Abiogenisis by the Numbers

I contend that we do not have a good estimate of the probability of abiogenesis. If you actually have an estimate you feel to be sound then please provide the details of how it was calculated.

quote:

---

You'll have to shell out the bucks for one of Dembski's book for specific calculations.......though Dembski and ID proponents in general are known for their meticulous work, and I haven't heard any objections to such numbers that really hold any weight

---

You must be joking.Firstly it is up to YOU to support your claim that the probability is too low. You can't copmplain that nobody has offered any argument against the specific claims when you won't even present the details for examination.Secondly Dembski is NOT known for "meticulous work". Just the opposite - his attempt to apply his own methods to a bacterial flagellum in No Free Lunch was a complete disaster. I'm not aware of ANY complex probability calculations from Behe but he's already suggested replacing his definition of "irreducible complexity" with a completely different one because the original version wasn't as good at ruling out evolution as he thought. Hardly what we would expect from a meticulous worker.The way you've set up this argument is that the calcullations you CLAIM exist have been placed beyond criticism. YOu want us to just accept your word for it. You don't place the work on the line for examination on criticism. On the other hand that is exactly what you demand from us. Since there aren't ANY valid calculations it pretty much guarantees that you will "win". That is neither scientific nor honest.

I'm reasonably familiar with Behe's and Dembski's claims and I've not heaed about this one.The fact that you've provided absolutely no referenes at all suggests that even you don't know where the claims are found. If the claims are that obscure the lack of rebuttals can't be considered significant. Certainly it is no more significant than the lack of publicity - the DI would hardly sit on a real "killer" argument, if they had one.

I've read a fair bit of Dembski's work. Practically everything he's published on the Web and The Design Inference.Like I said, the DI isn't known for being reluctant to come forward and boast about their "successes". But instead all we get is things like Meyer's recent paper - which manages to misrepresent Dembski's views as Dembski managed to misrepresent Behe's - thse guys can't even get EACH OTHER'S arguments right !. "Meticulous" ?But you don't need to look at what I'VE read to know that it is very obscure. We can look at YOUR knowledge. Guess what - you don't even know where in Dembski's work it can be found.Apparently we are expected to track down every last thing Dembski's written - books, magazine articles and the rest to find it - or simply accept whatever you say about this suppised "calculation". You don't think that that is just a bit unfair ?

If the calculation wasn't obscure you should have had no problems providing a reference. Without trawling through Dembski's books.And since you are happy to tell others to buy Dembski's books to find the calculation (Message 19) I don't see how you can complain about unfairness. If you can't be bothered to buy the book then why should anyone else ?

The presence of other humans DOESN'T affect the study. Ross is just jumping to conclusions which the study doesn't support.Given the way mitochondria and Y-chromosomes are inherited it is inevitable that lineages will disappear over time. And that is what Ross is ignoring.

Yes, you are missing something - you are confusing the results of the study with what Ross says.Here's the abstract for the paper:
Absence of polymorphism at the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome - PubMedAnd here are the explanations offered for the results

quote:

---

The invariance likely results from either a recent selective sweep, a recent origin for modern Homo sapiens, recurrent male population bottlenecks, or historically small effective male population sizes

---

None of which remotely suggests that humans are unrelated to other species.I will also point out that the reference ot "other people" is not related to this particular issue - it IS related to other claims Ross makes such as the claim that the ancestors identified by these means represent the first members of our species (a conclusion that cannot be supported based on these studies).

The problem is jumping to conclusions unsupported by the actual evidence.So tell me, how can you identify the presence of a "spiritual component" through an analysis of mitochondrial DNA ?

It is not a possible conclusion from the actual evidence. And so if you were to claim that the studies did support it you would be wrong. And that is precisely the problem with what Ross says.

So you agree that Ross is just jumping to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence he cites ?

A recent origin of modern Homo sapiens is one of the possible explanations offered. That Homo sapiens is unrelated to other hominid species is not. They are completely different.This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-18-2004 11:39 AM

Your misconception, maybe. Ross is not claiming that the studies are merely consistent with the Bible - in fact on the only point on which they could be inconsistent theey ARE inconsistent.But look at what Ross REALLY says

quote:

---

...the results of both studies rule out homo erectus (0.5 to 1.5 million years ago) as a possible progenitor of modern humans

---

Which is completely and utterly false.And Ross explciitly identifies these two individuals as the Biblical Adam and Eve and indicates that he requires them to have lived more recently than the cited studies indicate.

quote:

---

If this is the case, we should see biologists' date for "Adam and Eve" drop from a maximum of about 200,000 years ago to a date within the biblical range of about 10,000 to 60,000 years ago.

---