|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Foundations of ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Why don't you take this a step further, precisely point out what my major mathematical error is, actually address the "error due to one false assumption in your [my-insertion mine] method" and we can discuss it. Perhaps here or in the thread you deserted (and I recently bumped for you), you can point out the understood mechanisms, or even proposed mechanisms, such that you know how to build a mathematical model of the chemistry. I have asked and am yet waiting a reply. In my experience we must accurately understand a system, meaning its full chemical environment, before modelling the system. And if we have a model which ends in a result which is not supported by the evidence, we realize that our mathematical model is not accurate enough. Now you can state that your raw calculations of barebone atomic assembly into complete complex hydrocarbons reveal a probability of success that seems unlikely to occur in any practical sense. But that pretty much means your proposed mechanism is wrong (barebone assembly is not all there is and so your model is inaccurate), Why can't it be that you are simply not using the right model? Okay and then for the follow up, could you please show me the calculation which shows how the biomolecule was engineered? We know it couldn't just be a guy assembling the raw materials in a beaker and shaking it up, that is what your calculations purport to show. So what else did he do to adjust those mathematical figures so that assembly waas probable? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: I suppose I would if I had any earthly idea what you were talking about. Why would I want to do this and a model of what??
quote: WHAT model? Is this something I was talking about with someone else? Please link to it as I'm totally lost as to where you are coming from. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cmanteuf Member (Idle past 6794 days) Posts: 92 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Troy writes: Jar, the problem with your argument is that designers rarely ever mak e something the same over and over. "Good programmers know how to code. Great programmers know when to reuse." And yes, this particular argument is no more than an argument from incredulity... but it's exactly the same as the ID/YEC argument, only using correct facts (as opposed to something like 'bats wings are like bird wings so therefore The Designer must have reused them'). Chris
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
"Good programmers know how to code. Great programmers know when to reuse." and the best know when an idea is worth stealing. But overall, one hallmark of good design is that you do not implement solutions that are worse than the best you've done in the past. You also do not continue incorporating unused parts. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
cmanteuf writes:
Well, although this is true in today's mechanized world, I still find it a lot more interesting (if I have time) to explore different options on how to go about doing something in different ways. When I am pressed for time, I do reuse a lot of stuff.
"Good programmers know how to code. Great programmers know when to reuse." And yes, this particular argument is no more than an argument from incredulity... but it's exactly the same as the ID/YEC argument, only using correct facts (as opposed to something like 'bats wings are like bird wings so therefore The Designer must have reused them').
Dude, only ignorant creationists use the bat/bird wings argument. It is hardly fair if you and others use this line of thought agaist IDists everytime the subject is brought up. It's like me saying "communists are left wing liberals therefore all democrats can go to hell..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
jar writes:
Many of the useless body parts 30 years ago are now considered useful for the body. Who knows what we figure out what's what 10 years from now. Also, ever heard of the fall?
You also do not continue incorporating unused parts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
To refresh your memory, here is the link to your post. In it you describe what you used to mathematically model the formation of biomolecules and so statistically prove its "impossibility" or "improbability".
At the bottom of that post you will find an indication that I replied to it. Or you could even look at your list of posts and discover that a reply to that post has been waiting for some time. In my reply I question your modeling capabilities without reference to chemical environment. Remember, we started talking and I said I was educated in chemistry and had worked on modeling chemical behavior and you said that was good because you do too? Lets return to the idea of two guys that have a chemistry background and are practiced in modeling chemical systems, discussing the modeling of abiogenesis in a statistical way. I am wondering how you model a system without knowledge of all possible mechanisms that would have an effect on it. Or conversely, since you seem to be claiming statistical models of formation do not need to take into account environment as environment is irrelevant, I would like you to explain how any directed process would change the odds on abiogenesis occuring. As two guys with a chemical background and experience in modeling, I'm sure you understand what I am talking about now... right? This message has been edited by holmes, 05-10-2005 03:33 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Ahhh....yes...I remember that exchange now. A moderator had to get involved to calm you down a bit.
Considering your attitude, coupled with the fact that you are not making a lick of sense about anything I said in the post you linked to (I don't think you understood the chemistry I posted at all). I think I'll pass at further conversations with you. Thank you for your posts Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
A moderator had to get involved to calm you down a bit. No, a moderator informed me that a previously acceptable, or tolerated, level of sarcasm was no longer going to be allowed. It did not have anything to do with whether I was "excited" or not. I have a habit of throwing in jibes now and then for color, a bad habit which I picked up in high school and have been trying to control ever since. You'll note I thanked the moderator and said I would comply.
Considering your attitude, coupled with the fact that you are not making a lick of sense about anything I said in the post you linked to (I don't think you understood the chemistry I posted at all). I think I'll pass at further conversations with you. Well I am not acting excited now, so that shouldn't be an issue. And if you think I was not making a lick of sense regarding what you had previously said, lets chalk it up to my misunderstanding of what you had said, and start fresh. You say you can calculate the probability of a chemical compound forming, and that probability calculation excludes natural (undirected) mechanisms from having formed the compound. This is correct so far right? And if not, exactly what statistical modeling are you claiming to have performed such as to exclude natural processes? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Very well. Every man deserves a chance to keep his word. Now, to help me hone in on what it is you're asking of me, would you please cut and paste from my posts (either the one you linked to or others) where I talked about building a chemical model based on mathematics to show design? Quite frankly, I reread the post you linked to and still did not find anything in there I can interpret as what you're asking. I want to comply with your questions, but I need to understand what those questions are. If you will cut and paste, I'll do my best. Thank you Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
would you please cut and paste from my posts (either the one you linked to or others) where I talked about building a chemical model based on mathematics to show design? From your post which initially suggested some sort of defense for a statistical model... {quote you cite in order to respond: Separately from that: The calculations I am refering to are those that discuss the probability of the first life forms arising by chance. I have never seen these done in a way that isn't meaningless.} Really. Well, I will be glad to walk you through a calculation in that area I believe to be meaningful. Chemical reactions operate quite differently than calculating the odds of say, winning a lottery. For two atoms to bond (join together into a molecule) they must be within an interacting neighborhood. In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another. The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the neighborhood of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond. It goes on from there but to my mind had already raised a question. This was my response:
I have a chemistry background and more than that a background that includes having modeled chemical reactions. I must say I am uncertain where you have gotten your numbers from. It is not like the universe is a giant stew with everything engaging in easily calculatable random reactions. Chemicals form environments which actually make harder or easier future chemical reactions. It is not impossible that any two chemicals WILL come together and start interacting, once that happens, especially under the crush of gravity which will happen due to gathering of mass, that makes certain future interactions more likely, and some less likely. I have not seen where you have taken into account the possibility of catalytic environments which would promote biomolecules from forming. Citing Miller is especially interesting as he also did not examine all possible environments. You could perhaps dispell my doubts by giving an example of your calculations regarding such a formation if it occured in a chiral clay at the bottom of the ocean, near a vent with little oxygen but high temperatures and high pressures, as opposed to inside a meteorite with hydrocarbons trapped within small inner chambers warmed and cooled by passage near a star, as opposed to free floating hydrocarbons in an atmosphere. I hope you would agree the difference in probability would be significant. Your responded as follows... Cool. Me too. We'll get along fine... I got my numbers straight from biochemistry knowing the way that amino acids assemble themselves via electrical charge from a racemic mixture of AAs being held as racemic via chemical equilibrium as described by Le Chatlier's Principle. That's the math. You might want to reread the piece. If you think the math is wrong, tackle it and show it to be wrong. I'll be glad to back up and go another avenue if you do... I was not calculating molecules forming on clay. There is no evidence this occurs in a manner that would form complex proteins of the type that sustain life to begin with. But this wouldn't affect anything, as those particular AAs would still have the same probabilities of formation no matter whether it was on clay or in a primeval ooze. And don't forget Gibb's free energy and how that forbids the complex organic molecules we are discussing from forming spontaneously. We need stay in science and out of pseudo-science. You have the second law of thermodynamics working against you and you will lose every time when that happens. The rest is pretty much history, but the above is all we need to get back on track. How do you accurately calculate probabilities of formation if you do not know all possible environments it may occur within? And if environment is irrelevant to such calculations, what could a creator do that would make the necessary reaction more probable? I think my questions are very clear at this point, including the fact that at least initially you were suggesting you did such calculations and were interested in discussing how you did them. Please answer the questions. Thank you. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cmanteuf Member (Idle past 6794 days) Posts: 92 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Troy writes: When I am pressed for time, I do reuse a lot of stuff. Welcome to the world of the professional engineer. (And I can say that because I've been in the workplace for almost a year now!)
Troy writes: It is hardly fair if you and others use this line of thought agaist IDists everytime the subject is brought up. In messagehttp://EvC Forum: Foundations of ID -->EvC Forum: Foundations of ID Jerry Don Bauer said: Jerry Don Bauer writes: Why come up with a helicopter design for bats when the wings I designed for birds do the job perfectly well? The part of the previous message that Mr. Bauer was responding to was about Hox genes, so it would appear that in this particular case the IDist brought up the bat wing-bird wing comparison, not the so-called Darwinists. I think it is legitimate to make the exact same argument, only with correct facts, right back. It isn't a strong argument, because it is nothing more than an appeal to incredulity. I would think, however, that it would be convincing to the IDist, since he made the argument originally himself, just with incorrect facts. And being convincing and being on a sound logical basis are often orthogonal, c.f. politics. Chris
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
The point has been brought up in many other ID threads which I was suprized had not yet been mentioned here. What about taking into account all possible "acceptable" outcomes? 2^13 choose 1 is very different than 2^13 choose 2^12.
Of course knowing all these outcomes would be a necessary precursor to making any valid claims of probability in any environment. Add this to the environmental factors you are talking about and it looks pretty clear that the very simplistic (big-number) choose 1 argument is quite insufficient for declaring something impossible. FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX. -- Lewis Black, The Daily Show
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: They are now that you are not talking about mathematical models and other vague concepts I never mentioned. Wouldn't that throw about anyone? If this is all you're talking about, I can answer your questions. The gist of your question seems to lie in this statement: Jerry: "And don't forget Gibb's free energy and how that forbids the complex organic molecules we are discussing from forming spontaneously. We need stay in science and out of pseudo-science. You have the second law of thermodynamics working against you and you will lose every time when that happens."
quote: Now I will address it: I get my numbers from past research and the literature, of course, and this is fairly old science. And remember what the subject was, the polymerization of proteins from amino acids of the type that comprise organisms. This occurs through condensation reactions. Also as I have preciously stated, it is not difficult to calculate enthalpy change as dipeptides form from amino acids. This has been done by Hutchens [1] and is shown to be 5-8 kcal/mole. Obviously, work has to be done on this system for a polypeptide to form and in organisms, this work is provided by the organism. But since we are talking about pre-biotic conditions, where did this work come from? Further, in a more generalized form, Morowitz [2] has estimated that the chemical work (average increase in enthalpy) for macromolecular formation in living systems is 16.4 cal/gm. At another place in that same book he states that the average increase in bonding energy in going from simple compounds to an E. coli bacterium is 0.27 ev/atom. Work must be performed on these systems in order that more complex molecules can form to support life. This is just common sense to one who has studied chemistry. They do not form by Darwinian magic. [1] John 0. Hutchens, 1976. Handbook of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 3rd ed., Physical and Chemical Data, Gerald D. Fasman. Cleveland: CRC Press. [2] H. Morowitz, 1968. Energy Flow in Biology. New York: Academic Press, p.79. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Guys, now I'm sorry I brought up bat wings, lol. I was not using them in an evolutionary argument. I just stated that if I were a designer, I think I would be smart enough not to reinvent the hub cap for every new car I designed. If wings will work for flight with birds, they will also work for bats, bumble bees and house flies. That's all I was pointing out. Design Dynamics
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024