Question about probabilities and the conditions of life

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).

You never "Actually SHOW" levro chiral orientation for all amino acids needed for all the proteins in a single living cell.

I don't know if you remember this or not - but the story-telling coming from atheist darwinists is "abiogenesis" they posit LIVING CELLS coming from abiotic matter.

Try to focus.

You have to first MAKE The parts - and then find a way to get them to "Work together".

Currently you have the impossible task of just MAKING THE PARTS.

You want to CLAIM that you have it - but you don't. If YOU DID then we would see it in print. ALL PROTEINS needed to make one single cell have not been MANUFACTURED in the lab from abiotic matter -- all we have to do now is ASSEMBLE them.

No such victory has been actually accomplished - though you seem willing to CLAIM it "anyway" in your endless policy of glossing over details.

 

Classic rabbit trailing --

That is priceless!!

And some point UTEOTW even you have to see that you are accusing yourself of lying.

 

Sir Fred Hoyle said that "even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" the chance of producing the basic enzymes of life by random processes without intelligent direction would be approximately one in 10 with 40,000 zeros after it. Said Hoyle, "It couldn't happen -- ever! Darwininian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide [sequence] right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for survival." He continues: "The situation [mathematical impossibility] is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory." Why? You believe it, or you can't be in the club. "Quoth the Raven, never more!"

Hey, Bob! I like your avatar!

 

By all means continue. I answered the problems of such a calculation in my first post on this thread. The argument being made is fallacious.

 

Continuing to knock that strawman over, eh.

What came first, the protein or the RNA?

In the proposed path for abiogenesis, RNA.

In your strawman, the protein.

Do you now see why this is a strawman? You are proposing that science says something that it does not in fact say and then you proceed to knockover a creation of your own while avoiding what science actually says.

Now I have given you a reference for how to make the optically pure RNA.

See there. You get the correct right handed RNA chain.

Later, RNA can then make optically pure protein sequences.

Now, can you withdraw your claim that it is not possible to make such optically pure sequences or, instead, show that the proposed method does not actually make optically pure sequences?

See, I told you that you would do you best to avoid this question.

 

One more time.

You claimed that scientists has "failed" to create "life" from these processes.

I pointed out that this was a strawman because no one had in fact tried and failed. YOu cannot name one group who had tried the whole sequence and failed.

I then gave you a link and quote about a group who was, in fact, attempting a major part of the sequence . These people have so far completed two important milestones and have been getting returns on the final milestone of the project but have not completed it yet.

This in no way contradicts what I said.

In does, however, strongly contradict what you have been asserting.

So, instead, you obfuscate. As usual.

 

Fallacious appeal to authority. Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologists, so he can not have an informed opinion on the matter since he is not an expert.

Those who are experts in the field, however, do not seem to find the odds so long.

 

More quote mining. You accidentally added a period to the end there. The sentence, and the paragraph, continued.

 

Good points all!

Notice how a HARD science like math and statistics is in direct opposition to pseudoscience (junk science actual) story-telling among the "believers" in atheist darwinism? Notice how they have to blindly "attack" Romans 1, Statistics, Common sense. SCIENCE itself!!

Notice that they "want" to claim that statistical science CAN NOT rightly demonstrate that 52 cards in a deck can EASILY be arranged into a 52 card sequence and that the probability is 1 1:1!!

They have to 'use rabbit trail tactics' for bogus test case "proofs" that don't hold water and are so "transparent" as to reveal their desperate faith-based arguments IN FAVOR of atheist darwinism and against science!!

How sad.

How amazing that Crick READILY admits to what Romans 1 says UNBELIEVERS will see clearly "IN THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE". He admits that "random events" do not account for it!!

 

Hence Crick's SOLUTION - "it did not HAPPEN HERE" it must have been PLACED here by some "Event".

RATHER Than "HEY I found a sequence of chemical reactions that DO result in a living cell!!".

Notice that the huge number of "variables" are what DRIVES the equation outside of the Borel boundary!!

[Emile Borel] tells us that If anything is ten to the 50th power or less chance, it will never happen, even cosmically, in the whole universe. Probabilities and Life (New York: Dover, 1962) ch. 1-3.

We may be led to set at 10-50 the value of negligible probabilities on the cosmic scale. When the probability of an event is below this limit, the opposite event may be expected to occur with certainty, whatever the number of occasions presenting themselves in the entire universe.
Émile Borel, Probabilities and Life (New York: Dover Publications, 1962), p. 28.

Note: Regarding Borel’s use of the minus exponent, the reader may recall that this means the same as writing the number as a fraction with the figure 1 on top. 10-50 is the same as 1/1050 or 1 chance in a figure with 50 zeroes.

By “opposite event,” he means no event, or failure to occur. Under the single law of chance, therefore, even a single gene would never be arranged in any usable order in the entire universe, if we apply this statement by the eminent mathematician. One need only to compare the probability of one gene (10-236) with Borel’s 10-50 which he said is the limit of meaningful probabilities on the cosmic scale. What would he say to the figure we got for the minimum set for smallest life, namely, a probability of 10-57800? The ameba’s journeys have made it clear that our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10-236). By the single law of chance, it will never occur.

 

Quote:
Classic rabbit trailing --

Quote:
UTEOTW -
I said that you could not justify you claims about anyone having failed to do so because you could not point to us anyone who had tried and failed for it had not happened.

I never claimed that no one would ever try nor did I claim that no one had started an attempt.

That is priceless!!

And some point UTEOTW even you have to see that you are accusing yourself of lying.

This is just more "Bogus rabbit trailing from UTEOTW" since HE KNOWS the reason they can not attempt the entire series is that they FAIL LONG before that point!

It is just like the bogus rabbit trailing he did with the 52 card "shell game" where he wanted to "pretend" that statistical science claims that a 52 card sequence (DEALING) is "impossible"!!

What a Joke!

What a sad "desperate" tactic in an "All for atheist darwinism" faith-based attack on science, and the Bible, and common sense.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UTEOTW
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.


#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

 

Romans 1 predicts that UNBELIEVING PAGANS (the honest man as Crick said) "CLEARLY SEE the invisible ATTRIBUTES OF GOD in the THINGS that have been MADE".

And yet we have atheist-darwinist touting people here arguing AGAINST what God says ALL MANKIND can clearly see!!

How sad!!

 

There are a great many sources NOT dedicated to the rabbit trailing and obfuscation and misdirection of facts in grossly transparent way that UTEOTW is -- as it turns out.

 

The hard FACTS –

 

Atheist’s making grandiose claims for abiogenesis–

Richard Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is the author of many books including the international best-sellers "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", and "Climbing Mount Improbable."

FROM : http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html
Excerpt –

(Note for the Reader: In the above quote Dawkins argues that Christian evolutionist think “God does something”, that “God contributes something” to the subject of origins. And on that point alone – Dawkins argues for the inconsistency and flawed logic of so-called-christian-evolutionism.

Christian evolutionist sometimes argue against Dawkins claiming that HE has made too much of a grandiose claim about what Christian-evolutionists think God is doing.

How sad that Christian evolutionists are prone to going to such extremes.)

But we have to give atheist darwinist cultists like UTEOTW for NOT making the mistake of the Christian evolutionists being hammered by Dawkins above. THEY take a PURELY atheist view of the topic so as to avoid that problem!!

THEY even attack evolutionists that ADMIT to the "Invisible attribute" of "Intelligence" CLEARLY SEEN in the "things that are made" -- in their service to their atheist darwinist masters.

 

Perhaps you did not read all of what Crick said. I'll repeat it for you. "But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

Uh, no. That statement does not even make mathematical sense.

You still have been unable to provide a respected source that supports your "impossible" assertion.

Yes, please continue to knock that strawman over. I have already debunked that strawman in my first post on this thread. YOu have not even attempted to address the issues I raised there.

It can do nothing but support my position for you to be reduced to arguing logical fallacies because you have no facts.

 

More strawman fallacy from Bob. All you really need to do here is tell us who attempted and failed.

Remember, I have given you a quote and link to a group who is trying and is on the verge of success. It could even be argued that they have already succeeded based on some of their recent results.

And then we continue on to your next favorite strawman.

[snip a big quote from http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html on the asserted impossibility of making non-racemic proteins]

Bob.

Pay attention.

RNA came before proteins.

I have given you a reference above on how to make optically pure RNA.

Optically pure RNA is then available for when optically pure proteins are needed.

Can you address what sceince actually says instead of making up your own stories and then debunking them?

 

[snip discussion about Antony Flew]

Bob, is your position really so weak as to reduce you to arguing by anecdote?

Well, if you want to argue by anecdote, I once thought as you do and I have obviously changed my mind. How's that for tit for tat?

But are you sure you want to bring up Flew? Some of us know that you are hiding the rest of the story from us.

Let's shed some light.

Shortly after this statement, Flew admitted that he had been duped by an IDist.

Let's see what Flew said.

Oh no, it seems like Flew recanted the position you attribute. And why did he do so?

Let's see how his spokesman phrased it.

So the problem was that an IDist misled Flew and when he learned the truth, he felt like a "fool."

 

Trying to start another strawman here? I am not oing to allow you to get away with it.

Contrary to your misinformed source, the early atmosphere was, in fact, reducing.

In the annual meeting of the Division of Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society, held Sept. 4-9 of last year in Cambridge, England, Bruce Fegley, Ph.D., Washington University professor of earth and planetary sciences in Arts & Sciences, presented a paper which showed the following.

You may really want to check some of the references I give you before you post such false information.

Here are a few more references on the early atmosphere.

Genda, Hidenori & Abe, Yutaka
2003 “Survival of a proto-atmosphere through the stage of giant impacts: the mechanical
aspects” Icarus 164, 149-162 (2003).

Holland, Heinrich D.
1984 The Chemical Evolution of the Atmoshphere and Oceans, Princeton Series in
Geochemistry Princeton University Press

Holland, Heinrich D.
1999 “When did the Earth’s atmosphere become oxic? A Reply.” The Geochemical
News #100: 20-22 (see Ohmoto 1997 )

Kasting, J. F., J. L. Siefert,
2002 “Life and the Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere” Science 296:1066

Pepin, R. O.
1997 Evolution of Earth's Noble Gases: Consequences of Assuming Hydrodynamic Loss
Driven by Giant Impact Icarus 126, 148-156 (1997).

Rosing, Minik T. and Robert Frei
2003 U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of >3700 Ma
oxygenic photosynthesis" Earth and Planetary Science Letters, online 6 December 03

And your source seems to be trying to build another strawman when it comes to the Miller experiment. The claim is not exactly that the Miller experiment showed "proof that life could arise spontaneously" as your claim supposes, but that the early atmosphere would have been conductive to producing many of the important precursors. Since the time of Miller, the likely composition of the early atmosphere has been nailed down a little better, and it is less reducing than what he used, but it is still sufficient for the needs.