Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 66 (9029 total)
 62 online now: AZPaul3, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 60 visitors) Newest Member: BodhitSLAVa Post Volume: Total: 884,345 Year: 1,991/14,102 Month: 359/624 Week: 80/163 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Origin of Life

# The Simplest Protein of Life

Author Topic:   The Simplest Protein of Life
zaius137
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012

 Message 46 of 281 (675701) 10-15-2012 1:42 AM Reply to: Message 43 by Percy10-14-2012 4:44 PM

Percy,

 …But if you calculate the odds of having been dealt the specific cards in your hand when what you needed was the odds of having the best hand at the table, then you've just committed the Sharpshooter Fallacy. It means that you calculated the odds of what specifically happened to cause the outcome (winning) instead of calculating the odds of any of the set of things that could have caused the outcome.

Percy, I have honestly tried decipher your logic. If I am correct, you are trying to place the cart before the horse.

My point is that there must be a desired outcome prior to testing an outcome. Consider the following relation….

Singular Probability = Desired outcome/possible outcomes

quote:
“Probability may be defined as a ratio of specific outcomes to total (possible) outcomes.” http://iamechatronics.com/...-of-probability-and-reliability

Plainly, without a desired outcome you violate the basic formulation of a probability. Your desired outcome cannot come after testing the event. As to my comment on “simplicity” (not Occam’s razor). It is important not to confuse ourselves by obscuration.

 So if there are "2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences" then the odds you need to calculate are not for one specific protein sequence (the Sharpshooter Fallacy) but the odds for obtaining any in the set of 2.3 x 1093sequences.

I cannot deny the context of the used quotation because I do not have the actual material to form an objection to its use. That doesn’t stop me from having reservations about the enormous number cited for alternate functional cytochrome C. For instance this number is not only higher that the total number of atoms in the universe it also exceeds Borel’s limit (10^50) which basically sets a limit on the total number of chemical reactions that could have taken place since the Big Bang. So I am pointing out that since the possible number of chemical reactions in the universe was exceeded by 45 orders of magnitude there could never be 2.3 x 10^93 configurations. I simply need to read the citation.

I am in the same boat as another participant here in that I do not have the book.

Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 43 by Percy, posted 10-14-2012 4:44 PM Percy has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 47 by PaulK, posted 10-15-2012 2:10 AM zaius137 has not yet responded Message 52 by Blue Jay, posted 10-15-2012 10:17 AM zaius137 has not yet responded Message 85 by Percy, posted 10-16-2012 10:45 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 16774
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8

 (1)
 Message 47 of 281 (675702) 10-15-2012 2:10 AM Reply to: Message 46 by zaius13710-15-2012 1:42 AM

quote:

Percy, I have honestly tried decipher your logic. If I am correct, you are trying to place the cart before the horse.

My point is that there must be a desired outcome prior to testing an outcome. Consider the following relation….

Singular Probability = Desired outcome/possible outcomes

Can you explain how this is relevant when the point under discussion is identifying the correct "desired outcome" to use ? (I also note that we have no basis for saying that there was a genuinely "desired outcome" prior to the actual event - of necessity we are identifying the outcomes of interest after the fact).

quote:

I cannot deny the context of the used quotation because I do not have the actual material to form an objection to its use. That doesn’t stop me from having reservations about the enormous number cited for alternate functional cytochrome C.

I don't see any valid reason to have reservations.

quote:

For instance this number is not only higher that the total number of atoms in the universe

Why should this be a problem ? We are talking about the number of possible configurations, not actually realised configurations. A sequence of 1,000 bits has 10^300 possible combinations. Does that pose any difficulty to tossing a coin 1,000 times ?

quote:

it also exceeds Borel’s limit (10^50) which basically sets a limit on the total number of chemical reactions that could have taken place since the Big Bang

And how is that relevant ?

quote:

. So I am pointing out that since the possible number of chemical reactions in the universe was exceeded by 45 orders of magnitude there could never be 2.3 x 10^93 configurations. I simply need to read the citation.

Obviously you don't even understand what the figure actually refers to. This objection is sheer nonsense.

 This message is a reply to: Message 46 by zaius137, posted 10-15-2012 1:42 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

 Message 48 of 281 (675713) 10-15-2012 6:53 AM Reply to: Message 44 by Alfred Maddenstein10-14-2012 9:26 PM

 Life is a system of death-avoiding machines, Percy. Your suggestion that the putative ancient proteins were less of an intricate affair implies that death could be more merciful at any place and time than it is known to be presently. That is, requiring fewer tricks to cheat. Is that possible though? The cat thinks not. Full intelligence is needed to do the job. So life must be smartly organised of necessity. Always.

Well done. Defining life by stating it is not it's opposite. Get some extra tuck from matron.

A more symple system is harders to break than a complex one. You have things backwards. So life does not need to be smartly organised. Always.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

 This message is a reply to: Message 44 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-14-2012 9:26 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 49 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 7:21 AM Larni has responded

Member (Idle past 2804 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011

 Message 49 of 281 (675717) 10-15-2012 7:21 AM Reply to: Message 48 by Larni10-15-2012 6:53 AM

Oh, no. Death is not about being broken. It's about active remembrance of staying whole. That takes being smarter than your reasoning here, Larni. Always.

 This message is a reply to: Message 48 by Larni, posted 10-15-2012 6:53 AM Larni has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 50 by Larni, posted 10-15-2012 7:44 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

 Message 50 of 281 (675718) 10-15-2012 7:44 AM Reply to: Message 49 by Alfred Maddenstein10-15-2012 7:21 AM

 It's about active remembrance of staying whole.

Can I add this to my sig?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

 This message is a reply to: Message 49 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 7:21 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 53 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 10:41 AM Larni has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 20004
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.4

 Message 51 of 281 (675725) 10-15-2012 8:58 AM Reply to: Message 45 by NoNukes10-14-2012 9:52 PM

 NoNukes writes:I think Taq provided the citation. Message 33 belongs to Taq. Zaius137 did referred to the quote in a later message, but not in a way that ought to make him responsible for the initial citation. I think it is legitimate for zaius137 to ask for a source.

Whoops, thanks! I evidently accidentally hit "3" instead of "4", Zaius's was the next message 34. I fixed my link to Zaius's message. I know Taq provided the original citation, but when Zaius quoted it he included it, and since I copied Zaius's quote I unwittingly included a bad link, which I just fixed, and here it is again:

http://www.talkorigins.org/...ction4.html#protein_redundancy

Hopefully the correct links will help Zaius explain how his misuse of probability constitutes an example of Occam's razor.

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 10-14-2012 9:52 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1535 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008

 (1)
 Message 52 of 281 (675729) 10-15-2012 10:17 AM Reply to: Message 46 by zaius13710-15-2012 1:42 AM

Borel's limit
Hi, Zaius.

 zaius137 writes:For instance this number is not only higher that the total number of atoms in the universe it also exceeds Borel’s limit (10^50) which basically sets a limit on the total number of chemical reactions that could have taken place since the Big Bang.

I'd never heard of Borel's limit before, so I Googled it. After reading two or three short articles on it, I am obviously still not a world authority on the topic; I am, however, reasonably certain that you are not using it correctly here.

It turns out that there is something that creationists regularly call "Borel's law," and it involves the number 1050, so I assume this is what you were talking about.

However, what it states is both very different from what you proposed and very mundane in comparison: basically, Borel's law states that very improbable events simply do not occur. Émile Borel proposed that the value 1:1050 marks the probability threshold beyond which events are effectively impossible.

Of course, this law only works if the event is due to random chance. Here's an example from the first Google hit (which is an essay by Dr Loren Cobb, a mathematician at the University of Colorado):

quote:
In one small corner of the great San Luis valley of Colorado, near the border of New Mexico, there is a dramatic sight: thirty square miles of arid sand dunes, looking for all the world as though a piece of the Sahara desert had been dropped onto the valley floor. One wouldn't be shocked to see a caravan of camels winding their way through the 700-foot-high dunes.

What is the probability that all of that sand ended up in that tiny area of the valley by chance? If we were to follow the line of thought advocated by creationists, we would calculate the probability that each grain of sand wound up purely by chance in the 30 square mile zone of the valley, which is 8500 square miles in area. By my conservative estimate there are at least 1020 grains of sand in the dunes, and so it turns out that the probability that all these grains of sand drifted into the given zone is 16 orders of magnitude smaller than the threshold for impossibility stated in "Borel's Law." In other words, by creationist logic, the sand dunes could not have originated from a natural process. God must have put them there!

Source

So, if all that sand drifted randomly into that portion of the San Luis valley, it would have violated "Borel's law." However, if we accept "Borel's law" as accurate, it's still pretty easy to see how that sand could still have gotten there without violating "Borel's law," if non-random processes such as the wind and local topography interacted to influence the behavior of the sand.

Does this make sense?

Edited by Blue Jay, : two "all"s

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.

 This message is a reply to: Message 46 by zaius137, posted 10-15-2012 1:42 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2804 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011

 Message 53 of 281 (675732) 10-15-2012 10:41 AM Reply to: Message 50 by Larni10-15-2012 7:44 AM

It means little outside of context. Which is the trouble with the concept of origin of life. For it's not just about inert chemicals self-assembling into living motions, it's about inert atoms creating death out of nothing. The concept is likely to be not even wrong.

 This message is a reply to: Message 50 by Larni, posted 10-15-2012 7:44 AM Larni has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2012 10:56 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded Message 57 by Larni, posted 10-15-2012 11:29 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

 Message 54 of 281 (675734) 10-15-2012 10:56 AM Reply to: Message 53 by Alfred Maddenstein10-15-2012 10:41 AM

 For it's not just about inert chemicals self-assembling into living motions, it's about inert atoms creating death out of nothing.

There's nothing different about a calcium atom in one of my bones while I'm alive or after I'm dead. Its just a metal atom either way.

 This message is a reply to: Message 53 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 10:41 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 55 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 11:09 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Member (Idle past 2804 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011

 Message 55 of 281 (675735) 10-15-2012 11:09 AM Reply to: Message 54 by New Cat's Eye10-15-2012 10:56 AM

You got exactly what I mean, Vatican. Death is nothing to the atom. Nothing at all to avoid.

 This message is a reply to: Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2012 10:56 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2012 11:16 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

 (1)
 Message 56 of 281 (675736) 10-15-2012 11:16 AM Reply to: Message 55 by Alfred Maddenstein10-15-2012 11:09 AM

 You got exactly what I mean, Vatican. Death is nothing to the atom. Nothing at all to avoid.

Atoms don't evolve. Self-replicating molecules could though. And they could build up enough complexity to be considered alive. The sky's the limit from there.

 Vatican

Don't be a dick.

 This message is a reply to: Message 55 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 11:09 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

 (1)
 Message 57 of 281 (675737) 10-15-2012 11:29 AM Reply to: Message 53 by Alfred Maddenstein10-15-2012 10:41 AM

No it's not. It is just about chemicals replicating with error.

 The concept is likely to be not even wrong.

What?

Why don't you stop using needlessly prosaic phrases? People only do that to try to sound clever or because they are hopeless twats.

Edited by Larni, : Last sentence.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

 This message is a reply to: Message 53 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 10:41 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 59 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 11:50 AM Larni has responded Message 61 by Panda, posted 10-15-2012 12:17 PM Larni has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1535 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008

 Message 58 of 281 (675738) 10-15-2012 11:48 AM Reply to: Message 44 by Alfred Maddenstein10-14-2012 9:26 PM

Hi, Alfred.

 Alfred Maddenstein writes:Life is a system of death-avoiding machines, Percy.

I think you're anthropomorphizing the machine a bit here. I wouldn't characterize life as "death-avoiding," because that also sort of entails anthropomorphizing death. Rather, I would characterize it as "self-sustaining." But, that kind of undermines your argument.

 Alfred Maddenstein writes:Your suggestion that the putative ancient proteins were less of an intricate affair implies that death could be more merciful at any place and time than it is known to be presently.

Are you arguing that complex proteins are better survivors than simple proteins?

If you aren't, then you're probably too far off-topic for me to follow you there.
If you are, then you're just wrong.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.

 This message is a reply to: Message 44 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-14-2012 9:26 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 62 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 12:31 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

Member (Idle past 2804 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011

 Message 59 of 281 (675739) 10-15-2012 11:50 AM Reply to: Message 57 by Larni10-15-2012 11:29 AM

That's circular, Larn. Errors imply the correct grammar pre-existing. The only rule in the grammar of life is death avoidance though. Where do you get that from? Death is not an acquired habit, it is inherited. Origin of life therefore is a silly creationist concept. Life is not to be created, it can only continue.

 This message is a reply to: Message 57 by Larni, posted 10-15-2012 11:29 AM Larni has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2012 11:55 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded Message 64 by Larni, posted 10-15-2012 1:19 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

 (1)
 Message 60 of 281 (675740) 10-15-2012 11:55 AM Reply to: Message 59 by Alfred Maddenstein10-15-2012 11:50 AM

 The only rule in the grammar of life is death avoidance though.

Wrong. Reproducing is important too.

 Death is not an acquired habit, it is inherited.

That's the stupidest thing I've read in a while.

That don't even make no sense!

 Life is not to be created, it can only continue.

Wrong. That would require life to have existed forever. We know that there are times when life did not exist.

 This message is a reply to: Message 59 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 11:50 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 63 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)