably agree to diagree and that to me would be the civilized approach!


cheers!

 

[Woodrow]

Agreed.

Look, these discussions are just philosophical right. From your earlier post, each one of these questions is a matter of personal view. We don't know for sure.

Fair enough as from each of our perspectives that is what we perceive of the other.

That's why I said it was possible that a god could have created everything eventhough I myself believe its it not what happened.

Agreed that is your belief and you have your own reasons to believe so, just as I have my reasons to believe as I do.

The only thing we can do is to discuss why we believe what we believe.

True

If you want to continue on this level ok. If you want 100% locked down scientific proof, let's call it a day.

At this point I doubt if either of us would consider what the other says to be 100% locked down scientific proof to be that.

Thanks.

You're Welcome