Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2019 4:38 PM
36 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,030 Year: 15,066/19,786 Month: 1,789/3,058 Week: 163/404 Day: 50/113 Hour: 4/4

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The Simplest Protein of Life
Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 47 of 281 (675702)
10-15-2012 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by zaius137
10-15-2012 1:42 AM

Re: don’t blow a gasket

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).


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.


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 ?


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 ?


. 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

Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 78 of 281 (675775)
10-15-2012 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by BoredomSetsIn
10-01-2012 9:00 AM

Did anyone else notice that the calculation in the OP was horribly wrong ? 17 ^ 124 isn't anywhere near 10 ^ 552 - and anyone who does even a rough check can easily see that. (100 ^ 124 is "only" 10 ^ 248 !)

The correct figure is of the order of 10 ^ 152, a difference of 400 orders of magnitude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BoredomSetsIn, posted 10-01-2012 9:00 AM BoredomSetsIn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-15-2012 8:40 PM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 81 by dwise1, posted 10-15-2012 9:29 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019