Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

What's the first ingredient?

When you're typing into the reply box, look down to the message you're replying to. At the top you'll see two radio buttons, one labeled "Normal", the other labeled "Peek Mode". Click on "Peek Mode". Now you can copy-n-paste smilies, and all other HTML/dBCode content.--Percy

Okay, I'll try again.I was watching Oprah once many years ago. The topic was "Do winning the lottery make your life great or awful?"Oprah had a bunch of previous lottery winners on to tell their stories.The odds against winning the lottery are astronomical, but everyone on the stage was a winner. How is that possible?It's possible because the group on the stage consisted only of lottery winners.The same thing is happening here. The odds against abiogenisis are astronomical. As a result there are many many planets without life. However, we are having a talk show about the one (ones) that have life.Just because something is rare doesn't mean it doesn't happen.Before I stop, I understand your second point, which is - to paraphrase - "Since it's rare for abiogenisis to happen, therefore it must be magic."Frankly, I don't understand that logic in this. Does magic have a higher probability?

Do random connections between amino acids happen? Has this been witnessed?If random connections have been witnessed then, no matter how improbable, there is a possibility that any protein could be formed. If any protein could be formed by a random process then there is a chance, however small, that life itself could be a process of random connections in a soup of amino acids.On the other hand does god create life? Has this process been witnessed? Is there any solid empirical evidence that this process can occur?Although you can’t discount the possibility of a deity creating life, you have to factor in the lack of evidence of the deity’s existence and also you have to factor in the lack of evidence that it actually kicked the life thing off (the bible does not count on that score, but that’s a different argument and a different topic) All in all the actual probability that a deity created life is really small. You will note that this doesn’t exclude the possibility that god did it but you would not bet on it . .So using your reasoning, abiogenesis is the more probable and therefore correct.Please don’t make the mistake that just because the odds for one idea on how life came to be are incredibly long, this does not automatically validate any other specific hypothesis you happen to like.You have not calculated the probability that any of the alternate ideass are right, so how can you make that jugement?But here is the rub. It matters not one jot to argue the probabilities after the event. Life happened. The probability that life was a random thing or divine creation does not answer the question. It only says one or the other has a better chance to be correct. The only way to ever answer this question is either to witness abiogenesis in the lab or witness god create life. The probabilities are irrelevant.edit------ after thoughtMind you I’ve never quite understood what the argument actually is. With just a tiny mind shift you say “God created the universe in such a way that allowed abiogenesis to happen” and therefore ”Abiogenesis’ == True and ”God did it’ == True and everyone is happy.This message has been edited by ohnhai, 06-10-2005 01:58 AM

Yes, I think you're right, those may come closer to being the core issues. And I think someone needs to help Faith understand these issues before discussion can be productive. But this is an old song where discussions with Faith are concerned. She doesn't think there's any necessity for understanding what she holds opinions about.Faith, could you respond to the posts Modulous mentioned, in a way that directly addresses the points they contain?--Percy

The whole point of the thread that this one is discussing is that the odds against abiogenisis are completly unknown. That is not the same as astronomical. It maybe that half the planets in the galaxy are within a wide range (from Europa to mars) which can support life. It maybe that all of those have life on them. We don't know.

So you are suggesting that "inconceivability" is always subjective?What if one finds something mysterious? Is that not a problem with the theory? For example, the evolution of consciousness. I find that mysterious. Is my reaction merely subjective?

I guess I'm flat-out saying so, although there may be phenomena that none of us can conceive of--but how would we know?In the context of debate/discussion, if I can conceive of something or find it credible, and my interlocutor cannot, what else can these disparate states be but subjective?My ability to conceive of/imagine a proposition/phenomenon is not evidence for its truth/existence, nor is the interlocutor's inability to do so evidence against it.Let me turn your question around: How can mysteriousness be objective?The Hound of the Baskervilles is mysterious until we finish the story, so it is mysterious to some and not to others. Isn't mysteriousness really just ignorance wrapped in wonder?

You seem determined in believing that "astronomical odds" means that the result of the event is designed. Why? You can in no way support this claim. You are basically stating that things with long odds can’t possibly happen without Devine intervention, which is nonsense.Just use yourself as an example. Do you understand anything at all about meiosis? Well, just in case, here’s a very simple (and mostly incorrect) explanation of the process. During meiosis the chromosome count of reproductive cells (gametes) is reduced by half. This, of course, insures that upon the formation of a zygote (a fertilized egg), the chromosome count is "restored" to the diploid number. For example, humans have 23 pairs of homologous chromosomes (46 total = diploid). This means that our gametes each contain only of each pair, for a total of 23 chromosomes (= haploid). When we reproduce, the other half is supplied by our mate and the offspring has a chromosome count of 46 again (haploid + haploid = diploid).During meiosis a single diploid cell will eventually become four haploid cells (well, four for guys but only one functional cell for women, but that’s nether here nor there), but as to not complicate things any more that necessary, I’m going to ignore how you get four from one. However, also during meiosis an event called "Independent Assortment" occurs, which basically states that when the chromosome count is reduced from 46 to 23, how each pair separates into a “new” cell is independent of how any other pair may separate. This process will be my the focus from here on out.Maybe it would help to think of your chromosomes as pairs of shoes. Let’s say you have 23 pairs of shoes in your closet (and your mate has 23 pairs in his). Now let’s say you want to make a third closet of 23 pairs, with (23 individual shoes) coming from you, and the other half (23 individual shoes) coming from him. Well, in order to do this you must first reduce your closet count by half (as does he, but we’ll just focus on your shoes for now). This is an extremely oversimplified explanation of what happens during meiosis. You take of each pair of shoes (for a total of 23) and put them in a new closet. But which shoe (right or left) from each pair do you choose? For any given pair you choose (whether it's the right or the left), that choice will play no role whatsoever in which shoe from any other pair you choose. That’s independent assortment, and it results in a large number of possible “right/left” combinations.Ok, so now let me ask you this. How many different ways can you separate just your shoes? In other words, if you needed a separate closet for each possible arrangement of shoes, how many closets would you need? For example, let’s say that in the “first” closet you placed all of the right shoes. You now have closet number one with 23 right shoes. But of course, that’s not the only way you could have done it, is it? So now let’s say that instead you did it as follows: In closet number two you place the left shoe of the first pair, and for the remaining pairs you used the rights. That’s another closet now filled with 23 shoes ( of each pair) arranged such that you have 1 left from pair number one and 22 rights from pairs two through twenty-three. In yet another arrangement (closet number three) you place the right shoe for pair number two and for the remaining 22 pairs (pair one, and pairs 3 -23) you used the lefts. Continue this process until you have used every pair of shoes in every possible right/left combination. How many closets would you need? Would it surprise you to know that you would need 8,388,608 closets. And to make matters even worse, your mate would require that same number. Now think for a moment, of the number of different ways you can “recombine” your closets with his, in order to get a “new” closet of 23 pairs ( from you and from him). For any given “new” closet, you have over 8 million closest to choose from, as does he.So now, what are the odds that you, Faith, actually exist as you are? Remember, the odds are greater than eight million to one that the possible chromosomes supplied to you by your mother were the ones you would end up with. And the odds are greater than eight million to one that the other half, supplied by your father, were the ones you would end up with. So, the odds against you having the chromosomes that you do are 70,400,000,000,000 to 1 (8,388,608 X 8,388,608) . imagine! Now factor in the odds of your mother receiving the chromosomes she did as well as your father, and then factor in your grandparents and great grandparents...and by going back only three generations you get a staggeringly HUGE number against the probability that you would eventually end up as you are now . but yet it happened.(Also keep in mind that another event occurs during meiosis called “Cross Over”, which throws a monkey wrench into the whole process by swapping portions of homologous chromosomes prior to Independent Assortment occurring. So the odds I just gave you are a “best case” scenario . the actual odds are even greater!)Are you the result on Devine intervention, Faith, or are you simply the result of “random” events that resulted in you getting the chromosomes that you did? My claim (and RAZD’s as I understand him) is that the odds are meaningless because here you are . as you are. The probability is one. You, however, cannot grasp the fact that even things with long odds happen every day without the need to call upon some sort of Devine intervention.

I agree, but I'm conceding the point to Faith to avoid a super complex argument. I'm just trying to show her that even if she's right on all fronts, he conclusion is still wrong

Good grief, Nuggin. You really think you can just claim it HAS happened at this point? That's what RAZD was doing and everybody else seems to be doing in various ways, but that's the whole question-begging thing right there. The "astronomical improbabilities" imply it may not have happened at all ever, not that it MUST have happened by the astronomically few chances it COULD have happened.

Refusal to acknowledge the obvious fact that RAZD's statement was question-begging has me not much interested in the rest of the conversation. Yes, I understand it was supposedly NOT question-begging because of something having to do with mathematical models and the idiocy of creationists, which isn't very inspiring.

Hi Faith,You haven't yet grasped what people are telling you. This is the most important point:

1. If creation happened naturalistically via abiogenesis, we don't know the process by which it happened and therefore cannot estimate the odds. Anyone who claims to be able to calculate the odds is just making things up.

There are a some less significant points, here are just a few:

2. There's a subsidiary point regarding odds that is simple but important. Long odds, say one chance in trillions, only affect how often something happens, not whether it happens. This isn't the most important point in this discussion, but you persistently misunderstand this point, and so I mention it.
   ​
3. It isn't abiogenesis that is claimed to have definitely happened, but creation. The fact that we are here says it must have happened. This part of the point is really that simple, so maybe the problem is that you're reading too much into it.
   ​
4. If creation happened by divine fiat, we have no scientific information for this scenario and so can say nothing scientifically.

--Percy

There are only two choices:
1. special creation (the idea of being made by aliens just sets the question back a step).
2. came about naturallyIs there any reason to prefer one choice to another?

Oh I got it, Percy. "Making things up" as in making an educated guess is how I read it, and one that is subject to all kinds of future adjustments and recalculations. So what's the big deal anyway? So it MUST happen once in trillions? Well, perhaps I do misunderstand probability then. Seems to me if something is astronomically unlikely that simply means it most likely didn't happen. The problem is the jumping from that obvious point to the conclusion that therefore the probability is equal for any given source, whether abiogenesis or a Creator. To say that the fact that life exists makes abiogenesis a likely origin is begging the question the creationists are challenging with their probability estimates. Certainly. But if the odds are astronomically against the occurrence of abiogenesis, precisely this fact gives support to the argument for a Creator.Sure you can say you don't know if they are astronomically against this occurrence or not, but by the same token you can't even say for sure that the creationists' calculations are wrong. They may be right. {OK, maybe the particular ones RAZD dealt with you can know are wrong.}This message has been edited by Faith, 10-05-2005 02:35 PM