Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 2:41 AM
348 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 345 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,341 Year: 23,947/21,208 Month: 1,912/2,468 Week: 5/416 Day: 5/24 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
14151617
18
19Next
Author Topic:   The Simplest Protein of Life
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18970
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 256 of 281 (724977)
04-23-2014 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Ed67
04-23-2014 9:34 AM


Numbers and the old improbable probability problem ...
Wow. This guy was bang on. No wonder you guys got rid of him LOL

And he was appropriately answered by DrA in Message 3 which I reproduce here:

To conclude, I think the chances of a living cell forming from chemicals that just happened to bond, is ridiculously unlikely.

And every biologist in the world agrees with you. That is indeed not how living cells are produced: the chemicals don't "just happen to bond". Well done.

And which I can back up by also referring to the old improbable probability problem which deconstructs the erroneous probability calculation, demonstrating that once again creationists\IDologists misuse science and math either from ignorance, delusion or intent, or just plain stupidity.

... The evidence for an intelligent origin of proteins is the same as the evidence for the intelligent origin of the nucleotide sequence on the original DNA/RNA.

In other words none? Certainly have not seen any evidence of anything other than incredulity here.

I like when numbers come into this discussion. Tends to make the methodological naturalists start dancing, dog and pony shows, and all sorts of entertaining antics to skirt the quantitative issue and hope nobody notices...

And yet you appear incapable of determining that the numbers are erroneous. Curious. Of course this means that you will love the old improbable probability problem ... especially Message 23 on that thread ...

Last night there was a lottery and over 1 million tickets were sold, and a winner was found. Amazing right? Odds of a million to 1 and they won! WOW.

Of course the probability that the lottery would be won was ... 1. Numbers can be used to fool the gullible.

Speaking of which, it's probably just about time for RAZD to make an appearance! (lol just joking).

Bark says Sandy ...

As one of the founding member of the Society Against Gullible Ignorant Silly Thinking (SAGIST), it is my calling to jump to the rescue whenever it raises it's head.

Edited by RAZD, : added link, subtitle


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 9:34 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(4)
Message 257 of 281 (724980)
04-23-2014 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Ed67
04-23-2014 9:34 AM


Ed67 writes:

I like when numbers come into this discussion.

Ooooo, I like numbers, too. Let's have a bit of fun with some, shall we?

I'm going to assume that you are 40 years old. That means you were born in 1974. In 1974 the world population was 4 billion. That means the odds of your parents randomly breeding with one another were 1 in 4 billion.

If your parents were 14 when they had you, they were born in 1960 when the world population was 3 billion. That means the odds of your grandparents randomly breeding to create your parents was 2 times 1 in 3 billion.

If your grandparents were born in 1927, when the world population was 2 billion, the odds of your great grandparents randomly breeding to create them was 4 times 1 in 2 billion.

The odds that you were born are 1 in (a hell of a big number, probably a lot bigger than 1 followed by 552 zeros). Therefore, you could not possibly exist and I don't have to argue against any of the patently absurd things you say because you aren't here to say them. What's more, you can't even respond to this argument because you don't exist.

(I picked the years I did for ease of calculation simply because they were round numbers, not to cast any asparagus at you or your family. Please don't get your knickers in a twist over the fact that I suggested your parents had you at age 14. If you push everything back a few years, the math gets more complicated but the general point is still valid.)


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 9:34 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2014 10:50 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18970
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 258 of 281 (724982)
04-23-2014 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by subbie
04-23-2014 10:36 AM


The odds that you were born are 1 in (a hell of a big number, probably a lot bigger than 1 followed by 552 zeros). ...

And that doesn't even take into account the odds of one single sperm (1 out of a lot) meeting up with one single egg (1 out of many) to produce the specific information to be referred to as the "theoretically possible Ed67", and not someone else, some (shudder) other person, which, while being a perfectly valid person would not be Ed67 ...

Edited by RAZD, : ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by subbie, posted 04-23-2014 10:36 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2964
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 259 of 281 (724983)
04-23-2014 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Ed67
04-23-2014 9:34 AM


Not everything is random
Ed67 writes:

BoredomSetsIn writes:

To conclude, I think the chances of a living cell forming from chemicals that just happened to bond, is ridiculously unlikely.

Wow. This guy was bang on. No wonder you guys got rid of him LOL

Well, yes, he was bang on about the chances of a living cell forming from chemicals that just happened to bond.

The issue, however, is that no one claims that life started because "chemicals just happened to bond." There are conditions that force chemicals to bond, due to their very nature. Those conditions force chemicals to bond in very specific ways.

No one says the chemical bonding was random... that's silly. The chemical bonding would happen in the natural way that chemical bonds always happen... because the chemicals are there and the conditions are present.

The "random chance" only refers to their not being any intelligent, conscious agent intervening.
It certainly does not mean that every aspect of the event was "random chance."

What BoredomSetsIn is doing is like calling an entire game of football "random chance" just because of the coin flip to see who gets which end to start the game. Then talking about how impossible it is for the players to always line up in a row to hike the ball because the random chance of that happening is 1 followed by 600 zeroes...

It's correct that there is an aspect that is random... but that aspect does seem to occur quite regularly.
It's correct that the random chance of players lining up to hike the ball, as is the chemical bonds "just happening"... is a ridiculously low number. But this doesn't matter because those aspects aren't actually random anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 9:34 AM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:34 AM Stile has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 260 of 281 (724992)
04-23-2014 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Ed67
04-23-2014 9:34 AM


Wow. This guy was bang on. No wonder you guys got rid of him LOL

I thought it appropriate to reproduce the original post, as I back it up 100%. The evidence for an intelligent origin of proteins is the same as the evidence for the intelligent origin of the nucleotide sequence on the original DNA/RNA.

A God-of-the-Gaps fallacy is not evidence.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 9:34 AM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:16 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 861 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 261 of 281 (725111)
04-24-2014 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by subbie
04-23-2014 10:03 AM


subbie writes:

Ever heard of the sharpshooter fallacy?

quote:
the texas sharpshooter
You cherry-picked a data cluster to suit your argument, or found a pattern to fit a presumption.

This person chose the shortest protein string that he was aware of. This is to PREVENT cherry-picking, and show a CONSERVATIVE estimate of the chances of a protein forming by undirected causes.

Would you explain how you feel this argument incorporates this fallacy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by subbie, posted 04-23-2014 10:03 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Taq, posted 04-24-2014 11:12 AM Ed67 has responded
 Message 265 by subbie, posted 04-24-2014 11:34 AM Ed67 has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 262 of 281 (725112)
04-24-2014 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Ed67
04-24-2014 11:10 AM


This person chose the shortest protein string that he was aware of.

This person never demonstrated that the first life had proteins. Perhaps you should start there.

This is to PREVENT cherry-picking, and show a CONSERVATIVE estimate of the chances of a protein forming by undirected causes.

The protein he is pointing to is the product of billions of years of evolution. Furthermore, he never demonstrated that this protein is needed if abiogenesis does occur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:10 AM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:25 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 861 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 263 of 281 (725113)
04-24-2014 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Taq
04-23-2014 11:27 AM


God of the Gaps Fallacy
Taq writes:

Wow. This guy was bang on. No wonder you guys got rid of him LOL
I thought it appropriate to reproduce the original post, as I back it up 100%. The evidence for an intelligent origin of proteins is the same as the evidence for the intelligent origin of the nucleotide sequence on the original DNA/RNA.

A God-of-the-Gaps fallacy is not evidence.

And the whining "God of the Gaps" is not an argument. It shows that you have been presented with a situation that can best be explained by positing a creator. When Darwinists have no response, they whine "You used God-Of-The-Gaps".

It's a disguised argument from incredulity. It's not my problem if you can't imagine a creator. It's your lack of imagination.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 11:27 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2014 1:44 PM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 279 by dwise1, posted 04-25-2014 2:02 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
Ed67
Member (Idle past 861 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 264 of 281 (725117)
04-24-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Taq
04-24-2014 11:12 AM


Brain cramp?
Taq writes:

This person never demonstrated that the first life had proteins. Perhaps you should start there.

If you can't accept that the first life required proteins, you better give your brain a re-boot.

Proteins are required to build virtually EVERY structure comprising life. The law of uniformitarianism suggests that we should start with the working assumption that the original life was substantially as it is today, AT LEAST to the extent of requiring proteins.

If you have a different approach, by all means present it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Taq, posted 04-24-2014 11:12 AM Taq has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 265 of 281 (725122)
04-24-2014 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Ed67
04-24-2014 11:10 AM


Ed67 writes:

the texas sharpshooter
You cherry-picked a data cluster to suit your argument, or found a pattern to fit a presumption.

Nope. That's not the sharpshooter fallacy, at least not the one I was referring to.

The sharpshooter fallacy gets its name from the story of the person who went into the woods, shot a gun, hit a tree then went and circled a target around the bullet where it ended up and pretended he hit his target.

Your argument assumes that the Ribonuclease protein was an intended result without providing any proof that it was.

Also, as others have pointed out, the calculation that the OP contained, if it calculated anything, shows the odds of the Ribonuclease protein coming together in one fell swoop, all of the constituent parts fusing into one at the same instant. Since that isn't how science believes chemistry works, the calculation is meaningless.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:10 AM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:43 AM subbie has responded

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 861 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 266 of 281 (725123)
04-24-2014 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Stile
04-23-2014 10:51 AM


Re: Not everything is random
Stile writes:

The issue, however, is that no one claims that life started because "chemicals just happened to bond." There are conditions that force chemicals to bond, due to their very nature. Those conditions force chemicals to bond in very specific ways.

Watson and Crick already debunked your idea, shortly after discovering the structure of DNA. They realized (and publicized) that there is no chemical force that influences the sequence of the 4 bases on the helix. It is completely independent of chemistry.

The code found in the nucleic acid base-pairs is pure information; not chemistry. No chemical forces can have any effect on the sequence of base-pairs, much less properly sequence the base-pairs to provide the instructions to build proteins and all other features of an organism.

Yet, the code is there, and it produced life. If not by chemical forces, how did the code get there?

I submit that the inference to the best explanation is that a designing intelligence was necessary.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Stile, posted 04-23-2014 10:51 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-24-2014 11:43 AM Ed67 has responded
 Message 274 by Stile, posted 04-24-2014 1:38 PM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 267 of 281 (725126)
04-24-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Ed67
04-24-2014 11:34 AM


Re: Not everything is random
They realized (and publicized) that there is no chemical force that influences the sequence of the 4 bases on the helix. It is completely independent of chemistry.

Can you point to that publication?

The code found in the nucleic acid base-pairs is pure information; not chemistry.

The letters in the "code" are notations of chemicals. A is a chemical, T is a chemical, C is a chemical, and G is a chemical. Its all chemicals.

No chemical forces can have any effect on the sequence of base-pairs, much less properly sequence the base-pairs to provide the instructions to build proteins and all other features of an organism.

How can chemical forces not have effects on chemicals?

And the proteins aren't built by instructions, they just follow a string of spontaneous chemical reactions.

The DNA transcribes into RNA, and RNA makes amino acids because of its shape. Those amino acids then combine into proteins because of their shapes. It all just follows chemical forces.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:34 AM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:52 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 861 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 268 of 281 (725127)
04-24-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by subbie
04-24-2014 11:34 AM


One Fell Swoop? Why not?
subbie writes:

Also, as others have pointed out, the calculation that the OP contained, if it calculated anything, shows the odds of the Ribonuclease protein COMING TOGETHER IN ONE FELL SWOOP, all of the constituent parts fusing into one at the same instant. Since that isn't how science BELIEVES chemistry works, the calculation is meaningless.

You mean, that's not how Darwinists believe EVOLUTION works, so they blithely dismiss the possibility without more thought.

It's the FAITH STATEMENT that 'everything came about by some form of evolutionary process' that blinds Darwinists to the possibility of life being created in 'one fell swoop'.
However, in view of the evidence, I submit that 'one fell swoop' is an inference to the best explanation for life's origin.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by subbie, posted 04-24-2014 11:34 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-24-2014 11:45 AM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 276 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2014 1:46 PM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 277 by subbie, posted 04-24-2014 5:33 PM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 278 by dwise1, posted 04-25-2014 1:49 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 269 of 281 (725128)
04-24-2014 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Ed67
04-24-2014 11:43 AM


Re: One Fell Swoop? Why not?
You mean, that's not how Darwinists believe EVOLUTION works,

Which makes you wonder why someone would try to discount evolution by providing a calculation for something that evolution doesn't claim.

However, in view of the evidence, I submit that 'one fell swoop' is an inference to the best explanation for life's origin.

Except, we've just seen the calculation for how that is impossible.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:43 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 861 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 270 of 281 (725131)
04-24-2014 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by New Cat's Eye
04-24-2014 11:43 AM


Re: Not everything is random
CS writes:

Can you point to that publication?

Their results were published in Nature magazine in the 50's. You can probably find it in a large library. Again, this is basic stuff - common knowledge that is disseminated in high school biology class.

ed67 writes:

The code found in the nucleic acid base-pairs is pure information; not chemistry.

My apologies, I should have said:
The code found in the nucleic acid base-pairs is pure information, TRANSMITTED BY MEANS OF CHEMISTRY. I was wrong to suggest that chemistry is not involved. My mistake.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-24-2014 11:43 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by JonF, posted 04-24-2014 12:02 PM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 272 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-24-2014 12:03 PM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 273 by ringo, posted 04-24-2014 12:14 PM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
14151617
18
19Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017