Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Sex Life of 747 Aircraft
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 16 of 84 (408010)
06-29-2007 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Grizz
06-29-2007 7:28 PM


But therein lies the rub:
The 747 argument originally put forth by Fred Hoyle was based on the the calculations he used to deduce the probability of the various chemical pathways and molecular machinery neccesary to create a cell arrising spontaneously through natural process.
Single step from no cell to cell. No intermediate steps. Single-step selection, which is foreign to evolution, though not to supernatural creation, offers very low probabilities. Cumulative selection, which is what evolution uses, offers much higher probabilities, sometimes even approaching inevitability. Hoyle was using single-step selection and ignoring cumulative selection.
Examination and comparison of the probabilities of single-step and cumulative selection can be found on my MPROBS (Monkey Probabilities) page at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/mprobs.html.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Grizz, posted 06-29-2007 7:28 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Grizz, posted 07-01-2007 12:37 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 17 of 84 (408250)
07-01-2007 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by dwise1
06-29-2007 8:36 PM


Hi Dwise,
The problem is how does one gain the knowledge to accurately assign a probability coefificent for the survivability of any arbitrary step in the process that is accumulative? I would assume each accumulative component would have 2 unique coefficients - formation and survivabilty. One also must consider other factors that compound the infromation gap - for instance the neccesity of formation of one component being dependant on the simulatneous formation or surviviability of another step outside the intermediate component itself - a catalyst or secondary pathway for instance. Before we even can begin with this one must first needs to know what the steps are. Thats a tall order in and of itself. If the answers to these questions were readily available none of us would be having this discussion and this forum would be empty.
Unfortunately our lack of information about the exact state of affairs billion of years ago essentially offers an uncontested free pass to anyone who wishes to assign these coefficients. Your guess is as good as mine. It is for this reason that nobody should really appeal to Fred Hoyle's calculations(or any other for that matter) when it comes to using it as a proof or evidence for anything other than our ability to speculate. Anyone who has claimed they have the requisite information to calculate a reliable probability for spontaneous abiogeneis is doing nothing more than engaging in wishfull thinking.
We make too many assumptions about early Earth. One is the Earth was a biochemically closed system. It is possible many of the ingredients could have arrived externally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 06-29-2007 8:36 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by dwise1, posted 07-01-2007 5:54 PM Grizz has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 18 of 84 (408316)
07-01-2007 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Grizz
07-01-2007 12:37 PM


Yet again, since you didn't hear me before:
It's a question of what kind of probability model is being used.
If you use a single-step-selection probability model, then the chances of success are virtually assured to be abysmally small.
If you use a cumulative-selection probability model, assuming that it is applicable, then the chances of success are much greater, even verging on inevitability. It appears that part of the reason for this is that the probability of every single attempt failing becomes vanishingly small.
As I said, I worked out the math. I gave you a link to my write-up.
Cumulative selection is much more descriptive of evolutionary processes; indeed, the model was based on how life works.
Years ago, I looked up that section in Hoyle's book and saw that he used a single-step-selection model. Regardless of what actual probabilities we could find and assign to his model, he had chosen a model that doesn't describe evolutionary processes and that is virtually guaranteed to yield abysmal results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Grizz, posted 07-01-2007 12:37 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Grizz, posted 07-01-2007 5:59 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 19 of 84 (408318)
07-01-2007 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by dwise1
07-01-2007 5:54 PM


I know. I understood what you were saying.
I was just pointing out using ANY model is meaningless to the goal of arriving at a probability for abiogeneiss. We lack the information neccesary to arrive at any valid result. We can only guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by dwise1, posted 07-01-2007 5:54 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 07-02-2007 7:22 AM Grizz has not replied
 Message 23 by molbiogirl, posted 07-02-2007 12:01 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 84 (408375)
07-02-2007 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
06-29-2007 11:41 AM


Where's my mathcing part? :-(
All I can say is that if the 747 is reproducing, then us humans can CERTAINLY evolve
Jon
Edited by Jon, : oops

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 06-29-2007 11:41 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 21 of 84 (408391)
07-02-2007 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Grizz
07-01-2007 5:59 PM


Grizz writes:
I was just pointing out using ANY model is meaningless to the goal of arriving at a probability for abiogeneiss. We lack the information neccesary to arrive at any valid result. We can only guess.
It's a little hard to tell, but it's my guess that you and Dwise1 are in agreement. Dwise1 is pointing out the Hoyle's "guess" that the first life developed suddenly and spontaneously is not an idea given any chance of being correct by evolutionary biologists, not today and not at the time Hoyle was writing.
You're not disagreeing with Dwise1, just saying something a little different, that we know so little about any of the hypothesized processes that might have led to life that calculating probabilities would be a meaningless exercise.
Just trying to figure out if there's really a disagreement...
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Grizz, posted 07-01-2007 5:59 PM Grizz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by dwise1, posted 07-02-2007 10:20 AM Percy has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 22 of 84 (408404)
07-02-2007 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
07-02-2007 7:22 AM


Grizz is correct in pointing out that we do not know exactly what the probabilities are.
I am pointing out that the more important problem with Hoyle's model is that the model itself is wrong.
Now, it should eventually be possible for us to finally be able to determine those probabilities, eliminating the problem that Grizz points out. At that point, one would then want to apply those probabilities to Hoyle's model and arrive at the wrong conclusions. The conclusions would be wrong because the model itself is wrong.
Grizz holds out hope for creationists that they could eventually make honest use of Hoyle's analogy. I'm telling them that that analogy is fundamentally flawed and it could never be used honestly.
Edited by dwise1, : slight rewording

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 07-02-2007 7:22 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 07-02-2007 1:42 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 30 by Grizz, posted 07-02-2007 5:24 PM dwise1 has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 23 of 84 (408406)
07-02-2007 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Grizz
07-01-2007 5:59 PM


Grizz, I think we know more about initial conditions than you think we know.
From Blog chia s kinh nghim c cc online -.
In the edition of Science Express on line, from the issue of Science of September 28, 2006, Pierre-Olivier Lagage and colleagues reported the discovery of large quantities of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the nebula of the incipient Star HD97048. This finding confirms the theory of spontaneous synthesis of biomolecules in grains of dust of the planetary nebulas, not in the deposits of water on the planets. Another finding that supports the theory is that the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons were excited by the action of the ultraviolet radiation emitted by the young star.
1. In 1999, some astronomers discovered the planet HD 209458b, in orbit around a star in the constellation of Pegasus, at 150 light years from Earth. The planet like-Jupiter is orbiting in three and one half days, facing a sufficiently nearby and brilliant star as to be well observed. Using an ultraviolet spectrograph attached to the Hubble Space Telescope, Alfred Vidal Madjar of the Institute of Astrophysics of Paris and Gilda Ballester of the University of Arizona studied the planet in October and November of 2003, finding atomic Oxygen and Carbon in the outer layers of the planet.
2. Jan M. Hollis of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Frank J. Lovas of the University of Illinois and Philip R. Jewell from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) have written a paper where they reported the finding of glycol-aldehyde in a large nebula near to the center of the Milky Way. Their finding is the first discovery of a simple molecule of carbohydrates out from Earth, at the Interstellar Medium, with which the theory about the synthesis of biomolecules in the Interstellar Medium has been verified.
3. Raymond and Beverly Sackler of the Laboratory for the Astrophysics in the Observatory of Leiden have discovered that the Amino acids can synthesize by reactions of gas phase in interstellar clouds by reactions in solid grains of dust, or by aqueous alteration in carbonaceous meteorites. This discovery supports the theory that the intense UV light emitted by the Sun had impeded the formation of amino acids in the interplanetary environment if there were not frozen crystals and solid fractals.
4. Perry A. Gerakines, Marla H. Moore and Reggie L. Hudson of the Department of Physics of the University of Alabama have shown experimentally the formation of organic molecules from “icy” mixtures (T20-100 K) due to irradiation (protons of 0.8 MeV) and photolysis (6-10 eV). Biomolecules were synthesized in the central region of the planetary cloud, which contained frozen crystals of water and solid dust.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Grizz, posted 07-01-2007 5:59 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 24 of 84 (408425)
07-02-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by dwise1
07-02-2007 10:20 AM


dwise1 writes:
Grizz holds out hope for creationists that they could eventually make honest use of Hoyle's analogy. I'm telling them that that analogy is fundamentally flawed and it could never be used honestly.
Well, whatever Grizz believes, we agree you're telling him the right thing. The 747 analogy is meant not to explain scientific views of the origin of life but to ridicule it. If evolution actually believed in a sudden origin of life then it would be rightful ridicule, but evolution doesn't believe that. The analogy is intended only for those who don't know what possibilities science is currently considering for life's origins. Anyone who thinks that a sudden origin a la Hoyle might one day become a viable possibility is very uninformed.
Hoyle didn't go through his probability calculations in order to show that scientists are wrong. He went through them to make people think that origins scientists believed ridiculously wrong things. I have no idea why Hoyle did this - my own theory is that he had a mental illness through the last 20-30 years of his life.
Hoyle had earlier tried something similar with the then new theory of cosmological origins by giving it the derisive label "Big Bang". However, just as the Big Bang was not an explosion but growth and expansion, the origin of life was not sudden but gradual over many millions of years. I agree that there are large components of dishonesty in both the 747 analogy and the probability calculations.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by dwise1, posted 07-02-2007 10:20 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-02-2007 8:11 PM Percy has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 25 of 84 (408428)
07-02-2007 2:36 PM


The metaphor is relevant
I agree with Ned that the 747 metaphor is a useless argument to refute evolutionary theory.
However I think it is relevant as an argument against materialism. Obviously the 747 represents one point in the evolutionary development of aviation. It didn't just come into being by accident.
Modern man represents a particular point in the evolutionary process, and I think that it requires a huge leap of faith to believe that it just happened by accident.
At the very least, I contend that a reasoned position that both the evolutionary process of aviation that produced the 747, and the evolutionary process that resulted in mankind had as a basic requirement, an idea or intelligence.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 07-02-2007 3:33 PM GDR has replied
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 07-02-2007 3:58 PM GDR has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 26 of 84 (408430)
07-02-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by GDR
07-02-2007 2:36 PM


accident or design.
Modern man represents a particular point in the evolutionary process, and I think that it requires a huge leap of faith to believe that it just happened by accident.
But why do you believe that?
It is not a leap of faith to suggest that while we are not the result of accident (that is a misunderstanding of the process) we are also not the result of the kind of design process that produced the 747.
We have run various experiments in design by evolutionary processes. The "designs" produced have characteristics that are like us but not like the 747. This work is evidence for (and therefore not needing faith) that we are the product of evolutionary processes and not of human-like (the only kind we know) design.
The process that produced the 747 should not be called an "evolutionary process" when comparing it to biological evolution. The two processes are very, very different.
ABE
for a bit more discussion see --Message 7 and
Message 16
blowing my own horn here
Edited by NosyNed, : a bit more

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 07-02-2007 2:36 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by GDR, posted 07-02-2007 4:00 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 27 of 84 (408432)
07-02-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by GDR
07-02-2007 2:36 PM


Re: The metaphor is relevant
GDR writes:
I agree with Ned that the 747 metaphor is a useless argument to refute evolutionary theory.
Sounds promising, but I think you might be confusing science with materialism and/or naturalism, because you go on to say:
However I think it is relevant as an argument against materialism.
Materialism is the philosophy that everything can be explained in terms of physical phenomena. Unlike materialism, science doesn't rule out the non-physical, it's just that the non-physical is not the focus of science. Science doesn't say that the extra-natural or the supernatural doesn't exist, only that it isn't something that science can study. Science is the study of phenomena that manifest themselves in the real world.
Modern man represents a particular point in the evolutionary process, and I think that it requires a huge leap of faith to believe that it just happened by accident.
Matter and energy following the physical laws of nature is not an accident. Evolution explains how these physical laws bring about the changing array of life over the course of time.
At the very least, I contend that a reasoned position that both the evolutionary process of aviation that produced the 747, and the evolutionary process that resulted in mankind had as a basic requirement, an idea or intelligence.
The lengthy process of trial, error, design, analysis, experiment and refinement that brought about the 747 is somewhat analogous to the lengthy process of descent with modification and natural selection, but that's as far as it goes. An analogy is just a useful explanatory tool, not evidence. Snowflakes look intelligently designed, too, but that's not evidence that they are.
If analogies were actually evidence of anything, then the argument that an atom is like a miniature solar system would carry some weight, but actual evidence and analysis tells us that electrons can't orbit the nucleus because the revolving electrons would give off energy (that's what moving charges do), and their diminishing energy would quickly cause them to spiral into the nucleus.
So of course an atom isn't like a miniature solar system, and that's because an analogy is not evidence. Like almost all analogies the analog is not the actual thing, and so the claim that the analog and the actual thing are similar in ways beyond the analogy is almost always false. "My love is like a red, red rose," is a beautiful metaphor, but your love does not have thorns or petals, and you wouldn't interpret this analogy as evidence that your love does have thorns and petals.
In the same way, many people feel the same sense of wonder at the design of both living organisms and 747's, but that doesn't constitute evidence that life had an intelligent designer.
In other words, analogies and metaphors aren't evidence of anything. The evidence we do have says that the same physical laws that govern our universe today have governed it for billions of years, and none of that evidence points to an intelligence. All the evidence we have shows that everything we observe happening or that we gather evidence of having happened obeys the same physical laws throughout all time throughout the universe. If there's an intelligence guiding the process, its actions are indistinguishable from the results of physical laws.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 07-02-2007 2:36 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by GDR, posted 07-02-2007 4:38 PM Percy has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 28 of 84 (408433)
07-02-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NosyNed
07-02-2007 3:33 PM


Re: accident or design.
NosyNed writes:
It is not a leap of faith to suggest that while we are not the result of accident (that is a misunderstanding of the process) we are also not the result of the kind of design process that produced the 747.
We have run various experiments in design by evolutionary processes. The "designs" produced have characteristics that are like us but not like the 747. This work is evidence for (and therefore not needing faith) that we are the product of evolutionary processes and not of human-like (the only kind we know) design.
The process that produced the 747 should not be called an "evolutionary process" when comparing it to biological evolution. The two processes are very, very different.
I used the word accident, but feel free to insert whatever word you like. The 747 evolved from an idea to the Wright Bros and others, to the Sopwith Camel, to the DC3.......... and now nearly to the 787 or A350. Mankind seems to have evolved from single cell creatures to.......current life forms. (not wanting to get nit-picked I'll leave out the ones in the middle as I know I'll get something wrong. )
Biologists can look the various stages, and they can research natural selection and see how it works. The information that they have discovered about DNA is astounding. They can tell us how the process took place but in the end they can't say why anything took place.
We know that behind the evolution of aviation there are ideas and intelligence. We can regard the evolutionary history of all living creatures and come to our own conclusions about whether an intelligence is responsible, or, (and I'll leave out the word accident), there is no intelligence involved.
I'm not a biologist and know virtually nothing about it so I have to form my opinions to a large degree on those who do. Francis Collins and others see the evolutionary process as, (as Collins puts it), "The Language of God", whereas others, including yourself it seems, come to a totally materialistic conclusion. Neither position can be proven, ergo, both are a matter of faith.
It is my view that the most reasonable opinion is that there is an external intelligence, whereas you come down on the other side of the fence. We are both people of faith on the issue, it's just that we put our faith in different things.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 07-02-2007 3:33 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 07-02-2007 7:35 PM GDR has replied
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 07-02-2007 8:45 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 29 of 84 (408435)
07-02-2007 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Percy
07-02-2007 3:58 PM


Re: The metaphor is relevant
Percy writes:
In other words, analogies and metaphors aren't evidence of anything. The evidence we do have says that the same physical laws that govern our universe today have governed it for billions of years, and none of that evidence points to an intelligence. All the evidence we have shows that everything we observe happening or that we gather evidence of having happened obeys the same physical laws throughout all time throughout the universe. If there's an intelligence guiding the process, its actions are indistinguishable from the results of physical laws.
I agree. Metaphors and analogies don't constitute evidence. That isn't my point. The 747 metaphor is just an illustration of the point I was trying to make. In the end, as I said to Ned, we look at what we do know, and then use our reason to come to conclusions on what we believe about what we don't know.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 07-02-2007 3:58 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 07-02-2007 8:00 PM GDR has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 30 of 84 (408439)
07-02-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by dwise1
07-02-2007 10:20 AM


Grizz holds out hope for creationists that they could eventually make honest use of Hoyle's analogy. I'm telling them that that analogy is fundamentally flawed and it could never be used honestly.
For the 12th time - I am not a Creationist, a Theist, or an ID supporter, nor do I believe in the existence of a personal deity. I am simpy being as objective as I can.
I will add, however my personal speculations on the unknowns do overlap a bit with some of the ideas present in many forms of Panspermia ala Francis Crick.
Regarding the present topic I am simply stating regardless of the source all we are doing is speculating. Speculating based on arbitrary parameters may be interesting but it brings nothing to the table that cannot be refuted by anyone for any reason. It is nothing but a recipe for heated arguments that go nowhere. Essentially everyone gets a get out of jail free card. Anyone can make the result fit the desired outcome given a creative use of parameters.
At this point in time and for all intents and purposes the use of calculations to deduce a realistic probability of abiogenesis is essentially meainingless and should not even be part of the debate.
Fred Hoyle started this mess - not me. Blame Fred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by dwise1, posted 07-02-2007 10:20 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by dwise1, posted 07-02-2007 6:49 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024