Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design explains many follies
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 196 of 302 (300991)
04-04-2006 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by John 10:10
04-04-2006 8:32 AM


absurd claims
I know some here question my resume credentials, but I work in an industry ...
Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. Your credentials, as noted by Chiroptera, on this board result only from your arguments, and so far they are lacking.
If it's less than 1/1,000,000, more design is required to get the odds greater than 1/1,000,000.
To be able to calculate the odds of something you have to know all the ways it can happen and all the ways it can't happen. You have to know the system from the inside out.
The odds that a single atom could have designed itself all by itself is much much greater than 1/1,000,000!
Please show us the calculations. Without them this is just another unsubstantiated assertion or argument from incredulity.
Oh, and tell us how you rule out all the stuff that you don't know.
Sir Isaac Neuton had this to say concerning our solar system:
Argument from authority again. You really like this one eh? He was also wrong, which is the problem with arguments from authority: there is no reason they are any more valid than someone elses opinion.
You keep making logically invalid argument after logically invalid argument and then whine that we don't respect your "credentials" when it is your poor arguments that are the problem.
Enjoy
{abe} ps -- the probability of an event happening after it has already happened is 1. This is the basic problem with any argument based on probability: it doesn't matter.{/abe}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*04*2006 07:40 PM

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by John 10:10, posted 04-04-2006 8:32 AM John 10:10 has not replied

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


Message 197 of 302 (301035)
04-05-2006 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by John 10:10
04-04-2006 8:32 AM


'Incredible' equals 'impossible'?
I work in an industry where one chance happening in one million is considered an incredible event.
Are you suggesting that your industry believes 'incredible' events do not happen? If so, then I am greatly worried about the standard of thinking in your industry. Why don't you design nuclear plants such that the chances of an accident become "incredibly incredible" (1 in 1,000,000,000,000)? Surely that should make you feel a lot safer than teetering on the brink of possible and impossible?
The odds that a single atom could have designed itself all by itself is much much greater than 1/1,000,000!
It isn't exactly clear to me what you mean by "an atom designing itself", but if it means what I think it means, then you are presenting a strawman again. And even if you don't literally mean 'designing', but simply 'happening by chance', then I can give you examples of happenstances with much smaller odds that still happen anyway.
The fact that something has a very small chance of happening doesn't mean it cannot happen at all. Unless you can present us with a mechanism whereby chances smaller than a certain threshold suddenly become zero, we have no reason to believe there is such a threshold. If something has a non-zero chance of happening, however small, then, by definition, it can happen.
Sir Isaac Neuton [sic] had this to say concerning our solar system:
"The six primary planets [& cetera]"
Isaac Newton was writing in a time when modern science was in its infancy, and religion was still firmly in control of almost everything people did. Newton himself was a deeply religious man. From the outside, science was looked upon with suspicion, especially because some 'natural philosophers' - as scientists called themselves back then - also practiced less scientific endeavors, like alchemy and magic. You may or may not know it, but Newton practiced alchemy himself.
If you look for them, you can always find quotes from great men who say something in favour of your view. There is no doubt that he was one of the great giants of science, but science has progressed a great deal since Newton, and I think we would have been more impressed of you had quoted someone more recent, someone like, say, Richard Feynman.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-Apr-2006 09:54 AM

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by John 10:10, posted 04-04-2006 8:32 AM John 10:10 has not replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 198 of 302 (301421)
04-06-2006 1:28 AM


ooh... fun with odds.
Each game of Baldur's Gate II that I play results in a sequence of die rolls that has less than a 1 in 1.23e+3903 chance of occurring. (since I kill just about everything, I figure that I hit 3000 1d20 rolls less than halfway through.)
Does that mean that it's impossible to play a game of Baldur's Gate II?

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 199 of 302 (301477)
04-06-2006 9:43 AM


Some of the engineers at Morton Thilkol were a lot more concerned about the launch of the Challenger than 1/100,000, but were overruled by bad management at NASA who wanted to proceed with a launch that had been delayed several times. Let’s not get bad management mixed up with good engineering. The good safety engineering temperature rules were overruled by bad management.
You write, “If atoms did not design themselves but occurred naturally without design, then how do you justify applying the odds of design to them?”
This is done all the time as we apply risk analysis to everything we do in life. Nothing man does starts out with the assumption that things will occur naturally, except of course evolutionists who believe we and the universe did.
If a person of stature such a Sir Isaac Neuton’s arguments are invalid, so also is the so-called wisdom of Richard Feynman.
You write, “Oh, and tell us how you rule out all the stuff that you don't know.”
I don’t rule out anything that I don’t know, but those who don’t know certainly rule in everything they don’t know. That’s what this ID vs. evolution argument is all about. You keep saying my arguments are invalid, but offer no proof why my arguments are invalid. Again the shoe is on the other foot!
You write, “Why don't you design nuclear plants such that the chances of an accident become "incredibly incredible" (1 in 1,000,000,000,000)?”
For the same reason you can’t design anything else in life to be perfectly safe. Even if you could, it would be so expensive that no one would build it, and we would not enjoy the benefits from anything because we can’t make them perfectly safe.
You write, “If something has a non-zero chance of happening, however small, then, by definition, it can happen.”
To hang one’s hat on an infinitely small non-zero chance of happening is not reasonable or good logic, and is certainly not science.

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Chiroptera, posted 04-06-2006 9:47 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 202 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2006 7:51 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 204 by ReverendDG, posted 04-08-2006 12:35 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 302 (301480)
04-06-2006 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by John 10:10
04-06-2006 9:43 AM


Not one thing in your post is relevant to evolutionary biology or abiogenesis. This is why we don't take you seriously on this subject. You don't seem to understand it enough to write a relevant and cogent post.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by John 10:10, posted 04-06-2006 9:43 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 201 of 302 (301487)
04-06-2006 10:11 AM


Topic Drift Alert
Going back to the OP, the topic of this thread is why design is a better explanation for the origin of life than processes that include random elements. Amazingly, after 200 messages this thread is still discussing probabilities and is pretty much on topic.
However, I'm beginning to detect a little topic drift. I'd like to encourage people to minimize diversions onto topics like Isaac Newton and to try to avoid personal criticisms of others. I appreciate the difficulty sometimes involved in helping others understand that they're misapplying probabilities - take it as a challenge to be overcome rather than a blot to be excoriated.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 202 of 302 (301758)
04-06-2006 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by John 10:10
04-06-2006 9:43 AM


Substantiate your probability numbers.
to add to what chiroptera said about your arguments ...
john writes:
If a person of stature such a Sir Isaac Neuton’s arguments are invalid, so also is the so-called wisdom of Richard Feynman.
Richard Feynman's arguments are no more valid than Sir Newton's because he is Richard Feynman.
You obviously just do not get the concept of the "appeal to authority" being a logical fallacy even after it has been pointed out.
What makes the arguments valid (or invalid) is how they stand up to evidence and testing, and this is totally unrelated to who first published.
To hang one’s hat on an infinitely small non-zero chance of happening is not reasonable or good logic, and is certainly not science.
Prove that it didn't happen.
Prove even that it is "an infinitely small non-zero chance" instead of just asserting it.
That would be scientific, as opposed to yet another argument from incredulity based on another strawman misrepresentation of science.
Enjoy.
ps -- you've been asked to substantiate your claim of probability calculations before, and failure to provide substantiation on a science forum (like this one) is a violation of forum rules.
Take this as an opportunity to show what you are made of eh?
This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*06*2006 07:57 PM

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by John 10:10, posted 04-06-2006 9:43 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by John 10:10, posted 04-08-2006 10:06 AM RAZD has replied

carini
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 302 (302246)
04-07-2006 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by inkorrekt
02-04-2006 6:54 PM


Why would anything intelligent create humans?
So humans could kill off more of "gods creations" then any other life form that has ever lived?
Humans are a plague to most life on earth.
This message has been edited by carini, 04-07-2006 10:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by inkorrekt, posted 02-04-2006 6:54 PM inkorrekt has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 204 of 302 (302268)
04-08-2006 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by John 10:10
04-06-2006 9:43 AM


And does any of this have anything to do with biological things?
everything you are talking about is related to human designed things, we know they are designed by relation that we can go see the designs
if we use the basis of human design, then the very fact that biological things are "complex" rules out some intelligence since, from human intelligence we know that we go with something simple to get the job done and we don't make something harder or complex, the useage of complex by Idiests still is very frustrating
since by the fact that there is no example of anything other than human designed things we can compare things to, what do we compare biological structures to? we have never created anything bilogical as yet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by John 10:10, posted 04-06-2006 9:43 AM John 10:10 has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 205 of 302 (302324)
04-08-2006 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by RAZD
04-06-2006 7:51 PM


Re: Substantiate your probability numbers.
Since no proof is required for those who believe in the incredible incredible incredible ........... chance happening of evolution without ID, and proof seems to be required only for those who believe in ID, consider this:
"New evidence indicates that life in its minimal form is chemically complex even if morphologically simple. The smallest bacterial genomes capable of independent survival include between 1500-1900 gene products.47-50 These bacteria are believed to be the oldest organisms on Earth and quite likely reflect the complexity of first life on Earth and the minimum complexity of independent life.51 The smallest known genome, that of Mycoplasma genitalium, is comprised of 470 gene products.52 However, M. genitalium is not an appropriate model for the origin of life, for it depends on host biochemistry to survive and, therefore, cannot exist independently. Nonetheless, M. genitalium is a good model for determining the bare minimum requirements for life. Theoretical and experimental work using M. genitalium indicate that life requires at least 250-350 gene products (having eliminated, in theory, genes used for parasitic interactions).53-55
Biophysicist Hubert Yockey has calculated the probability of forming a single gene product (one that is functionally equivalent to the ubiquitous protein cyctochrome C) as one chance in 1075. 56 Given this probability, Yockey calculated that if the hypothetical primordial soup contained about 1044 amino acids, a hundred billion trillion years would yield a 95% chance for random formation of a functional protein only 110 amino acids in length (a single gene product).57 The universe is about 15 billion years old. This means that less than one trillionth of the time has passed that would be needed to make even one of the 250-350 gene products necessary for minimal life, or one of the 1500 gene products necessary for independent life.
Further complicating the supra-astronomical probabilities that must be overcome for even the simplest life to arise by natural processes is the changing view of bacteria. No longer regarded as cells with a random, nondescript internal structure, bacteria are now recognized as having remarkable internal organization, both spatially and temporally, at the protein level.58, 59 This internal organization of bacterial cells is universal and is needed for their survival. This means that origin-of-life researchers must account for not only the simultaneous appearance of 250-350 gene products but also their organization inside the cell."
Page not found - Reasons to Believe
All that will result from this post is more attacks on the messenger, rather than addressing the message.
This message has been edited by John 10:10, 04-08-2006 10:07 AM

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2006 7:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Admin, posted 04-08-2006 11:13 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 207 by kalimero, posted 04-08-2006 11:20 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 208 by Discreet Label, posted 04-08-2006 11:23 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 209 by Chiroptera, posted 04-08-2006 11:24 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 210 by ramoss, posted 04-08-2006 11:43 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 217 by RAZD, posted 04-09-2006 12:57 AM John 10:10 has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 206 of 302 (302358)
04-08-2006 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by John 10:10
04-08-2006 10:06 AM


Re: Substantiate your probability numbers.
John 10:10 writes:
All that will result from this post is more attacks on the messenger, rather than addressing the message.
I already have my eye on this thread. This should be readily apparent since I posted just a few messages ago. I'll repeat the caution of that message to say that respondents should address themselves to the content of John's message, which is 95% a quote from a page at Reasons to Believe.
John himself is cautioned to not rely upon claims of victimhood as a form of rebuttal.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by John 10:10, posted 04-08-2006 10:06 AM John 10:10 has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 207 of 302 (302364)
04-08-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by John 10:10
04-08-2006 10:06 AM


Re: Substantiate your probability numbers.
Hi John,
Your arguments have been delt with many times in this forum, maybe I can sum it up (I'll try):
1. The very very complex bacteria argument:
Deducting the "minimal requirements" from current life forms is a fallicy because bacteria evolve (even micro- I mean) and so the probability of the suvival of an organizm with these "minimal requirements" (whatever thay may be) is not very good. Think of todays airplanes (from the 747 analogy creos like to use): if we were to asses the liklyhood of an airplane being assembeled (even if it was humans who did it - thay have to learn about flight too) than it would seem very unlikely that they exist. But if we go back to the wright brothers time (or even michelangelo) than you can see that the first plane was far more "simple" than todays most simplest planes.
2. The probability of an amino acid chain:
This isn't even an argument, as current abiogenesis dosen't regard this as an option. If you want to attack abiogenesis go for self replicating, self ligasing RNA. Anyway, even if you did succeed in disprooving abiogenisis, it has nothing to do with the ToE, just like if you don't know how a car is assembeled(abiogenesis), dosen't mean you cant predict how it will behave(ToE) according to it's mechanisems (genetics).
Excuse my spelling, i'm not from an english speaking country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by John 10:10, posted 04-08-2006 10:06 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5063 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 208 of 302 (302365)
04-08-2006 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by John 10:10
04-08-2006 10:06 AM


Re: Substantiate your probability numbers.
The proof for the incredibly small chance you are over exagerrating is in the fact that the small chance has occured. If the small chance has occured then its probability of occuring is 1. Someone alluded to this earlier in saying that any thing that has occured in the past has an occurence of 1.
As to your citation it doesn't incorporate non-traditional forms of 'life' in which you consider things that self-replicate. Unless you can define life in a way that discludes self-replicators. (viruses i think aren't commonly considered life because viruses require, to my knowledge, another organism's reproduction system)
While saying that yes the smallest bacteria genome is 470 gene products and it would be difficult to concieve of it coming together, this statement does not necessairly consider any excess in the genome. By that i mean there are probably parts of the genome that can be removed that will not affect the ability of the bacteria to reproduce and grow.
Btw its a strange complex to assume that everyone is out to attack the messenger. People are grown ups and can discuss the merits of an idea without attacking the messenger. However, in some cases even when people who disagree and do it respectfully the messenger is sometimes so attached to his/her view that to disagree becomes a personal affront because in some cases it invalidates and bashes his/her person. In that particular case its the messenger putting himself in the way of the attack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by John 10:10, posted 04-08-2006 10:06 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Modulous, posted 04-08-2006 12:33 PM Discreet Label has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 302 (302366)
04-08-2006 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by John 10:10
04-08-2006 10:06 AM


Re: Substantiate your probability numbers.
quote:
Biophysicist Hubert Yockey has calculated the probability of forming a single gene product (one that is functionally equivalent to the ubiquitous protein cyctochrome C) as one chance in 1075. 56 Given this probability, Yockey calculated that if the hypothetical primordial soup contained about 1044 amino acids, a hundred billion trillion years would yield a 95% chance for random formation of a functional protein only 110 amino acids in length (a single gene product).57 The universe is about 15 billion years old. This means that less than one trillionth of the time has passed that would be needed to make even one of the 250-350 gene products necessary for minimal life, or one of the 1500 gene products necessary for independent life.
Not only copied, but john couldn't even bother to remove the footnotes from the cut'n'paste.
What relevance does this have to the discussion, john? No one claims that cytochrome C formed from the random assembly of amino acids in the "primordial soup". Yockey has wasted his time, Dr. Rana's time (who had to read and quote Yockey's bogus result), your time, and now my time in calculating a number that has absolutely nothing to do with any scenario seriously contemplated by any real researcher. You are repeating a strawman attack on abiogenesis that has been discounted many times before.
-
quote:
These bacteria are believed to be the oldest organisms on Earth and quite likely reflect the complexity of first life on Earth and the minimum complexity of independent life.
This is the problem. These bacteria might reflect the complexity of the last common ancestor of all extant life on earth. But these bacteria evolved from something simpler, which evolved from something simpler, which evolved from something simpler,..., until you have a very simple (and imperfect) replicator that was simple enough to come about through natural chemical processes in the "primordial soup" sometime in the first 10 million years or so after the Late Bombardment ended.
Edited to remove a sentence that may appear to be an "attack on the messenger".
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 08-Apr-2006 03:25 PM

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by John 10:10, posted 04-08-2006 10:06 AM John 10:10 has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 210 of 302 (302375)
04-08-2006 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by John 10:10
04-08-2006 10:06 AM


Re: Substantiate your probability numbers.
You are using some very obsolete information. First of all, Yockey, although he has written some article on biology, is a physist, not a biologiest.
The error that creationsist make when quoting his work is that he is talking about how a sequence will randomly come up in a prebiotic soup. On the other hand, that is not how DNA and protiens form over time.
CHemistry is not random. The formaton of a specific dna sequence is also based on incremental changes, with a filter for selection. That throws the whole probablity calculations out the window.
It seems that engineers doen't seem to get this concept.From my observation, when soeone has a technical background, and they are pushing for I.D. or creationism, in the vast majority of times, they have either an engineering background, or are into computers, where this concept is not part of the way things are done. Unless, of course, they are using the genetic algorithems for design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by John 10:10, posted 04-08-2006 10:06 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Chiroptera, posted 04-08-2006 11:52 AM ramoss has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024