Question about probabilities and the conditions of life

I think you know where this thread will go, but...

Here you have answered your own question.

The life on earth is uniquely adapted for the conditions on earth. The idea if some condition or some constant were slightly different means that life as we know it would not be possible is very weak. Such a change might preclude life as we know it but not life specifically.

Again, you are already headed in the right direction. Even very improbable things eventually happen given enough trials. As far as abiogenesis goes, how that may have happened is lost to time. However, there are some very promising leads involved and those who know the most about it think that given time that it is probable, not improbable, that life will emerge, given the right conditions.

There are a number of problems with such calculations.

The first is to assume that such a chain must pop into existance from nothing at all. In reality, most such chains would be the product of a selective process, being built up gradually so calculating the odds of the final chain spontaneously assembling does not match reality and is therefore invalid.

The second major problem is to assume that there is only one answer. Lab studies have shown that for a given function, there are usually a huge number of proteins that would do the job. Millions. Billions. Trillions. Maybe more. So while one particular protein actually does the job, many others could have and thus lowers the bar considerably.

I'll leave it at those two for now.

But there is an interesting aside to that final paragraph. While millions of possiblities would work, as it turns out, the actual genes that we have can be reduced to a relatively small number of families. In each family, many genes with the same basic templete each have small changes that enable them to perform sometime very different roles. In many cases, copies of the intermediate genes between the orignial template and the actual gene remain in the genome as pseudogenes. This preserves for us one of the methods in which new genes for new proteins are produced without having to assume the convaluted calculation procedures of some.

 

You have blended TWO DIFFERENT questions as if they are the same.

#1. COULD GOD create life with ANY difference at all to what we see on earth?

Obviously when we look at the massive diversity that HE CREATED here we can easily conclude that He is INTELLIGENT enough to DESIGN life some place else - in a context where some of the variables change.

#2. COULD we "Believe" that LIFE JUST HAPPENs -- no matter HOW statistically impossible.

In other words - could we factor out God and "imagine" that the painting "paints itself" no matter HOW statistically impossible?

After all -- when rain falls in mud - a "pattern" of some sort develops no matter how random.

Maybe -- just maybe "a Rembrant will just HAPPEN" even though it is statiscally impossible.

You have to pick one of those and pursue it.

I think I know which one UTEOTW would PREFER to focus on ---

 

You need to be specific. NOT ALL evolutionists say that. ID evolutionists specifically deny it.

But atheist darwinism INSISTS on that being the case SINCE the STARTING point for an atheist is "THERE IS NO GOD". So the fact that they CAN NOT (even artificially) assemble a living cell in the lab (no matter how artificially they contrive the experiment) they must "BY FAITH" believe that even WITHOUT the millions of dollars in research equip - it would "HAPPEN ON ITS OWN" - they just do not have the intelligence to create and design the technology to do it -- yet!

Still the devotees to that religion of atheist darwinism would "believe no matter what" the failure in the lab to "contrive and manufacture" actual success. They would gladly settle for "thought experiments" instead.

#1. In "thought experiments" they could say "no matter what we SEE in the LAB and in real life" failing combinations might have worked on some other planet.

But faithfully "imagining" such stories is NOT the same thing as data, or proof or evidence or fact - it is not even science! It is the purest form of religion practiced in the field of atheist darwinism.

"There is no God -- so although I can not get this act of creation to HAPPEN in my lab -- I am sure it WOULD happen -- it MUST happen for after all -- there IS NO God".

#2. The OTHER HUGE problem is that you CAN artifically arrange amino acid chains and given enough "Chances" you might even get one that has the right sequence as long as it is not one of the common 200 sequence versions. The problem is it takes a long list - a "cast of thousands" of this wonderful magical "special though experiment WINS" to make up the list of proteins needed for ONE single cell. Your one-shot wonder example is only going to give you AT BEST one protein in the loooooooong list "needed.

#3. EVEN THEN it will not get you a VIABLE protein because ALL the amino acids have to be of ONE chiral orientation (left handed) and nobody has found a way to produce all the proteins needed by a cell so that they are all left handed (chemistry argues for random (50/50) distribution of left-and-right when it comes to amino acid chains). So A LOT of "just so" thought experiments are needed "by faith" to build that successful result.

#5. The achieved RESULT would be to have all the enzymes and proteins etc NEEDED to assemble a single cell -- IF you could possibly IMAGINE yourself that far down the road by "atheist faith" going on the idea that "There is NO God so even though this is impossible in the lab today SOMEDAY our technology will advance to the point that we CAN manufacture ALL the proteins enzymes components needed for ONE single living cell". -- The PROBLEM is that you can have that today in a heart beat just by DISSECTING a single cell. Just say "miracle goes here and PRESTO suppose I had all the PARTS" by STARTING with a a living cell and dissecting it. NOW -- put it back to gether. PROBLEM. "CAN'T"!!!!

It is one thing to say that my "entertainment center" will never have all of the wood, carving, bolts etc "OCCUR" in nature. It is ANOTHER to say "EVEN when I have the parts -- by taking one apart - I can not ASSEMBLE the piece of furniture". Atheist Darwinists have BOTH problems! ID evolutionists stopped banging their head against that wall a long time ago.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ask Bob to substantiate any of his claims...

Ask him to show how this is "statistically impossible."

Many scientists are of the opinion that given liquid water and time, life is almost inevitable. So on just what basis do you conclude "impossible?"

And you answer really needs to have some references. Remember I have already given you two full posts of references for which you had no response.

This is what is known as a strawman fallacy. Just ask Bob to name you a single experiment where one has tried to go from making precursors all the way to life as we know it.

No one has tried. So how can Bob claim that there has been such an attempt that has been a "failure." Just ask Bob to show you that this is not a strawman by showing you one example of a failed experiment.

Bob has also been given a long list of references showing how many of the proposed steps have been tested individually and how many of these experiments have been successful.

Funny how Bob ignores these and insists on "failed" and impossible" without a shred of evidence on his own.

See, I told you that they ignore the gradual buildup of really useful stuff and they ignore the observation that there are many sequences that work for a given function.

Another strawman fallacy folks.

As has been shown to Bob many times in the past, complete with references, there are common materials which act as catalysts to form chains all of the same chiral orientation and then help to stabalize them. Things like some clays, among other substances.

But there is yet another strawman here.

Bob asserts that you need to make amino acids. Yet the scenario proposed by science goes through lipids and RNA first. Once you have RNA, it will assmble the right chiral amino acids all by itself for it is an all right handed chiral compound. A compound which, as noted above, can be made in the right orientation by common materials in nature.

Another strawman.

Again, this is not what is proposed.

Basically, the expected scenario gets you to a point where you make RNA. Some RNA is known to catalyze the making of copies of itself. From here, any change that makes the RNA able to make better copies is selected for. A cell is way down the road but no one belives that all the right peices just randomly popped together one day.

So what we see is that Bob argues mainly with fallacious strawmen that do nothing to address what is actually proposed. He also ignores documented lab evidence showing that specific asssertions are false.

He has a lot of smoke and mirrors but in the end it is all obfuscation.

 

Oh, and here are link to some of the references that support my assertions. Ask Bob for peer reviewed support for his assertions.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=802186&highlight=meteorite#post802186

I think that link will take you to the first post with references in the thread. If no, the following links to the two posts individually.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=802185&postcount=37

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=802186&postcount=38

 

He did...on this planet. It's called vegetation.

 

Where did the water come from?

 

You've been lied to

>#2. COULD we "Believe" that LIFE JUST HAPPENs -- no matter HOW statistically impossible.


Person who says this has never studied statistics and/or is intentionally lying. Easier to explain with an example. The Washinton State lottery ticket states "Overall Odds 1:27." This doesn't mean that one must buy 27 tickets to win something because the statement implies the existance of 27 equally probable combinations of numbers. A person is equally likely to have a winner on the first ticket as the 27th ticket.

The liars omit the "equally probable event" in their statements. The statement, "The odds against (whatever) are a billion trillion to one" is an admission that (whatever) is statistically and physically possible. As possible on the first trial as on the billion trillionth trial.

 

French mathematician and Nobel prize winner - Emile Borel. Borel maintained that if the probability against a selected event is less than one in 10 EXP 50 (that's a one followed by fifty zeroes), then the event does not happen anywhere in the universe--ever. In other words, we may consider the probability as not merely small, but zero.

My question is -- when you define the group "liars" did you include Borel?

If the odds against my house suddenly bursting into a "something from nothing" universe of its own (you know like the big bang fable with entirely different laws of physics working in perfect balance the first micro second of that explosion) -- is a ba-zillion to one THIS minute and is ALSO a ba-zillion to one in the NEXT minute -- does that mean that I should think that "IT CAN HAPPEN AT ANY MINUTE!!"

Or should the "ba-zillion" thing "tell me something"???

Borel thinks the odds should have meaning to me - and that makes sense to me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So now all you have to do is to make a case that the odds of life are less than 1 to 1*10^50. I hope you have some peer reviewed references.

In the mean time I have an experiemnt for you to do. Take a deck of cards. Shuffle them or not. Now deal out all 52 cards and look at the order.

The odds against that particular order is about 8*10^67. This means that you have just done something that is 8*10^17 less likely than what you just told us was impossible odds.

 

Lacking actual imperical data UTEOTW resorts to "Story telling" to PROVE that LIFE will POP INTO BEING if given water.

This is the sad "basis" for the story telling that passes as "evidence" among the true believers in the cult of atheist darwinism.

NOTHING in the lab supports these stories so they simply "tell them anyway" as if "stories EASY ENOUGH TO TELL are valid substitutes for science fact".

How sad.

How much more a tragedy when someone with a Christian background joins such a cult.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Since UTEOTW seems more interested in making his faith based argument for atheist darwinism HERE on this thread instead of the atheist thread already started for his topic --

If you will read a good treatise on something as "simple" as, say, the synthesis of protein molecules by random processes from a racemic mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids, you will discover that Borel's theorem pronounces evolution as utterly impossible in the universe. Even the simplest useful proteins (insulin, for example) are utterly impossible to form by chance. (For one thing, all of the amino acids selected from the mixture have to be left-handed. And proteins are very, very long polymers! Furthermore, the specific sequences are critically important to the properties of the protein. Even if you could get the gods of chance to string together literally scores of left-handed amino acids--i.e., with no right-handed insertions--you would still have a worthless product. Besides, even if you could get one useful protein molecule, it would be useless after all. The problem is, you would need thousands of copies exactly like it in the same location--and the gods of chance are not powerful enough to do that!)

 

In Romans 1 GOD says that the "Invisible attributes of God" (of which inteillence is the first and most basic) are CLEARLY SEEN in the "things that have been made" EVEN by unbelieving Pagans!!

Francis Crick] An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. [Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner and biochemist, was the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule.]
Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 88.

 

Just in case anyone missed it, I must point out that Bob presented not a single reference to support his assertions, he did not respond at all to the critiques of his first round of posts and he merely thought it to be good form to simply return to his strawmen from the first round without even addressing what was replied to that strawman the first time around.

Pay close attention to what he has done here.

First off, current theories of abiogenesis have RNA before proteins. This means that you have no need to make these long complex proteins from random mixtures of amino acids. The RNA came first and RNA itself can serve as both information carrying molecules, like DNA does in most life today, and RNA can act as a catalyst in the same way the proteins do in most life today. Once you have RNA, it can make the proper amino acids and arrange them correctly. Bob builds his amino acid strawman by ignoring that no ones hypothesizes what he suggests.

Second, he ignores data that shows that there are a huge number of sequences that will satisfy most functions. He is still sticking to the strawman that only one sequence will work.

Next, he throws out his repeated strawman of only being able to get a racemic mixtures of amino acids into a random protein. He has been provided will references repeatedly that show that catalysts can produce RNA strands of the same chiral orientation. Why he continues to knock over this strawman instead of ever addressing the references presented to him we cannot know. I guess it is too hard to argue against truth so he ignores it.

Bob seem only able to argue against strawman versions of science and not against science itself. He has no references and seems to pretend that references presented to him don't exist.

What do you think this says about the quality of his arguments?

 

And here Bob returns to another of his strawmen.

Bob likes to tell how scientists have "failed" to ever replicate the complete path of abiogenesis in the lab. What he cannot tell you is the name of any scientist who has ever tried such an endeavor. It is not possible to have failed at something that you have not tried to do.

He does this to obfuscate his problem. His problem is that many of the proposed steps for abiogenesis have been tested in the lab and have been found to be workable.

He cannot argue against the actual lab data so he seems to just pretend that it does not exist. He makes his strawman and ignores the data that contradicts it.

But you will notice that he gives us no references. He never addresses the references given to him. He just argues by fallacy.

But here is an example of one specific reference that Bob must ignore because it directly contradicts some of his main assertions.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science January 9; 303: 196

Now the paper tells us that borate will both catalyze the formation of the correct right handed ribose sugars and will stabilize the sugars, protecting them from degredation. The same chemicals that react to form the ribose will also react to form adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil, the four nucleobases.

If you add a little phosphate to the mix, the ribose sugars and the nucleobases will combine to form nucleotides. Now, as it turns out, in the presence of clay (specifically montmorillonite) these nucleotides will begin to polymerize and make RNA.

But there is another important aspect of the clay. Fatty acids are delived to earth from space and are also made on earth, hydrothermal vents being an example location. This same clay that will catalyze the formation of RNA will also lead to a spontaneous process in which small vesicles are formed with the fatty acid making a wall and trapping water and the RNA molecules inside.

So we see that two ubiquitous substances such as borate and clay can catalyze the reactions and processes that lead towards something resembling a cell. But there is one more key peice to this puzzle.

In the 1980s it was discovered that RNA could act as something more than a messenger. RNA can perform biological functions similar to proteins. (The first such discovery came when Tetrahymena, a single celled organism, was found to use some RNA as enzymes.) RNA can both replicate itself and perform protein-like functions such as acting like an enzyme. In these forms, they are known as ribozymes. The RNA can store genetic information, copy that information, and carryout protein-like cellular functions. So once we have the RNA inside the fatty acid walls, it is possible that they could perform life functions without the need for DNA and proteins. In this scenario, they would evolve later.

So you see that there is a solution, with lab support and evidence in extant life, that shows your racemized amino acids "problem" to not be a problem. So why don't you accept the evidence.

 

#1. Borel has a lot more credibility than you do on this topic.

#2. If I take a deck of cards unshuffled the odds are 1:1 that I will ALWAYS get the same sequence from an unshuffled deck.

#3. Your own experiement merely SHOWS that PREDICTING a given 52 member sequence in a truly shuffled deck is impossible as Borel said. Your example does not PREDICT it. Your rabbit trail misdirection would be like saying "Hey there are a zillion zillion...zillion possible combinations of which only ONE would be successful. HERE let me spin the dial -- SEE I got one of the failures - that PROVES I will one day get the successful result because it TOO is in that group of zillions of theoretical outcomes"

#4. It is incredibly obvious from point #3 that your only interest in the card story is to create a rabbit trail - But some here MIGHT have an actual interst in the statstical improbablity in abiogenesis so FOR THEM I offer an exercise in actual science -

http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm

 

Quote:
Still the devotees to that religion of atheist darwinism would "believe no matter what" the failure in the lab to "contrive and manufacture" actual success.

No one has TRIED to grow feathers on their knee caps that PROVES it is possible just like we always said it was.

What a sad tactic that UTEOTW.

And how deceptive to have him claim that research is NOT going on to try and prove the viability of the "story telling myths" about abiogenesis.

Sad - but pure UTEOTW as usual.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Do you ever plan to present a single peer reviewed reference or to give some sort of factual reason why my references are wrong?

Or are you happy to just argue by fallacy and unsubstantiated assertion.

Yawn.

Any particular 52 card sequence has a 8*10^67 odds against being dealt. So each time one is dealt, they are doing something impossible according to you.

 

Quote:
EVEN THEN it will not get you a VIABLE protein because ALL the amino acids have to be of ONE chiral orientation (left handed) and nobody has found a way to produce all the proteins needed by a cell so that they are all left handed (chemistry argues for random (50/50) distribution of left-and-right when it comes to amino acid chains).

This is an OLD fallacy of UTEOTW as he has tried to manufacture data where where his story telling has failed. --

Hint folks - there are NO experiments with ANY CLAYS that have been able to generate the mono-chiral chains needed for the cell. What they have is SOME instances of success for SOME chain.

But as UTEOTW admits in his twisted defense of "story telling in place of God's Word and science fact" -- they CAN NOT generate a CLAY experiment that would create the chains needed for a single cell!!

They do not have the intelligence, the technology to even DESIGN the experiment.

Francis Crick was right when he prefaces his statement with -- "As any honest person would know".

In Christ,

Bob