Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

quote:

---

Intuitively the odds are against abiogenesis and evolution itself to some astronomical degree, but since intuition isn't math you can just let the creationists go on knowing it's true while you pretend it isn't with all the scientific justification you can muster and keep the creationists marginalized by sheer force of assertion. It OUGHT to be conceded that with the present knowns the probabilities are against you

---

Intuition is hardly a reliable guide - not when dealing with matters well beyond normal human experience. In truth you should concede that you don't know and neither does anybody else. You should concede that the calculations offered by creationists do not even begin to address the real issue of the origins of life.Your opinion in this case has no value. That is why it is marginalised, and that is why I wil not concede that your opinion represents a genuine problem for the theory of abiogenesis.

I hardly expected better, but it's interesting that you respond only to what is really just a side issue. What about RAZD's question-begging? Nobody going to acknowledge that?

I don't agree that RAZD did beg the question.Your assertion that he did is based on a questionable inference.And I notice that you don't address the points I raised at all.

Then I misunderstood your earlier "It doesn't matter." Thanks for the clarification. Like the others above, I didn't read his assertion that way. If RAZD did intend what you suggest, then I agree that would beg the question. Emphasis added.Well, I can't speak for others, but I am certainly not pretending, and the suggestion of pretense is an ad hominem fallacy. I grant that you are sincere in your beliefs, Faith: there is no reason I can see to deny the same courtesy to me and other evolutionists. That is another implied ad hominem, but I think you misunderstood me as well. I do not object to anyone performing computations or empirically evaluating evidentiary claims: I would encourage everyone to do both, evolutionist and creationist alike. However, the frequency with which creationists present scientific evidence that turns out to be flawed, and the frequency with which the invalidation of that evidence is shrugged off, only underscores for me the irrelevance of science to faith (small f ): science cannnot falsify your faith; your faith cannot falsify science.The only valid ground of struggle between the two is where faith attempts to use bad science against good, esp. when faith so often fails to grasp authentic scientific methodology and thus presents flawed evidence, and even more esp. when faith attempts to use that flawed evidence to support changes in secular policy, e.g., teaching Intelligent Design.I do object to fallacious computations, especially when such computations continue to be presented as evidence once their errors are pointed out, and I do object to comparisons of subjective certainty to mathematical probability--apples and oranges, really, and the argument from intuition carries no more evidentiary weight than a personal preference for apples over oranges.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 10-03-2005 09:48 AMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-03-2005 10:51 AM

---

IMHO

Faith, Bullpuckey.You don't intuitively know anything. You only know things by ultimately observing things. Therefore, if you don't know the numbers to plug into a mathematical model, then you are deluding yourself that you intuitively know the answer in spite of not having accurate numbers. It doesn't get more intellectually bankrupt than this. Why on earth would you go to the trouble of forming a mathematical model just to ignore it when the flaws are pointed out to you, & declare that you know the answer anyway? Why not skip the math & pretend you know it all to begin with?Know matter how much you want the probability argument to be a problem for evolution, until you have halfway accurate figures then as I've said before, you're pissing in the wind.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

What am I, chopped liver? My last post dealt with that issue. He is not the one begging the question, you are.It is true that if he stated that the reality of evo and abio can prove a model wrong if it does not comply with expectations, that would be begging the question. But that is not in fact what he is saying. Or at least that is not how it reads to me.However you are making the statement that a model's inability to show or predict evo or abio somehow has a logical impact on those theories. That is begging the question.A model has no real way of impacting a scientific theory until it can be determined through some other test to be accurate for all possible relevant mechanisms required by that scientific theory. As far as I know there are no set mechanisms in advanced for evo or abio to be modelled or tested... just vague areas of where the mechanisms could exist.Everyone has been trying to explain the following to you, but you don't seem to get it. Should I try? Yes I will...We can see life arose and is diverse. Many possible mechanisms in different fields of knowledge may be the explanation. A model based on a portion of any of those fields which does not generate life or diversity (which we do see), means one of two things (if we really simplify the discussion)...1) the model is correct and so life and diversity have nothing to do with the mechanisms found in those fields.2) The model is not correct because we do not have enough knowledge of those fields to create an accurate model and its inconsistency is therefore meaningless.Our confidence in the first being true is only as strong as our confidence in the totality of our knowledge in the applicable fields. That life does exist and is diverse, and we clearly do not have a great grasp of any of the applicable fields, suggests that the latter rather than the former is your best bet.You may feel that is unfair, it is putting a much greater onus on the first point, and somehow assuming the latter to be true, but that is not the case. We are discussing models being used to eliminate the possibility of something being true. That requires quite a bit of evidence and confidence, compared to a model not telling us one way or the other.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

NO! RAZD didn't say that at all. RAZD said that we have two main options.1. The mathematical model is right, our model of reality is wrong
2. The mathematical model is wrong, our model of reality is right.and the third, where both are wrong.When faced with a contradiction between the maths and our model of reality (natural phenomena are explainable with natural phenomena) it is usually the mathematical model that is wrong.Do you contest this at all? Do you consider that a mathematical model is more likely to be accurate than the reality?Let me give you an example: A lottery has 48 balls, if you pick six of them you will win the jackpot.n!/{(n - r)!} (where n is 48 and r is 6)=8,835,488,640 to one against winning.The reality: Only a few tens of million people play the game, yet there is usually a winner.Conclusion: Our mathematical model is probably wrong, not the observation that many people win. And intuitively the speed of light is relative to the motion of the observer. It has been conceded that the model proposed (a soup of amino acids in equilibrium randomly bumping into each other) would render abiogenesis impossibly unlikely. However, the model proposed is not what reality is indicating happened. The maths model has no support so it is moot. So you're right. That version of abiogenesis probably didn't happen. I'd bet my house on it.Now, the maths fails to discuss the actual models of abiogenesis the biochemists are working on. Doesn't that tell you that the mathematical model demonstrates nothing useful? Compute WHAT? If you have an accurate chemical/physics model of how abiogenesis could actually happen then we can try to draw up a mathematical model of it to compute these probabilities. One version (the chuck it in a bucket and watch how nothing happens model) has been refuted. Now, how about the repeated heating and dehydrating/rehydrating cycles of amino acids which causes them to form proteinoids - a string of 18 amino acids, the model creationists propose would say that the probability of this happening would be1/20¹⁷ or 1 in 13,107,200,000,000,000,000,000despite the fact that it happens every time.Do you think the mathematical model is accurate? Or do you think that the protenoid microspheres that form, producing nucleic acids, everytime the experiment is run (that is to say, the OBSERVERD reality) is accurate.Stick to the hopelessly simplistic mathematical models that don't model either reality or the hypothesis they intend to if you want. I'm going to stick with observed reality for now though.

Who said they can't? But, arbitrarily true? No. YEC declare x,y,z as facts but have no evidence, no logic, no reason to support it.Why do you believe this?
It says this in a book therefore it's true.How do you know the book is correct?
The book says it's correct.How do you know the book isn't wrong about that?
The book says it's correct.But, the book is clearly wrong about The Flood. There's a lot of evidence from lots of different sources pointing to a 4.5 billion age.
The book says it's correct.Wait, are you maybe just stuck, skipping like a record?
The book says it's correct.Okay, I see. Well, maybe if you were to read OTHER books you'd learn something.
The book says it's correct.Fine, you know what? I'm going to go get a sandwich.
The book says it's correct.You want something?
The book says it's correct.Okay then. Catch ya later.
The book says it's correct.

The evidence around says that WHAT has happened?-or-What does the model say cannot happen?
And what evidence all around you says that it has?Are you guys addressing what was actually said?Which I put this way: "...the preposterous assertion that since life exists therefore the probabilities can't be against the random generation of life, which is a staggeringly transparent case of begging the question."I can't get anything out of any of your carrying on about the validity of models but your determination to be sure you keep creationists in the category of idiots.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-03-2005 01:34 PM

-- it's not us that are doing that. You're the one that "can't get anything ..".

I did. My last post contained two parts so you could ignore the model discussion, though it amplified the explanation of what was going on.You are begging the question by assuming the validity of a model such that its results suggest something about reality.RAZD on the other hand is not assuming anything about whether evo or abio are real to suggest something about the model. Unfortunately if you are not understanding what is being said about how models work and what an inconsistency suggests, it is unlikely you will understand what RAZD was saying. Your loss.But that should not matter toward my point above regarding your position.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You began your post with a quote containing "If you have a mathematical model that ..." Did you notice that "if"?The point is that we DO NOT HAVE a suitable mathematical model. We cannot tell you what the model says cannot happen, because there is no model.Creationists keep coming up with putative mathematical models from which they compute probabilities. These are NOT models of how abiogenesis would have to occur. They are models of particular ways that creationists assumed it would have to occur. At most, such a model shows that it could not have happened in the manner assumed by the model. It does not show that abiogenesis could not have happened by some other means not included in that particular model.

When speaking of models and probabilities and so forth, we're talking scientifically. When we say that since life exists therefore the probabilities cannot rule out its spontaneous occurrence, we're talking scientifically. When you call it begging the question because there are other possibilities we're not considering you're not speaking scientifically, because those other possibilities are not science. I wouldn't use the term "idiots", but it is certainly a mistake to assign scientific status to religious beliefs that are unsupported by objective evidence.--Percy

Wait a second, that's not quite true. It is true at this point in time because of the quality of knowledge used for generating the possibiities.You do grant that at some point science could be capable of generating possibilities on spontaneous generation of biomolecules which might have an impact on abio as a theory, correct?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Forget the Book. How about the Spirit?