The Sex Life of 747 Aircraft

Hi Ned,The 747 argument originally put forth by Fred Hoyle was based on the the calculations he used to deduce the probability of the various chemical pathways and molecular machinery neccesary to create a cell arrising spontaneously through natural process.Currently we lack any substantial knowledge of the prebiotic conditions that existed to really arrive at any such calculation of probability. Hoyles figures were based on assumptions about those conditions. Our speculations about such things as the RNA world or mineral synthesis ect realy offer nothing about specifics. We can just guess at what compounds or configuarions existed at the time. We may never know. Your guess is as good as mine.

Hi Dwise,The problem is how does one gain the knowledge to accurately assign a probability coefificent for the survivability of any arbitrary step in the process that is accumulative? I would assume each accumulative component would have 2 unique coefficients - formation and survivabilty. One also must consider other factors that compound the infromation gap - for instance the neccesity of formation of one component being dependant on the simulatneous formation or surviviability of another step outside the intermediate component itself - a catalyst or secondary pathway for instance. Before we even can begin with this one must first needs to know what the steps are. Thats a tall order in and of itself. If the answers to these questions were readily available none of us would be having this discussion and this forum would be empty.Unfortunately our lack of information about the exact state of affairs billion of years ago essentially offers an uncontested free pass to anyone who wishes to assign these coefficients. Your guess is as good as mine. It is for this reason that nobody should really appeal to Fred Hoyle's calculations(or any other for that matter) when it comes to using it as a proof or evidence for anything other than our ability to speculate. Anyone who has claimed they have the requisite information to calculate a reliable probability for spontaneous abiogeneis is doing nothing more than engaging in wishfull thinking.We make too many assumptions about early Earth. One is the Earth was a biochemically closed system. It is possible many of the ingredients could have arrived externally.

I know. I understood what you were saying.I was just pointing out using ANY model is meaningless to the goal of arriving at a probability for abiogeneiss. We lack the information neccesary to arrive at any valid result. We can only guess.

For the 12th time - I am not a Creationist, a Theist, or an ID supporter, nor do I believe in the existence of a personal deity. I am simpy being as objective as I can.I will add, however my personal speculations on the unknowns do overlap a bit with some of the ideas present in many forms of Panspermia ala Francis Crick.Regarding the present topic I am simply stating regardless of the source all we are doing is speculating. Speculating based on arbitrary parameters may be interesting but it brings nothing to the table that cannot be refuted by anyone for any reason. It is nothing but a recipe for heated arguments that go nowhere. Essentially everyone gets a get out of jail free card. Anyone can make the result fit the desired outcome given a creative use of parameters.At this point in time and for all intents and purposes the use of calculations to deduce a realistic probability of abiogenesis is essentially meainingless and should not even be part of the debate.Fred Hoyle started this mess - not me. Blame Fred.

We all are learning. I think the friction in these types of discussions inevitably arises not because of one's beliefs but how they are presented. When discussing or debating topics related to the specifics of a scientific theory you cannot stray from the methods employed by science. Science by defintion employs a specific method of inquiry and relies on observations to establish facts about the world. Interjecting personal beliefs into such discussions is kind of like bringing a knife to a gun fight...you won't last very long.I am not implying one's beliefs are not worth addressing. They certainly are. But you need to use the right tools for the job. Trying to measure or observe things that cannot be measured or observed is not science. By defintion many of the ideas proposed by proponents of evolution cannot be measured or even tested using the methods employed by science. They are not scientific questions and fall under the domain of theology or philosophy.One can certainly add a theory that proposes a new mechanism for change within evolution. In order for a scientist to even pay attention to it however it must be testable using the tools available. For example stating divine iinfluence or design is part of the process of evolution really doesn't add anything that offers specifics open to discussion. It is a dead end and simply a statement. At what point for instance did a designer decide to play around with making genes for an eye? Was the designer passive or active? One needs to present something specific that can at least be a starting point for inquiry.In the end the friction and misconceptions that result from such bare statements cause people to get frustrated and the argument ends up going nowhere. The questions you presented are actually good questions worth discussing. Within these types of discussions there simply is not a lot to work with by stating one holds a belief.