Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 122,144
- 130,207
- 3,645
Yes, i laughed the first time and asked you to show us your math. As it turns out, i am still laughing the second time.
Evolutionists' theory in detail
- Thread starter Cassandro
- Start date
These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.
Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.
To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 162,793
- 89,417
- 2,645
You laughing because you haven't figured out the concept; the math is beyond your comprehension. Each of 2,000 proteins can only be in a certain spot for the cell to function. It involves factorials.
Here's the last of the hints for today. Start with just 3 proteins, each of which can only occupy an exact spot for the cell to function. What are those odds? Hint: It's NOT 1 out of 3
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 162,793
- 89,417
- 2,645
It's not chance? So you're saying there's an intelligence in their design?
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 122,144
- 130,207
- 3,645
Hahahah ... oh Francis, you poor little dweeb. You know, everyone knows you are talking out of your ass.
- Thread starter
- #86
So says the child resorting to potty-talk. As usual.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 122,144
- 130,207
- 3,645
You couldn't describe evolutionary theory in your own words if your life depended on it. Do you think this might have a little something to do with you being ALWAYS wrong about everything you say about it?
Just coincidence?
What I wrote was, "
Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways."
Identify your evidence for supernatural designer gods and their supernatural design of protein assemblies.
n
Not to mention the math probability of a protein forming by chance. Examining Miller's famous experiment shows that many amino acids are produced in this mythical organic soup - few are found in proteins. And the most common chemical reaction products were not amino acids - Formic acid was the primary product. The math probability is more than astronomic even when just considering chirality/polarization - a simple required factor ignoring the above.
wol.jw.org
"Evolutionists admit that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10^113, or 1 followed by 113 zeros. That number is larger than the estimated total number of atoms in the universe! Mathematicians dismiss as never taking place anything that has a probability of occurring of less than 1 in 10^50. But far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life. Some 2,000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity, and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 10^40,000! “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court,” says astronomer Fred Hoyle."
wol.jw.org
"Many scientists feel that life could arise by chance because of an experiment first conducted in 1953. In that year, Stanley L. Miller was able to produce some amino acids, the chemical building blocks of proteins, by discharging electricity into a mixture of gases that was thought to represent the atmosphere of primitive earth. Since then, amino acids have also been found in a meteorite. Do these findings mean that all the basic building blocks of life could easily be produced by chance?
“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, “have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.”2*
Consider the RNA molecule. It is constructed of smaller molecules called nucleotides. A nucleotide is a different molecule from an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”3 He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of
exceptional good luck.”4
RNA (1) is required to make proteins (2), yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. How could either one arise by chance, let alone both? Ribosomes (3) will be discussed in section 2.
What about protein molecules? They can be made from as few as 50 or as many as several thousand amino acids bound together in a highly specific order. The average functional protein in a “simple” cell contains 200 amino acids. Even in those cells, there are thousands of different types of proteins. The probability that just one protein containing only 100 amino acids could ever randomly form on earth has been calculated to be about one chance in a million billion."
See the context for more documentation. References:
2. Scientific American, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.
a. The New York Times, “A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.
3. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.
4. Scientific American, June 2007, pp. 47, 49-50.
5. Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.
6. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition—Does It Work?” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration vision/universe/starsgalaxies/ life’s_working_definition.html), accessed 3/17/2009.
Edit: 1 in a million billion is 10^15 - the easier probability results when less factors are considered. For example, it assumes an impossible organic soup for starters. Actually, different amino acids require different environments to form - e.g. Miller's experiment formed primarily formic acid and most of the amino acids produced are not found in proteins. The primary proteinous amino acids produced were Glycine and Alanine, then aspartic acid. Valine was produced in very low proportion. The other proteinous amino acids were in such low concentration as to make selection of them extremely difficult. The more factors that are considered (e.g. chirality & isomerization, 3-d structure, etc.) the more difficult to produce a polypeptide useful for life. The seeming contradiction between 10^15 and 10^113 is thus resolved.
Not to mention the math probability of a protein forming by chance. Examining Miller's famous experiment shows that many amino acids are produced in this mythical organic soup - few are found in proteins. And the most common chemical reaction products were not amino acids - Formic acid was the primary product. The math probability is more than astronomic even when just considering chirality/polarization - a simple required factor ignoring the above.
Modern Disbelief—Should the Search Continue? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
wol.jw.org
"Evolutionists admit that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10^113, or 1 followed by 113 zeros. That number is larger than the estimated total number of atoms in the universe! Mathematicians dismiss as never taking place anything that has a probability of occurring of less than 1 in 10^50. But far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life. Some 2,000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity, and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 10^40,000! “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court,” says astronomer Fred Hoyle."
Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
wol.jw.org
"Many scientists feel that life could arise by chance because of an experiment first conducted in 1953. In that year, Stanley L. Miller was able to produce some amino acids, the chemical building blocks of proteins, by discharging electricity into a mixture of gases that was thought to represent the atmosphere of primitive earth. Since then, amino acids have also been found in a meteorite. Do these findings mean that all the basic building blocks of life could easily be produced by chance?
“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, “have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.”2*
Consider the RNA molecule. It is constructed of smaller molecules called nucleotides. A nucleotide is a different molecule from an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”3 He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of
exceptional good luck.”4
RNA (1) is required to make proteins (2), yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. How could either one arise by chance, let alone both? Ribosomes (3) will be discussed in section 2.
What about protein molecules? They can be made from as few as 50 or as many as several thousand amino acids bound together in a highly specific order. The average functional protein in a “simple” cell contains 200 amino acids. Even in those cells, there are thousands of different types of proteins. The probability that just one protein containing only 100 amino acids could ever randomly form on earth has been calculated to be about one chance in a million billion."
See the context for more documentation. References:
2. Scientific American, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.
a. The New York Times, “A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.
3. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.
4. Scientific American, June 2007, pp. 47, 49-50.
5. Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.
6. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition—Does It Work?” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration vision/universe/starsgalaxies/ life’s_working_definition.html), accessed 3/17/2009.
Edit: 1 in a million billion is 10^15 - the easier probability results when less factors are considered. For example, it assumes an impossible organic soup for starters. Actually, different amino acids require different environments to form - e.g. Miller's experiment formed primarily formic acid and most of the amino acids produced are not found in proteins. The primary proteinous amino acids produced were Glycine and Alanine, then aspartic acid. Valine was produced in very low proportion. The other proteinous amino acids were in such low concentration as to make selection of them extremely difficult. The more factors that are considered (e.g. chirality & isomerization, 3-d structure, etc.) the more difficult to produce a polypeptide useful for life. The seeming contradiction between 10^15 and 10^113 is thus resolved.
Last edited:
fncceo
Diamond Member
- Nov 29, 2016
- 47,601
- 42,273
- 3,615
Kids ... through cellular reproduction.
The problem is, individual organisms don't evolve.
S
So true. In any theorized chemical pathway to life, interfering cross reactions would occur. Just one example for now - the reaction of the amino group {NH2] (e.g. in amino acids) with the carbonyl group [CO] of reducing sugars. Both sugars (e.g. nucleic acids to Ribose in RNA) and amino acids (in proteins) are required for life.
From page 51 of:
"According to the general equation above, the amino group (-NH2) of amines (including the free amino group in purines and pyrimidines) and amino acids would combine with the carbonyl group(> C=O) of reducing sugars, aldehydes, and a few ketones. Huge amounts of essential organic compounds would thus be removed from the soup by these reactions. [35]
These reactions would have greatly diminished not only amino acid concentration but also the concentration of aldehydes. Buildup of concentrations of aldehydes, especially formaldehyde, would have been important in the primordial synthesis of sugars."
Hollie - I know you don't like this book - but if you disagree that the amino group (e.g. in amino acids) will react with the carbonyl group (>C=O) of aldehydes needed for the synthesis of sugars required for life - then post your documentation and an excerpt proving otherwise.
Reference 35 -
35. A. Nissenbaum, 1976. Origins of Life 7, 413.
Simply - chemical reactions do not change depending on who writes about them.
"
So true. In any theorized chemical pathway to life, interfering cross reactions would occur. Just one example for now - the reaction of the amino group {NH2] (e.g. in amino acids) with the carbonyl group [CO] of reducing sugars. Both sugars (e.g. nucleic acids to Ribose in RNA) and amino acids (in proteins) are required for life.
From page 51 of:
"According to the general equation above, the amino group (-NH2) of amines (including the free amino group in purines and pyrimidines) and amino acids would combine with the carbonyl group(> C=O) of reducing sugars, aldehydes, and a few ketones. Huge amounts of essential organic compounds would thus be removed from the soup by these reactions. [35]
These reactions would have greatly diminished not only amino acid concentration but also the concentration of aldehydes. Buildup of concentrations of aldehydes, especially formaldehyde, would have been important in the primordial synthesis of sugars."
Hollie - I know you don't like this book - but if you disagree that the amino group (e.g. in amino acids) will react with the carbonyl group (>C=O) of aldehydes needed for the synthesis of sugars required for life - then post your documentation and an excerpt proving otherwise.
Reference 35 -
35. A. Nissenbaum, 1976. Origins of Life 7, 413.
Simply - chemical reactions do not change depending on who writes about them.
"
n
Not to mention the math probability of a protein forming by chance. Examining Miller's famous experiment shows that many amino acids are produced in this mythical organic soup - few are found in proteins. And the most common chemical reaction products were not amino acids - Formic acid was the primary product. The math probability is more than astronomic even when just considering chirality/polarization - a simple required factor ignoring the above.
Modern Disbelief—Should the Search Continue? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
"Evolutionists admit that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10^113, or 1 followed by 113 zeros. That number is larger than the estimated total number of atoms in the universe! Mathematicians dismiss as never taking place anything that has a probability of occurring of less than 1 in 10^50. But far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life. Some 2,000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity, and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 10^40,000! “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court,” says astronomer Fred Hoyle."
Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
"Many scientists feel that life could arise by chance because of an experiment first conducted in 1953. In that year, Stanley L. Miller was able to produce some amino acids, the chemical building blocks of proteins, by discharging electricity into a mixture of gases that was thought to represent the atmosphere of primitive earth. Since then, amino acids have also been found in a meteorite. Do these findings mean that all the basic building blocks of life could easily be produced by chance?
“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, “have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.”2*
Consider the RNA molecule. It is constructed of smaller molecules called nucleotides. A nucleotide is a different molecule from an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”3 He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of
exceptional good luck.”4
RNA (1) is required to make proteins (2), yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. How could either one arise by chance, let alone both? Ribosomes (3) will be discussed in section 2.
What about protein molecules? They can be made from as few as 50 or as many as several thousand amino acids bound together in a highly specific order. The average functional protein in a “simple” cell contains 200 amino acids. Even in those cells, there are thousands of different types of proteins. The probability that just one protein containing only 100 amino acids could ever randomly form on earth has been calculated to be about one chance in a million billion."
See the context for more documentation. References:
2. Scientific American, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.
a. The New York Times, “A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.
3. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.
4. Scientific American, June 2007, pp. 47, 49-50.
5. Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.
6. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition—Does It Work?” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration vision/universe/starsgalaxies/ life’s_working_definition.html), accessed 3/17/2009.
Edit: 1 in a million billion is 10^15 - the easier probability results when less factors are considered. For example, it assumes an impossible organic soup for starters. Actually, different amino acids require different environments to form - e.g. Miller's experiment formed primarily formic acid and most of the amino acids produced are not found in proteins. The primary proteinous amino acids produced were Glycine and Alanine, then aspartic acid. Valine was produced in very low proportion. The other proteinous amino acids were in such low concentration as to make selection of them extremely difficult. The more factors that are considered (e.g. chirality & isomerization, 3-d structure, etc.) the more difficult to produce a polypeptide useful for life. The seeming contradiction between 10^15 and 10^113 is thus resolved.
You have cut and pasted examples of the classic “god of the gaps” attempt st argument.
It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.
This argument is also known as the argument from ignorance and is implicit in various creationist arguments. In particular, it is behind all arguments against abiogenesis and all claims of intelligent design.
The argument from ignorance creates gods to squeegee into the gaps in our knowledge. The gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for mental illnesses until we found biochemical causes for them, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses. The gods are confined to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.
The claim is "the odds against are just too great”, is another typical creationist claim. Science has already found plausible explanations and performed experiments to refute the creationist claims. Nobody knows everything, so it is unreasonable to conclude that something is impossible just because you do not know it. The creationist / antievolutionist Michael Behe acknowledges this point: "The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results" (Behe 2003).
How do you know that far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life? Life only has to grow and reproduce and even simple molecules can do that. Once that occurs evolution begins. Natural selection means the process is not random, it is directed by natural law.
The point missed by the anti-science religious extremists within their “gods of the gaps” arguments in regard to abiogenesis is that there is 100% certainty abiogenesis occurred. The fact that life on the planet exists provides that certainty. The exact process is just not fully understood. Abiogenesis occurred either by natural processes or by the hands of various gods, depending on the particular religion and the particular religionist.
The odds against the consortium of Christian gods creating all of existence 6,000 years ago are just too great to allow that option as a contender. Supernaturalism as an option to explain existence is similarly shallow. Never, ever, in all of human history has supernaturalism been an explanation for anything.
So, that narrows the array of choices to leave naturalism as the obvious mechanism.
The odds against the consortium of Christian gods creating all of existence 6,000 years ago are just too great to allow that option as a contender. Supernaturalism as an option to explain existence is similarly shallow. Never, ever, in all of human history has supernaturalism been an explanation for anything.
So, that narrows the array of choices to leave naturalism as the obvious mechanism.
I think we need a bit of honesty in your claims about me "not liking" creationist books. Its a matter of holding creationists to the same standards of proof that creationists require of science.
The book by creationist and Disco'tute member Thaxton is intended to find flaws with Miller-Urey and with biochemistry. What you're doing is attempting to define a decades old experiment as the be-all, end-all of biochemistry. Thaxton's agenda is to discredit science in favor of supernaturalism at the hands of the Christian gods. Thaxton can write whatever he wants as a means to discredit science. He won't submit his research for peer review as creationists don't perform research and don't publish their opinions in peer reviewed science journals.
Feel free to cut and paste the entirety of Thaxton's book. It means little to the relevant science community as attempting to prove the Christian gods by cutting and pasting creationist literature is simply a waste of bandwidth.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 162,793
- 89,417
- 2,645
The evidence of a designer is everywhere we look! In addition to the ODDS against proteins randomly assembling the first cells, there are the odds against the strong and weak forces, electromagnetism and gravity all balancing out Multiplied by the ODDS of living on a habitable planet.
We are cute little creatures in a petri dish and every so often we notice the eye checking in on us
You may be right. The cancer cell is evidence of designer gods, I suppose,
Yes, lets look at the ODDS. There are 330,000,000 Hindu gods. The chances of your gods being the real gods are reduced to 3 in 330,000,000. There are odds against talking snakes, men living to be 900 years old, global floods and eternal punishment for fruit theft.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 162,793
- 89,417
- 2,645
Oh poor baby. Is that what's got you upset and angry?
Not much of a response, pumpkin.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 122,144
- 130,207
- 3,645
First, its not "chance". Selection is not random.
Second, the process itself evolved, via selection. Two different types of molecules evolved to work together and evolved through changes at the same time. This is not a mystery.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
What Are You Doing To Prepare For The Coming Financial Crisis?- Started by SaxonJackson
- Replies: 8
-
Jesus Christ tries to assassinate himself................again- Started by Votto
- Replies: 0
-
-
