-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Question about probabilities and the conditions of life
- Thread starter xdisciplex
- Start date
- Status
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Let's review the many-twisted turns of UTEOTW's argument on probability.
#1. He claims that probability science predicts that shuffling a deck of 52 cards and dealing them is "impossible" -- statistcally impossible!! He does this by EQUIVOCATING between the probability of PREDICTING the sequence of a 52 card shuffle (knowing what it is not possible to know) VS being ABLE to pick up a deck of cards and shuffle them!!
And of course - he "claims" that his cadre of believers in atheist darwinism swallow that line of thinking hook-line-and-sinker.
#2. UTEOTW also attacks Emile Borel the nobel winning Mathmatician for his 1:10-50th power limit on "What is possible in all of time" -- AS IF UTEOTW had a better grasp of math than Borel when in fact his 52 card blunder SHOWS that he does not!!
#3. When I point out this blunder - I SHOW that in the case of abiogenesis NOT ONLY can it NOT come up with the 52 card sequence that IS shown to be possible TO HAVE (at least we DO know for certain that ALL sequences for the 52 card shuffle ARE possible just not predictable) -- Abiogenesis has an IMPOSSIBLE result to GET let alone predict.
Like pouring a handfull of sand on the beach and instead of merely having to predict one pattern sequence out of a zillion zillion possible arrangements for each grain of sand that falls - abiogenesis must predict a COMBINATION with the beach sand that results in an exact replica of the Disney Castle!! I.e. A totally IMPOSSIBLE result GREATER than the sum of the parts!
Impossible to GET let alone PREDICT!
UTEOTW then argues that he has MORE than one possible solution for a single given enzyme pre-selected.
AS IF getting ONE simple enzyme IS the WHOLE ABIOGENESIS project!!
This is like saying that for any ONE given shuffle "result" of shuffling the deck of cards there are MORE than one shuffle "sequence of events" that will result in that same sequence of cards in the deck!
That does not solve the problem of PREDICTING the resulting sequence since THAT is what was determined by statistics to be "impossible". Multiple pathways to the SAME sequence IMPOSSIBLE to predict is STILL a sequence IMPOSSIBLE to predict!!
#1. He claims that probability science predicts that shuffling a deck of 52 cards and dealing them is "impossible" -- statistcally impossible!! He does this by EQUIVOCATING between the probability of PREDICTING the sequence of a 52 card shuffle (knowing what it is not possible to know) VS being ABLE to pick up a deck of cards and shuffle them!!
And of course - he "claims" that his cadre of believers in atheist darwinism swallow that line of thinking hook-line-and-sinker.
#2. UTEOTW also attacks Emile Borel the nobel winning Mathmatician for his 1:10-50th power limit on "What is possible in all of time" -- AS IF UTEOTW had a better grasp of math than Borel when in fact his 52 card blunder SHOWS that he does not!!
#3. When I point out this blunder - I SHOW that in the case of abiogenesis NOT ONLY can it NOT come up with the 52 card sequence that IS shown to be possible TO HAVE (at least we DO know for certain that ALL sequences for the 52 card shuffle ARE possible just not predictable) -- Abiogenesis has an IMPOSSIBLE result to GET let alone predict.
Like pouring a handfull of sand on the beach and instead of merely having to predict one pattern sequence out of a zillion zillion possible arrangements for each grain of sand that falls - abiogenesis must predict a COMBINATION with the beach sand that results in an exact replica of the Disney Castle!! I.e. A totally IMPOSSIBLE result GREATER than the sum of the parts!
Impossible to GET let alone PREDICT!
UTEOTW then argues that he has MORE than one possible solution for a single given enzyme pre-selected.
AS IF getting ONE simple enzyme IS the WHOLE ABIOGENESIS project!!
This is like saying that for any ONE given shuffle "result" of shuffling the deck of cards there are MORE than one shuffle "sequence of events" that will result in that same sequence of cards in the deck!
That does not solve the problem of PREDICTING the resulting sequence since THAT is what was determined by statistics to be "impossible". Multiple pathways to the SAME sequence IMPOSSIBLE to predict is STILL a sequence IMPOSSIBLE to predict!!
I guess you do not plan to fix your formatting. What you are getting at is hard to see the way you have your numbers formatted in the spam at this time.
But it seems that you are content to stick with the odds of getting a useful sequence of 10^236 against.
The problem is that this number is based on a set of assumptions that have no basis in nature. They are simply pulled from thin air.
Now, if you will remember, I gave you some references earlier about the number of useful sequences. I quit after two because, well, frankly you have shown an inability to read posts all the way to the end, so I left explanations of three more references out though I gave you the citations.
Let us see what one of them said.
One in every 10^15 sequences turns out to make a good ribosomal acyl transferase.
Now 10^15 is 221 orders of magnitude less than the figure you quote.
How did you miss so badly?
Oh yeah, you, or your source, made up something out of thin air that has nothing to do with reality.
But it seems that you are content to stick with the odds of getting a useful sequence of 10^236 against.
The problem is that this number is based on a set of assumptions that have no basis in nature. They are simply pulled from thin air.
Now, if you will remember, I gave you some references earlier about the number of useful sequences. I quit after two because, well, frankly you have shown an inability to read posts all the way to the end, so I left explanations of three more references out though I gave you the citations.
Let us see what one of them said.
One in every 10^15 sequences turns out to make a good ribosomal acyl transferase.
Now 10^15 is 221 orders of magnitude less than the figure you quote.
How did you miss so badly?
Oh yeah, you, or your source, made up something out of thin air that has nothing to do with reality.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Using All the Atoms in the Universe
From the calculations in previous chapters, it could be guessed that to obtain a gene would be at least as difficult as to obtain a protein molecule. Instead of using all the atoms on earth, therefore, this time let us assume that all the atoms of the entire cosmos have been made into sets of nucleotides, and that these are activated, ready for linkup. (Nucleotides are made of atoms of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus.)
It will be presumed that each chain will polymerize or link up at the swiftest speed of atomic processes (of which the limit is said to be around 1016 per second as noted earlier).
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f10">10
With each nucleotide being added at such a speed, the number of complete chains (genes) per second is 8.3 x 1012 in any one set. In a year, a set of nucleotides would produce 2.6 x 1020 genes, which we will round off to 1021.
Chance is trying for the first gene in the universe, so there is no pattern strand of DNA or RNA existing. The four different nucleotides will occur only in random order in the chain. If just one side of the ladder or double helix is obtained, it will be considered sufficient, in the thought that if one is obtained, the other side might form by base pairing.
<A name=ec10f12x> From standard estimates of the cosmic abundance of the elements,<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f11">11 it can be found that phosphorus is the limiting element in forming activated nucleotides. There are estimated to be 1.5 x 1072 phosphorus atoms in the universe.12 Three atoms of phosphorus are needed for each activated nucleotide. This will make 1068 sets, so that one copy of each of the four kinds of nucleotides is present at each point of the 1,200-unit chain being formed.
<A name=ec10f13x> If each set is producing 1021 sequences per year, that will be a total of 1089 different chains annually, using all of the appropriate atoms of the universe. As in the case of proteins, it is assumed that each chain will be dismantled immediately and another one built until there is a usable gene. This is done at the prodigious speed of eight trillion chains per second.
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f13">13
The Number of Possible Orders in a Gene
There are three different ways to determine the number of possible sequences in a DNA chain. The general formula, it may be recalled, is: the number of kinds to the power of the number of units in the chain. If each order is equally likely, the probability of a particular sequence will then be one in the total of possible orders.
With four kinds of nucleotides, and a chain 1,200 long, the total of possible arrangements would be 41200, which is approximately 10722. The letters of a gene, however, are read in triplet codons (comprising sixty-four kinds of triplets) of which there are 400 in this size chain. If computed in this way, there would be a total of 64400 possible orders, and this turns out to be the same as when figured by individual letters, namely 10722.
<A name=ec10f15x><A name=ec10f16x> The reader may recall, however, that many of the twenty amino acids are coded by more than one triplet. The duplicate codons are thought by some to be “a historical accident,” Others believe they may be “perhaps a regulatory factor in some cases,”
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f14">14 since nature is “seldom redundant” for very long.15 As mentioned in the preceding chapter, evidence is accumulating that these seeming duplicates may serve the vital purpose of regulating16 the synthesis of proteins. If that turns out to be true, then there would be no useless duplicates among the 64 codons,
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f17">17 and the total real sequences would be the 10722 figure.
From the calculations in previous chapters, it could be guessed that to obtain a gene would be at least as difficult as to obtain a protein molecule. Instead of using all the atoms on earth, therefore, this time let us assume that all the atoms of the entire cosmos have been made into sets of nucleotides, and that these are activated, ready for linkup. (Nucleotides are made of atoms of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus.)
It will be presumed that each chain will polymerize or link up at the swiftest speed of atomic processes (of which the limit is said to be around 1016 per second as noted earlier).
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f10">10
With each nucleotide being added at such a speed, the number of complete chains (genes) per second is 8.3 x 1012 in any one set. In a year, a set of nucleotides would produce 2.6 x 1020 genes, which we will round off to 1021.
Chance is trying for the first gene in the universe, so there is no pattern strand of DNA or RNA existing. The four different nucleotides will occur only in random order in the chain. If just one side of the ladder or double helix is obtained, it will be considered sufficient, in the thought that if one is obtained, the other side might form by base pairing.
<A name=ec10f12x> From standard estimates of the cosmic abundance of the elements,<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f11">11 it can be found that phosphorus is the limiting element in forming activated nucleotides. There are estimated to be 1.5 x 1072 phosphorus atoms in the universe.12 Three atoms of phosphorus are needed for each activated nucleotide. This will make 1068 sets, so that one copy of each of the four kinds of nucleotides is present at each point of the 1,200-unit chain being formed.
<A name=ec10f13x> If each set is producing 1021 sequences per year, that will be a total of 1089 different chains annually, using all of the appropriate atoms of the universe. As in the case of proteins, it is assumed that each chain will be dismantled immediately and another one built until there is a usable gene. This is done at the prodigious speed of eight trillion chains per second.
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f13">13
The Number of Possible Orders in a Gene
There are three different ways to determine the number of possible sequences in a DNA chain. The general formula, it may be recalled, is: the number of kinds to the power of the number of units in the chain. If each order is equally likely, the probability of a particular sequence will then be one in the total of possible orders.
With four kinds of nucleotides, and a chain 1,200 long, the total of possible arrangements would be 41200, which is approximately 10722. The letters of a gene, however, are read in triplet codons (comprising sixty-four kinds of triplets) of which there are 400 in this size chain. If computed in this way, there would be a total of 64400 possible orders, and this turns out to be the same as when figured by individual letters, namely 10722.
<A name=ec10f15x><A name=ec10f16x> The reader may recall, however, that many of the twenty amino acids are coded by more than one triplet. The duplicate codons are thought by some to be “a historical accident,” Others believe they may be “perhaps a regulatory factor in some cases,”
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f14">14 since nature is “seldom redundant” for very long.15 As mentioned in the preceding chapter, evidence is accumulating that these seeming duplicates may serve the vital purpose of regulating16 the synthesis of proteins. If that turns out to be true, then there would be no useless duplicates among the 64 codons,
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f17">17 and the total real sequences would be the 10722 figure.
Yeah, we have seen that post before, complete with the atrocious formatting that makes it hard to figure out what the numbers are supposed to be.
Are you trying to change the chance from 10^236 to something else?
Just remember, I just posted actual data that shows that for an actual function, that 1 in every 10^15 sequences will be useful.
Is that your new number, or are you going to stick with your made up value?
Are you trying to change the chance from 10^236 to something else?
Just remember, I just posted actual data that shows that for an actual function, that 1 in every 10^15 sequences will be useful.
Is that your new number, or are you going to stick with your made up value?
- Status