Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 136 of 301 (248993)
10-04-2005 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
10-04-2005 7:40 AM


Re: My answer once again
A creationist says quite reasonably that the probabilities don't look too good for the spontaneous generation of life from non-life (leaving aside particular computations for the moment) and you answer basically, oh the probabilities are just fine, BECAUSE LIFE EXISTS AFTER ALL (the lawn exists, the rose garden exists, the cottonwoods exist). Sorry, that declares your conclusion in your premise, that spontaneous generation is how it happened, and eliminates a priori the other possibility of a Designer, begs the whole question under debate.
I'm sure this has been brought up by others on this thread. I jumped ahead a few pages and saw that we are still talking about the exact same thing.
Faith, I'll try to make this very simple, the odds against abiogenisis are astronomical. Fortunately, the size of the universe is also astronomical. We have not found life anywhere else (those Mars rocks aside) but it's irrelivant. If life only existed on one planet in the entire universe and it wasn't Earth, then we'd be having this conversation on that planet.
Am I assuming abiogenisis? No. I am saying - "there is life here."
It's a simple fact. Offer up all the math you like to try to disprove me, the fact this remains there is life here. Give me a period followed by a zillion zeros and a one, there is still life here.
You claim it's because God squeezed some clay. Others claim it's because Odin's cow vomited us up. Still others believe that we fell from corn. They are all equally plausible. They are all "true".
Math does nothing to prove or disprove them.
Why? Because life is here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 10-04-2005 7:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 10-05-2005 1:05 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 140 by Silent H, posted 10-05-2005 6:13 AM Nuggin has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 137 of 301 (248995)
10-05-2005 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Nuggin
10-04-2005 11:57 PM


Re: My answer once again
Faith, I'll try to make this very simple, the odds against abiogenisis are astronomical. Fortunately, the size of the universe is also astronomical. We have not found life anywhere else (those Mars rocks aside) but it's irrelivant. If life only existed on one planet in the entire universe and it wasn't Earth, then we'd be having this conversation on that planet.
Am I assuming abiogenisis? No. I am saying - "there is life here."
It's a simple fact. Offer up all the math you like to try to disprove me, the fact this remains there is life here. Give me a period followed by a zillion zeros and a one, there is still life here.
I guess I'm going to be repeating myself again too. You admit that "the odds against abiogenisis are astronomical," which is much appreciated, as others here won't admit that much. The situation you describe IS astronomically improbable as you admit, that is, the generation of life from non-life IS astronomically improbable -- and yet somehow you can go on to treat this as no impediment to that theory. This is just staggering to me (oops, argument from incredulity again). Like a case of Denial or something. Like the most antic illogic imaginable. Creationists should concede radiometric dating perhaps (or at least I should -- and in fact do -- because I can't dispute it rightly, though others may be able to), and it's only right that Evolutionists concede the astronomical improbability of abiogenesis. Perhaps of evolution itself as well. Such concessions don't bring the wheels of science to a grinding halt after all, though you'd think by the stonewall refusal to make any such concession something that dire were at stake.
You claim it's because God squeezed some clay. Others claim it's because Odin's cow vomited us up. Still others believe that we fell from corn. They are all equally plausible. They are all "true".
Math does nothing to prove or disprove them.
Why? Because life is here.
Actually I haven't claimed anything EXCEPT that the "astronomical improbability of abiogenesis" leaves us with the only reasonable alternative explanation for the indisputable fact that "life is here." A Designer.
But thank you again for acknowledging that abiogenesis is "astronomically improbable" without requiring me to produce a mathematical model of it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 10-05-2005 01:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Nuggin, posted 10-04-2005 11:57 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Thor, posted 10-05-2005 6:29 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 10-05-2005 8:34 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 153 by Nuggin, posted 10-05-2005 10:40 AM Faith has replied
 Message 159 by FliesOnly, posted 10-05-2005 11:43 AM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 138 of 301 (248996)
10-05-2005 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Faith
10-04-2005 7:30 AM


Re: You wanted evidence, I gave it to you
Evidence in favor of the event does not make the probabilities equal between random generation and creation.
I'm not suggesting that it does. What I am saying is that a mathematical model which contradicts the positive evidence is more likely to be wrong than not. It doesn't mean that the conclusion the model reaches is wrong, but that the model is likely to be wrong. A model can be hideously wrong but still produce the right general conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 10-04-2005 7:30 AM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 139 of 301 (249000)
10-05-2005 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
10-04-2005 5:41 PM


Re: Back to the methodology conflict
His doing any probability calculations whatever gives credence to that approach, despite the fact that he was trying to demonstrate how wrong the creationist version is.
He was listing a bunch of critiques to the maths. One of them is that it doesn't correctly compute probabilities. That is unrelated the criticism that calculating probabilities for these things is absurd or that the model of abiogenesis attemptd to be modelled mathematically is not a hypothesis held by the science community.
This is like me saying to you: The fact that you are arguing the details of evolution (rather than just dismissing it as erroneous) lends credence to it. Showing people the fundamental mathematical errors in a calculation lends no credence to the method of using probabilities to calculate something. Can you imagine how many people accept this mathematical model despite it being based on crap maths?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 10-04-2005 5:41 PM Faith has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 140 of 301 (249018)
10-05-2005 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Nuggin
10-04-2005 11:57 PM


Re: My answer once again
You claim it's because God squeezed some clay. Others claim it's because Odin's cow vomited us up. Still others believe that we fell from corn. They are all equally plausible. They are all "true".
Oh please, it is quite evident that Atum masturbated within the primordial waters in order to form all life. Not only does that actually fit the evidence evos use (small squiggly life appearing out of nowhere in a primordial sea that was lifeless to later become all life), but it squares with the impossibility calculations.
Now whether it was autofellatio, or whether he had sex with his own shadow, scientists will eventually reach some sort of determination as we get more knowledge.
It is also not possible at this time to determine whether Shu and and Tefnut and their children Geb and Nuit (locked in eternal incestuous copulation) are just myths added on to describe why Atum's seed nurtured here, or whether they were real and it was their frothy mixtures which produced what we see, well that also will be modelled later. In any case the evidence fits.
Pan spermia? Who needs that theory when we already had the KNOWLEDGE of Atum's or Geb's spermia from the beginning of recorded history?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Nuggin, posted 10-04-2005 11:57 PM Nuggin has not replied

Thor
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 148
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 12-20-2004


Message 141 of 301 (249020)
10-05-2005 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
10-05-2005 1:05 AM


Re: My answer once again
Ok, I guess I'll throw in my $0.02.
Actually I haven't claimed anything EXCEPT that the "astronomical improbability of abiogenesis" leaves us with the only reasonable alternative explanation for the indisputable fact that "life is here." A Designer.
This is an assertion that really doesn't sit well with me. Even you are using the word "improbable" rather than "impossible", and there is a significant difference between the two which I'm sure you would agree with.
Yes, there is an "astronomical improbability of abiogenesis". For a start I'll pick a number out of the air, say the chances of abiogenesis occurring is one in a million. That means it could still take place many thousands of times in this galaxy alone. One in a billion perhaps? Still could happen hundreds of times in this galaxy. So with there being countless billions of galaxies, The playing field gets a lot bigger. It's possible that our little blue planet is the only place in the universe where life exists or ever existed, which is one little planet out of ... well, a lot. You really need to step outside this little world and consider just how outrageously big the universe is. Astronomical improbability becomes much less of an issue when there is an astronomical number of possibilities (ie. stars with oribiting planets).
If I buy a lottery ticket tomorrow (yes, the good old lottery analogy) the chances of me winning it are next to (but not quite) nothing. This does not by default lend support to the idea that in the entire lottery, in the history of all lotteries that have ever been run, nobody ever has or will ever win. Similarly, the improbability of abiogenesis does NOT automatically lend support to the idea of design/creation. All it does, and all it can ever do, is point out that abiogenesis is very improbable. So what, we are still here. The way I see it the improbability issue doesn't prevent that, it just means it's a very rare thing, and I don't expect many evos would claim that it is a common thing.

On the 7th day, God was arrested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 10-05-2005 1:05 AM Faith has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 142 of 301 (249021)
10-05-2005 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
10-04-2005 5:41 PM


Re: Back to the methodology conflict
His doing any probability calculations whatever gives credence to that approach, despite the fact that he was trying to demonstrate how wrong the creationist version is. Then finally to declare all probability calculations irrelevant as the fact that life exists is evidence enough for his team is, once again, begging the question.
No, you can actually use a multiprong attack to defeat another's position. In fact it is even more powerful if you can attack a position by both undercutting its very plausibility, as well as to assume its plausibility and show how its use is incorrect.
I am not on a team with RAZD. You can check other threads where we have been in disagreement, including on scientific issues. You are making a mistake in reading what he is saying.
creationist observation that life's springing up out of nowhere is ridiculously improbable.
A model is not an observation. And abio does not assert that life sprang up out of nowhere. In fact, abio suggests that life must have emerged under very specific conditions which may have taken a very long period of time.
Obviously no room for simple common sense when it comes to the very idea that life could just happen
I thought you were arguing for the strength of modelling? What on earth does "common sense" have to do with molecular modelling? That would have to be some very complex stuff. Take an organic chem or biochem course some time.
You guys spend WAY too much time in the laboratory peering at the trees and completely missing the forest.
As compared to never leaving one's armchair staring at a single collection of inkstained pressed woodpulp? My guess is we're a bit closer to the target, some of us even study forests.
I'm not sure how your quote above answered my point that using random probability calcs for chemical dynamics is useless and indeed NOT what is found in nature... or the lab.
I'm sure both can be attacked on their own merits.
Woulda coulda shoulda
I refer you to Ben's attempts to explain that creationism is operating from a completely other frame of reference, and it's time this difference was both recognized and respected if there is to be anything approaching real debate here.
Hey, I recognize the difference. It is a completely different epistemological rule system and have said so myself.
Unfortunately it does mean that it is not modern science. And by the way, when others recognize it is not science and so should not be taught creationists get all flustered and say it SHOULD be in schools as science.
I don't think many here would think that people should be prevented from pursuing creationism or id, just that it should not be passed off as science or the equivalence of science. The hot button issue is that creationists are claiming it is science and trying to suggest evo theory is not proper science. Your "team" needs to make up its mind.
I get very tired of this straw man, which is an argument I have never used and in fact haven't seen other creationists use.
I didn't say you used it, I said creationists did. They most certainly do. But let's say you are right... okey doke... what mechanisms should I be looking for?
Robinrohan recognized this despite disagreeing with creationist methods. The rest of you should recognize it also
Robin was wrong. Just because Robin agrees with you does not make Robin right. I have disagreed with RAZD in other threads and so would be just fine pointing the finger of blame here. Did you not notice me stick it to Percy twice in this very thread for overstating his argument?
As a person who think evo theory is our best paradigm for diversity, and abio our best (though quite tentative) paradigm for life, I do not need to back every single statement made by others who argue in favor of evo or abio. Many have made mistakes, including logical fallacies.
The problem is that in this case RAZD did not. He was discussing the nature of models and he did so correctly.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 10-04-2005 5:41 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 10-05-2005 8:08 AM Silent H has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 143 of 301 (249029)
10-05-2005 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Silent H
10-05-2005 6:38 AM


Re: Back to the methodology conflict
holmes writes:
Did you not notice me stick it to Percy twice in this very thread for overstating his argument?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Silent H, posted 10-05-2005 6:38 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Silent H, posted 10-05-2005 9:54 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 144 of 301 (249038)
10-05-2005 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
10-05-2005 1:05 AM


Re: My answer once again
Faith writes:
I guess I'm going to be repeating myself again too. You admit that "the odds against abiogenisis are astronomical," which is much appreciated, as others here won't admit that much. The situation you describe IS astronomically improbable as you admit, that is, the generation of life from non-life IS astronomically improbable -- and yet somehow you can go on to treat this as no impediment to that theory.
Faith, I'm addressing this more to everyone else than to you.
Until someone is able to help Faith get past her misunderstanding of this aspect of probability, I don't think much progress can be made. Not that there aren't other important aspects to the discussion, but this seems central to Faith's belief that evolutionists are refusing to face the self-evident impossibility of something as unlikely as abiogenesis ever happening. I would have thought the lottery example sufficient to make the point, but I guess not. Someone's going to have to find a better example.
Not to draw the discussion off-topic, but in my view abiogenesis isn't unlikely. Conditions on the ancient earth could easily have been strongly encouraging to the process.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 10-05-2005 1:05 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Modulous, posted 10-05-2005 9:19 AM Percy has replied
 Message 148 by DorfMan, posted 10-05-2005 9:41 AM Percy has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 145 of 301 (249049)
10-05-2005 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Percy
10-05-2005 8:34 AM


The lottery analogy
I find that the lottery analogy is usually misleading. The figures that creationists usually bring out at these affairs are advertised as being orders of magnitude larger than the number of molecules in the visible universe and so a 'winner' isn't necessarily expected.
I think the best way to explain why the argument fails has been provided by myself and nwr (As well as numerous others):
In Message 67 I said:
quote:
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?
And that's a key issue. The creationists maths model fails to actually model the hypothesis (which isn't about randomly bumping molecules any more than baking a cake is).
And nwr, in Message 121 said:
1: The probability for abiogenesis using a particular model is absurdly small.
2: Therefore the particular model is unrealistic.
3: Therefore all possible models of natural abiogenesis are unrealistic.
4: Therefore natural abiogenesis did not occur.
In practice, the YECs usually state only steps 1 and 4. But steps 2 and 3 would be required for a complete argument. And step 3 is fallacious.
Unfortunately Faith hasn't responded to these posts so I don't know if she understands this fundamental point.
Holmes also brought this up in Message 125 with:
And some basic creo and id improbability calculations, are based on some weird idea of chemicals just "coming together" as if it was some homogenous soup of chemicals and random chance is the appropriate mathematical model for their interaction. It's the darndest thing.
To which Faith replied that we can't see the forest for the trees, and we should, for some reason, apply simple common sense rather than years of studying biochemistry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 10-05-2005 8:34 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 10-05-2005 10:48 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 10-05-2005 2:16 PM Modulous has replied

DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 146 of 301 (249056)
10-05-2005 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by crashfrog
10-02-2005 11:02 PM


Re: Probabilities?
quote:
Interesting, in light of the certainty that some creationists adamently believe that all existence is based on mathematical formula, the universe and all that is therein. They believe it all adds up and balances. When that formula is found and solved, all the worlds will be astonished at its simplicity.
I have no idea what you just said.
Creationists are not solo on ignorance nor closed-mindedness.
No, but they're certainly way out in front with it.
You have no idea what I just said? There is no shame in that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 10-02-2005 11:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 147 of 301 (249058)
10-05-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by NosyNed
10-02-2005 11:02 PM


Re: Probabilities?
quote:
Creationists are not solo on ignorance nor closed-mindedness.
Don't you agree?
I sure agree with that. We all fall into the trap and no one is without ignorance on many, many topics.
However this thread has exemplified in a very crisp manner that the creationists seem to specialize in willful ignorance and closed-mindedness.
This must be a theory developed by a concentrated body of those willfully ignorant determined to point fingers away from themselves and find comfort in phariseeism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 10-02-2005 11:02 PM NosyNed has not replied

DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 148 of 301 (249062)
10-05-2005 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Percy
10-05-2005 8:34 AM


Re: My answer once again
quote:
........evolutionists are refusing to face the self-evident impossibility of something as unlikely as abiogenesis ever happening..........
I believe abiogenesis is possible. But you lack first ingredient, so it is more than proper not to buy into it and to argue against it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 10-05-2005 8:34 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Parasomnium, posted 10-05-2005 9:50 AM DorfMan has replied
 Message 151 by Modulous, posted 10-05-2005 9:58 AM DorfMan has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 149 of 301 (249066)
10-05-2005 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by DorfMan
10-05-2005 9:41 AM


Re: My answer once again
Dorfman quotes Percy:
Dorfman writes:
quote:
........evolutionists are refusing to face the self-evident impossibility of something as unlikely as abiogenesis ever happening..........
If you quote, do so accurately and with context. Percy could not have said that. I checked, and indeed he didn't.
I believe abiogenesis is possible. But you lack first ingredient, so it is more than proper not to buy into it and to argue against it.
What ingredients do you need for abiogenesis?
----
Damn!
{edited to add expletive and inner quote box I forgot}
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-Oct-2005 03:02 PM

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by DorfMan, posted 10-05-2005 9:41 AM DorfMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by DorfMan, posted 10-06-2005 10:05 AM Parasomnium has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 150 of 301 (249067)
10-05-2005 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Percy
10-05-2005 8:08 AM


Re: Back to the methodology conflict
I can't seem to cut and paste smileys so I won't be able to quote your riveting retort.
Honestly percy, what's the point of having rules and then flouting them? Would you accept this behavior from creos?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 10-05-2005 8:08 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Percy, posted 10-05-2005 10:37 AM Silent H 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