|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: mihkel4397: Fred Hoyle's calculation of probability of abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Sumer Inactive Member |
Edited by Sumer, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
If there is no proven synthesis beyond Lithium by the laws of nature I take it you've never opened a chemistry book, let alone looked at the table of elements? One of the heaviest, naturally occuring, elements is Uranium-238. The radioactive isotope responsible for destroying either Nagasaki or Hiroshima (the other bomb had plutonium in it, as I recall) When it decays, one of the potential decay paths leads to lead. Which is a lot heavier than lithium. Li (lithium) has a weight of 5. something. It's got three protons. Lead (Pb) is easily in the fifties, and uranium (U) is in the nineties, proton number wise. Carbon's easy to make. When our sun dies--the core will have a lot of iron. again, Fe (iron) is heavier than lithium, and heavier than carbon. In other words, I call bull on that statement you made. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I think, kuresu, that you are nearly right.
The physics of supernovae is reasonably solid and that is where iron comes from. I don't think that our sun will reach the point where iron will be synthesized to any great degree. In any case, that detail doesn't negate the call of bull.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
okay.
well, at least we know one thing--the center, right now, isn't iron. unlike what the phycists(?) thought prior to E = mc squared. thanks for the correction. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Sumer writes: the calculation is also irrelevant for the theory of abiogenesis.
We were discussing OOL calculation by Hoyle. What does TOE have to do with it? Where did we discuss it in this post? Isn't it true that the majority of the evolutionists SPECIFICALLY draw a distinction between abiogenesis and speciation?Let me play a little game over here. Let's assume that I made your comment (changing the word "wrong" for "right," of course). there is no symmetry here. If something is irrelevant, it is wrong to apply its conclusions even if there are no obvios math mistakes. On the other hand, if something is relevant, that does not make its conclusions necessarily correct. "The probability calculation is RIGHT because it is calculating the probability of something that IS relevant to the theory of evolution." In other words, the standard for something being correct is not symmetric to the standard of it being wrong. For something to be correct ALL its logical steps must be correct. For something to be wrong it is enough that ONE step be wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The physics of supernovae is reasonably solid and that is where iron comes from. Nitpick: Iron is made in ordinary stars like the Sun, although most of it is made in larger stars. It's heavier elements that require supernovae. Creation of the Heavier Elements:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Nitpick: Iron is made in ordinary stars like the Sun, although most of it is made in larger stars. It's heavier elements that require supernovae. Not all ordinary stars ever get to the point of making iron. only the heavier ones do. And even if they do, we will never get our hands on this iron unless they go supernovae. Edited by fallacycop, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4146 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
while we're off the topic, aren't we forgetting that Sol is too small in virtually every aspect to go supernova?
The only way that it could be done would be to remove a subsantial amount of mass from the star at once to cause instability. Anyone got a wormhole handy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
All these examples show that the people involved portray the theory in question as something that actually occurred. This claim is refuted at Message 1, soyou can apologizethere. It is off topic here.I openly admit that I do not posses "expertise, knowledge, ability OR capability" in the filed of math on the same scale as Sir Hoyle had. So you don't have the ability to judge whether he is blowing hot air or not. Good of you to admit it.
As to your calculation, I have already pointed to a very obvious shortcoming in your reasoning. Those "shortcomings" are no different than the shortcomings in Dr Hoyles calculations. They are intentionally chosen to do so. Again, either both are equally valid or each are equally invalid. your choice.
"10^+84" (wow, that's some number! You'd need all atoms in the observed Universe for that and then some more, ... To more accurately mirror Dr Hoyle's calculation I should have used an infinite sea, as he assumes a sea with zero other molecules. Of course it is ridiculous. Equally ridiculous. But what if we use the same number of molecules as there are atoms in 1 liter of water instead okay? The number of atoms in a litre of water is 1.0038x10^26from "How many atoms are in the human head?" Questions and Answers - How many atoms are in the human head? The number of moles is 1000/18 = 55.556 moles. The number of molecules is therefore 6.022x10^23 x 55.556 = 3.346x10^25 molecules. The number of atoms is 3 times larger because each molecule has three atoms, so there are 1.0038x10^26 atoms in a liter of water. 1 liter = 1.0x10^26 atoms Well, the probability that one would NOT form is 0.75^26 = 0.0005, so the probability it would happen in that small a volume is 99.95% -- how many liters do I need to get one forming? How many liters cover the surface of the earth with a 1 mm thick film? Earth - WikipediaThe surface of the earth is 510,065,600 km^2 = 5x10^8km^2 1 km^2 = 1000 x 1000 m^2 = 10^6 m^2 So the surface of the earth is 5x10^8 x 10^6 m^2 = 5x10^(8+6) m^2 = 5x10^(14) m^2 1 m^3 = 1000 liters 1 mm = 1 m/1000 5x10^14 m^2 x (1 m/1000) x (1000 liters/ m^3) = 5x10^14 liters That's a lot of liters, when just a few will do eh?
Also, very importantly, do you suggest several primordial soups? Also, did you consider the medium, temperature? What is the size of the sea (concentration), etc. Also, where are the other reactions? Why there is no breakdown of the compounds? The real answer is "we don't know" -- you don't know what prevents it and you don't know what encourages it. To base a calculation on something we know so little about is absolutely ridiculous. The intermediate molecules could form, breakdown, reform, breakdown, form in new combinations, etcetera. We don't know what the factors are: that is why the calculation is ridiculous eh? We have some ideas. Those ideas are being tested. There are no definitive conclusions, but there are a lot of possibilities that show promise.
And your answer was either an evasion, or a failure to analyze what I asked. You are making the claim that all contingencies are covered -- demonstrate it. But take these questions into consideration: What is the minimum molecule that we need to make? How do you know? Will similar molecules with added or extra sections NOT work? How do you know? Will similar molecules with different sections in some places NOT work? How do you know? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : updated link to promoted version we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sumer Inactive Member |
Edited by Sumer, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Prior to Hoyle's stroke of genius, there was no proof that carbon can be naturally synthesized, therefore, how would the proponents of the Miller's experiment defend a claim that he used a "God-created" element--carbon--in his investigation? Therefore, without the Hoyle's contribution, Miller et al would be irrelevant. This only makes sense if you have the deluded opinion that Miller's work was somehow intended to be some sort of disproof for the existence of god. Since this isn't the case the origin of carbon is totally irrelevant to Miller's investigations. If you want to produce a totally naturalistic history of the universe then arguably the lack of Hoyle's nucleosynthetic concept is important. If all you want to do is show the formation of some organic compounds from inorganic precursors is possible in given conditions then there is no need to refer to nucleosynthesis. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
you claimed that there were no natural laws that could allow for the production of carbon. that's where I was calling bull. No one makes uranium--we find it naturally. Now then, how can it be made naturally?
well, supernovae. AND miller's experiment was in the fifties--after Hoyle proposed how elements such as carbon can be made by naturally occurring processes.so . . . I think you are putting the cart in front of the horse. This time, it's just that Hoyle's discovery took place after the Miller Urey experiments. And even if Hoyle didn't come up with it, we were beginning to understand the processes of fusion--I think the first fusion bomb came out in the early fifties--like 51.In fact, without einstiend's E = mc squared, Hoyle wouldn't be able to have even proved his concept. And what does uranium have to do with all this--you made the erroneus claim that carbon can't be made. So I told you that elements more than ten times as heavy can be made naturally. So if those can be made, why not carbon? I still call bull. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sumer Inactive Member |
Edited by Sumer, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
well, apparently carbon IS easy to make.
Our entire core is made of iron--which is harder to make than carbon. (core for earth, that is). And I'm not positive, but I'd say there is more iron in the core of our earth than their is carbon on the surface. and how else to you interpret the state "much less relevant until they explain carbon". and, just so you know--how did God make life?all abiogenesis means is that life came from from non-life. And seeing as how god made man from dust (which is non life--especially if the dust is soil, which is what seems to be implied by statements like from dust you came, to dust you go (or whatever that cliche is). As far as I can tell--God made life from non-life, and considering that he is all powerful, why can't, or couldn't he? You have this idea in your head that science is anti-god. you've got the wrong philosophical base for that. science is methodological naturalism. ontological naturalism is the philosophy that says there is no god, period. the former doesn't care either way. so, that means that science is doing this--finding out how the world works, regardless if God is behind the laws and theories or not. science does not have an official position on god. got it? get it? good. now quit whining about the atheistic conspiracy of science and how it tries to stamp out god. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sumer Inactive Member |
Edited by Sumer, : No reason given. Edited by Sumer, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024