Question about probabilities and the conditions of life

[BobRyan]

Confronted by hard science debunking junk science - believers in atheist Darwinism will attack hard sciences like math and statistics in favor of the junk-science “story-telling” of atheist Darwinism’s “abiogenesis”.

What “tactics” do you they use? The same ones they use to attack the Bible and Christians that believe in it. Misdirection and falsehood.

UTEOTW

So now all you have to do is to make a case that the odds of life are less than 1 to 1*10^50. I hope you have some peer reviewed references.

In the mean time I have an experiemnt for you to do. Take a deck of cards. Shuffle them or not. Now deal out all 52 cards and look at the order.

The odds against that particular order is about 8*10^67. This means that you have just done something that is 8*10^17 less likely than what you just told us was impossible odds.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=814058&postcount=11

The bogus claim here is that statistical science shows the probability of your being able to do what you did – to be “impossible”.

But in fact the “Truth” is that Statistical science is upheld in this case and the antics of atheist Darwinism’s cultists in using misdirection and obfuscation using half truths – is transparently exposed in THEIR OWN example of “proof” that a hard science like statistics is not reliable as compared to the junk science “Story telling” of Abiogenesis.

Facts:

#1. Statistics shows that the odds are 1:1 that GIVEN a 52 card deck- any shuffle and deal will result in a 52 card sequence.

#2. Statistics shows that the probability of getting ONE of the 10^67 sequences is 1. 100%. In other words you have no chance of getting 53 card or 51 card sequence.

#3. Statistics states that being able to “predict” which of the sequences you will get (in a well shuffled deck) is very unlikely – in fact impossible.


Note that the cultist above CLAIMS to have done what “was impossible” and yet he does NOT SELECT one of the outcomes and then SHOW that what he selected WAS in fact dealt (the impossible scenario according to the hard science of statistics).

How transparently desperate on the part of the believer in atheist Darwinism – to make such a false claim against statistical science – all in the name of a faith based system of junk science known as atheist Darwinism.

That point was fully exposed here –
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=814089&postcount=17


When they are fully exposed they simply “pretend not to understand” the science!!

UTEOTW

Yawn.
Any particular 52 card sequence has a 8*10^67 odds against being dealt. So each time one is dealt, they are doing something impossible according to you.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=814092&postcount=19

How predictable. How desperate. How sad!

 

[BobRyan]

Notice that the cultists of atheist darwinism "Claim their own story telling as If they are FACTS"

UTEOTW
Contrary to your misinformed source, the early atmosphere was, in fact, reducing.

Here UTEOTW ignores the banded iron in the basement rock -- SHOWING the presence of free oxygen at the very start and simply says "it is fact that there was no free oxygen".

Of course we know from Genesis 1:2 that there WAS - and we SEE the banded iron... but UTEOTW is bent on "ignoring" what is "CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been made" - even though the Bible says that unbelieving pagans "see it clearly".

 

[BobRyan]

Let's see what Flew said.


Quote:
I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.

Oh no, it seems like Flew recanted the position you attribute. And why did he do so?

The inquisition conducted by fellow cultists - Obviously! Why else "recant" in favor of "story telling" ???

Notice that "presentable STORIES" is the basis for his "recanting" -- he was told that to ADMIT to the obvious facts in nature would be to denounce atheist darwinism and of course they said "WE ALL know there IS NO GOD". With such logic he HAD to "recant" and yield to the pressure of junk-science devotees to "story telling".

What he does not say is "I have SEEN the manufactured sequences in the lab that were SHOWN to yield a living creature - a living cell as we see them today -- so I must now recant".

RATHER the statement is that he was "TOLD STORIES" to the point that he now yields to the STORY TELLING!

How sad.

How predictable

How like the pressure put on K. Popper to "recant".

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Hence Crick's SOLUTION - "it did not HAPPEN HERE" it must have been PLACED here by some "Event".

Perhaps you did not read all of what Crick said. I'll repeat it for you. "But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

OF course there are "good reasons TO BELIEVE" that ORDINARY chemical science today might hopefully someday be able to create living creatures - for an atheist darwinist. The best reason "TO BELIEVE" is that they insist "THERE IS NO GOD" and failure to BELIEVE that ordinary chemical science today WILL ONE DAY be successful -- would be to put at risk the prime directive "There IS NO GOD"

 

[BobRyan]

Notice how often "recanting" and "believing" come into play for atheist darwinism's cultists?

Amazing that they are so willing to admit it here!

 

[BobRyan]

NEWSMAX: Thursday, Dec. 9, 2004 4:55 p.m. EST
Science Gives Famous Atheist Faith in God

NEW YORK - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God, more or less, based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe.
...

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

Amazing that "the invisible attributes of God CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been made" are being confessed in this example by an UNBELIEVING atheist darwinist who ADMITs that their "Story telling" is just not holding up!!

 

[UTEOTW]

Notice how often "recanting" and "believing" come into play for atheist darwinism's cultists?

Amazing that they are so willing to admit it here!

I would have really thought that you would have had the sense to leave Flew alone after it was pointed out that he says that he was fooled by an IDist.

I guess you like to point out how people feel, in this case like a "fool," after checking out the claims of YEers and IDists.

Here UTEOTW ignores the banded iron in the basement rock -- SHOWING the presence of free oxygen at the very start and simply says "it is fact that there was no free oxygen".

Thanks for bringing this up.

First off, banded iron is not found in basement rock. So your assertion is false.

But, the banded iron does help support my assertions about the early atmosphere being reducing. Let's look at how.

The banded iron formations are generally found at somewhere around in rock that formed 2 or 2.5 billion years ago.

In older rocks, we have an absence of banded iron formations. But what these older rocks do have are deposits of materials like uranite and pyrite which could only have been formed in a reducing environment.

Good for me.

In addition, iron oxide is not very soluable in water. The fact that we have these banded iron formations support the asserted history of life.

The iron dissolved in the oceans when they were anoxic. When organisms evolved that started to produce oxygen, the iron dissolved in the oceans was oxidized and precipitated out as the banded iron formations.

Now that the oceans contain dissolved oxygen, you no longer see banded iron formations being made.

This all supports very well my assertion that there was an early reducing atmosphere that later had oxygen introduced by life.

 

[UTEOTW]

So, can you show that scientists really have not been able to produce optically pure RNA using a common catalyst or do you plan to withdraw your assertion that it cannot be done?

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Notice how often "recanting" and "believing" come into play for atheist darwinism's cultists?

Amazing that they are so willing to admit it here!

UTEOTW
I would have really thought that you would have had the sense to leave Flew alone after it was pointed out that he says that he was fooled by an IDist.

I guess you like to point out how people feel, in this case like a "fool," after checking out the claims of YEers and IDists.

Your vaccuous statement about "foold by an ideas" it nothing more than atheist darwinist propaganda.

"The facts" are that Gerald Schroeder is a well respected MIT scientist - a physicist who DOES admit to the things "CLEARLY SEEN IN the things that have been MADE" INSTEAD of blindly following atheist darwinism like some kind of mindless drone.

The fact is that the only fault you could find in him is that he is not a puppet for mindless atheist darwinism!


The point remains - you seem to "want" to edit history (or revise) but can not. The tools of your faith based support for atheist darwinism ARE SEEN here to be in the form of "pressure to RECANT" and to "BELIEVE" as do atheist darwinists.

How brave of you to confess to such dark ages "inquisition" methods.



BTW - The fact that FLEW admits to the problem for abiogenesis is a "Fact of history" -- not changed by your claiming that HE has a "spokesman that calls him a bumbling fool".

Though I can see why a devotee to the cult of atheist darwinism would claim that such is sufficient to edit history!

 

[BobRyan]

First off, banded iron is not found in basement rock. So your assertion is false.

But, the banded iron does help support my assertions about the early atmosphere being reducing. Let's look at how.

.

Apparently you don't get out much.

The Smithsonian is in disagreement with your guesswork.

 

[BobRyan]

Hey UTEOTW - how is it that each time your bogus "test case" arguments are exposed you slink back into the shadows instead of defenind them ...

See how you were exposed here?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=814607&postcount=61

They same way your lack of attention to "Detail" was exposed in your OWN test case using Patterson!!

How can you KEEP DOING THAT??!!

 

[BobRyan]

http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html

Chirality deals with the condition of a molecule. See, molecules can be compared to your hands. They are the exact same things...except opposite. ? Chiral molecules are often referred to as "left" or "right-handed" (hence the hand comparison...+ chiral means hand). So if these molecules are exactly the same, how can they be opposite? The two forms of the chiral molecule are called enantiomers or optical isomers. The defining characteristic is the direction they rotate plane-polarized light. Left or right. Not everything is chiral (achiral), but all amino acids and many sugars exhibit these types of properties. Almost all biological polymers must be homochiral (same chirality). All amino acids in proteins are left-handed while all sugars in DNA and RNA are right-handed. Now, when amino acids are created, they always occur in racemic proportions. Racemic means a 50/50 ratio of left-handed to right-handed. What is even more interesting is that the two enantiomers must be in equilibrium with each other to exist and equilibrium only occurs in a racemic mixture. Remember what was stated above?

In order for life to arise, all of the left-handed molecules would have to gather on one side of the lagoon and all the right on the other. The problem is, this can't happen because they will be out of equilibrium with each other and the homochiral mixtures will begin to convert into their optical isomers trying to recreate a racemic environment. So how do we get the two opposites to break up? Introduce a new substance. Because the isomers are essentially the same, they will bond to it the same. Now the two chiral particles are no longer dependant on each other. So now we know that the two can separate, but that still leaves the question of how. What mechanism would cause these particles, identical in nature, to separate? There is no known mechanism for doing this. What irks scientists even more are the odds. The probability of a protein being homochiral (all left handed in our case) is 2-N where N equals the number of amino acids in the protein. A short protein uses about 100 amino acids so the odds of this forming is 2-100 or 10-30. Now, you should know that this is just the odds of any homochiral protein forming at all. Many homochiral amino combinations produce inactive proteins (useless) so the odds drop rather dramatically when this is taken into consideration. Then you consider the number of different kinds of homochiral polypeptides required for life and you have outrageous odds.

 

[BobRyan]

As mentioned in the preceding discussions, evidence is accumulating that these seeming duplicates may serve the vital purpose of regulating the synthesis of proteins. If that turns out to be true, then there would be no useless duplicates among the 64 codons, and the total real sequences would be the 10722 figure.

Since research is not yet final on that point, however, let’s again give chance the benefit of the doubt and figure it as if all the duplicates were useless extras.
There are only twenty-one different possible primary outcomes for each codon position. Those potential outcomes which are signalled by codons are the twenty amino acids plus “end of chain.” We will therefore figure on the basis of twenty-one kinds, for a chain 400 amino acids long. The figure 21400 is approximately 10528. If we allow one substitution per chain (without limiting it to the active site—another boost for chance), then the equivalent total of different sequences is 10524.


Using again the formula obtained from the alphabet analogy, it can be assumed that 1/10240 is the proportion of orders that might be usable somewhere. Since 10240 is less than 10524, the probability of getting a usable gene on any one try is 1/10240 for the first gene. Allowing for one substitution has the effect of reducing the figure to 1/10236.

The total orders produced in a year by all the nucleotide sets from the entire cosmos was 1089, as seen on page 159. (in the link posted repeatedly on this thread) The probability of getting a usable gene in a year is therefore 1089/10236, which is 1/10147. With all the concessions given, one could expect a usable gene in 10147 years, from the tremendously rapid efforts of all the nucleotide sets of all the atoms of the universe.

 

[BobRyan]

However BEFORE we can even HAVE that discussion we first have to keep debunking UTEOTW's rabbit trails where HE claims not to understand statistical science at ALL!

Hence the focus on HIS 52 card sequence illustration!

Too bad UTEOTW is so afraid of hard science when it comes to promoting "Atheist darwinist stories"

 

[UTEOTW]

"The facts" are that Gerald Schroeder is a well respected MIT scientist - a physicist who DOES admit to the things "CLEARLY SEEN IN the things that have been MADE" INSTEAD of blindly following atheist darwinism like some kind of mindless drone.

Whatever Schroeder may be, the fact is that Flew changed his mind after hearing more and claimed that Schroeder misled him and made him feel like a "fool."

Apparently you don't get out much.

The Smithsonian is in disagreement with your guesswork.

Hey, go ahead.

Show us that uranite and pyrite, which can only form in anoxic conditions, are not found in layers older than those in which the banded iron is shown.

Show us that the banded iron formation resulted from something other than iron oxide precipitating from solution as oxygen was introduced.

Please, support your assertion. For all you have at this point is assertion.

 

[UTEOTW]

[snip a repeat of the discussion on chirality]

Bob.

YOu are attacking a strawman.

I gave you a reference that shows how optically pure RNA can be formed.

RNA came before proteins.

Your assertions about being unable to make non-racemic proteins is therefore a strawman because no one claims that the amino acids came first.

Try paying attention.

 

[UTEOTW]

[snip a probability discussion]

I addressed this in my first post on this thread. Try reading it and responding to what I said instead of repeating your strawman over and over.

Or are unsubstantiated assertions and logical fallacies all you have to offer?

It seems so.

 

[UTEOTW]

You keep telling us that it is impossible to make non-racemic sequences.

I gave you a reference that says otherwise.

Will you either show that scientists, in contrast to my reference, have been unable to make optically pure sequences or will you instead withdraw your claim?

I predict that instead that you will do as you have been so far and try to obfuscate and hope no one notices that you have nothing to offer other than strawmen and unsubstantiated assertions.

 

[BobRyan]

Hey UTEOTW - how is it that each time your bogus "test case" arguments are exposed you slink back into the shadows instead of defenind them ...

See how you were exposed here?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=814176&postcount=39


You are still ducking and dodging YOUR OWN test case illustration pretending you don't understand statistics!!


(They same way your lack of attention to "Detail" was exposed in your OWN test case using Patterson!!)

How can you KEEP DOING THAT??!!

(I see you just did it "some more") You seem to have no end to ways to duck the issue.

#1. This thread is ON the subject of probability I SHOW the probability for Gene "spontaneous generation" as you believe in it.

#2. YOU SHOW that you fail to comprehend how STATISTICS relates to a 53 card "Sequence". How sad!

#3. You need to SHOW that you actually HAVE a reasonable understanding of statistics to even BEGIN to start your "gaming" and story telling -- but you never make it to 'square one' -- how come you keep ignoring that?

 

[BobRyan]

In order for life to arise, all of the left-handed molecules would have to gather on one side of the lagoon and all the right on the other. The problem is, this can't happen because they will be out of equilibrium with each other and the homochiral mixtures will begin to convert into their optical isomers trying to recreate a racemic environment. So how do we get the two opposites to break up? Introduce a new substance. Because the isomers are essentially the same, they will bond to it the same. Now the two chiral particles are no longer dependant on each other. So now we know that the two can separate, but that still leaves the question of how. What mechanism would cause these particles, identical in nature, to separate? There is no known mechanism for doing this. What irks scientists even more are the odds. The probability of a protein being homochiral (all left handed in our case) is 2-N where N equals the number of amino acids in the protein. A short protein uses about 100 amino acids so the odds of this forming is 2-100 or 10-30. Now, you should know that this is just the odds of any homochiral protein forming at all. Many homochiral amino combinations produce inactive proteins (useless) so the odds drop rather dramatically when this is taken into consideration. Then you consider the number of different kinds of homochiral polypeptides required for life and you have outrageous odds.

Since UTEOTW declares himself to be "incapable" of mastering even the most BASIC concepts of statistical science and now seems to pretend to be incapable of mastering the "Details" in this quote above -- I will once again -- come to his aid.

NOTICE that the problem above is NOT that there is no way to contrive a local area of mono-chiral concentrations - the problem is TWO fold.

#1. It is impossible to MAINTAIN it.

#2. It has NEVER been shown that this results in the actual PROTEINS needed for actual cells!!

UTEOTW LIVES to obfuscate the obvious - not because of a character flaw unique to him - but because this is the REQUIRED model for junk science practitioners of that faith based system we call atheist darwinism!