22 Jul 06
Originally posted by amannionSo wickedness holds those who practice it bound.
Right.
That pretty much sums up the crackpot brigade.
RS you should hook up with Nosrac - you'll have a lot to talk about.
But there's nothing worthwhile for the rest of us.
It's steps lead down to death, and it's paths to the grave.
This is Hell.
22 Jul 06
Originally posted by whodeyHis point, or one of them anyway, is that the name 'Jessica' is not chosen simply by picking a random number of random letters out of the alphabet. No names are. The point is that you can't calculate probabilities of events correctly when you make bad assumptions about how they would occur.
Oh come on, where is your sense of humor? Your posts were not wasted on me and I appreciate the time and effort you put into them. I assume your point is that one needs a large enough random sample of the general population in order to better assess the statistiacal likelyhood of the name Jessica being chosen, no?
22 Jul 06
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowAll our names were given to us by GOD before the creation of the world.
His point, or one of them anyway, is that the name 'Jessica' is not chosen simply by picking a random number of random letters out of the alphabet. No names are. The point is that you can't calculate probabilities of events correctly when you make bad assumptions about how they would occur.
Our names were given to us by the GOD who knew us as children before we were formed in the womb.
23 Jul 06
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowYes, this was essentially my point. There are a lot of other little things too, but they all basically fall under the same point about bad assumptions.
His point, or one of them anyway, is that the name 'Jessica' is not chosen simply by picking a random number of random letters out of the alphabet. No names are. The point is that you can't calculate probabilities of events correctly when you make bad assumptions about how they would occur.
The essay relies critically upon certain assumptions.
1) Abiogenesis had to begin with proteins as complex as the one described in the essay. If much simpler proteins were possible, then the probability of forming a 100 amino acid protein, no matter what else the assumptions, is irrelevant to the likelihood of abiogenesis.
2) Amino acid molecules link up in an independent manner. Assuming independence, lets the authors multiply probabilities together and really jack up the exponents, which quickly yields incredibly tiny numbers. However some amino acids may have been more likely to bind to some existing combinations more than to others for all sorts of reasons (by physical properties of amino acids, environmental bias, or simply a higher frequency of one amino acid than another.).
This concept is not particular to amino acid molecules, but to all sorts of things and is called "conditional" probabilities. For instance, if we randomly pick some one from the world, it is fairly unlikely that that person's name is Jose. On the otherhand, if I tell you that the person is Mexican the "conditional" probability that that person's name is Jose is a lot higher. If I tell you that the person is male, it's even higher still. The way the essay treats the problem of protein building, the current set of say 34 amino acids has absolutley no effect on the probabilities for what the 35th amino acid will be.
3) They calculate the probability as if some one had to draw amino-acid molecules one by one and could only succeed if they got exactly the same 100 amino acid molecules that make up their particular protein. Perhaps smaller subchains existed fairly well. Later these chains connected along with other amino acids.
4) Another problem, which has already been pointed out, is that it assumes that the number of trials is very small (perhaps one). As if life could have only arisen if this wacky amino acid experiment happened on the first try. The environment described by some one here (scotty?) is one in which an extremely large number of potential combinations are being "sampled" all the time for many years.
If you toss a coin 20 times, the ex ante probability that you will get 20 heads is 1 in 1,048,576. Pretty much not gonna happen for you. However, if you have every person in China toss a coin 20 times, it is extremely likely that some one will succeed in throwing 20 heads.
The above points are valid criticisms that one can bring up with almost no knowledge of abiogenesis theory or biology or chemistry. The key is that probability theory applies in all sorts of situations, whether it's meeting people in a room, insuring drivers, or forming living matter from non-living matter. When you can peel back the math to lay bare the assumptions, you don't get bogged down by deliberate obfuscation.
As for what the best way to model abiogenesis is, I'll leave that to people who know a lot more about biology and chemistry than I do. They'll have a better idea about the environment and natural laws governing the relationship between amino acids. They'd know what distributions best describe the populations of amino acids (rather than a uniform distribution, which is what the essay basically assumes). Anyway, I hope you didn't take all this as a challenge to you. I wasn't intending to call you out. But I think it is important that one be very suspicious when Creationists start throwing around numbers.
23 Jul 06
Originally posted by telerionActually, nearly 1,500 people in china would get 20 heads in a row.
Yes, this was essentially my point. There are a lot of other little things too, but they all basically fall under the same point about bad assumptions.
The essay relies critically upon certain assumptions.
1) Abiogenesis had to begin with proteins as complex as the one described in the essay. If much simpler proteins were possible, then the pro ...[text shortened]... ant that one be very suspicious when Creationists start throwing around numbers.
23 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnd quite likely those who did would see it as a sign of some sort. It's interesting how the human mind works - if you look at the whole, it's easy to see that even very improbable events will happen if you try often enough, but if something very improbable happens to you personally, it's hard to believe and will often make people try to find explanations for why it happened to them, not somebody else. Of course, if it had happened to somebody else, that person would react the same way.
Actually, nearly 1,500 people in china would get 20 heads in a row.
23 Jul 06
5 edits
Originally posted by telerionAnd since we are in the Spirituality forum, a single coin-flipping chinaman in heaven is guaranteed to eventually get such a sequence from a fair coin.
Yeah, most likely. The chances that no one gets 20 heads in a row is quite small. I don't feel like doing the calculation right now, maybe some one else will do it.
Similarly, in heaven, if the same ingredients of the putative abiogenesis process are present in heaven, abiogenesis is guaranteed to occur there, if the only objection to it is its improbability.
23 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIf we had 43,000 chinamen flipping coins costantly for 50,000 years, one of them would get 50 heads in a row.
And since we are in the Spirituality forum, a single coin-flipping chinaman in heaven is guaranteed to eventually get such a sequence from a fair coin.
Similarly, in heaven, if the same ingredients of the putative abiogenesis process are present in heaven, abiogenesis is guaranteed to occur there, if the only objection to it is its improbability.
Another two would get 49, another four 48, another eight 47 and so on.
That's the chances of coins flipping to give a predetermined sequence, of course. Nucleotides spontaneously form chains anyway, and with a "test tube" the size of the earth there is an almost unlimited number of possible chances for even the smallest replicating polypeptide unit to come into existance. Indeed, Dawkins book, "Blind Watchmaker" has got a rather good account of an experiment where the experimentors put nucleotides and RNA replicase into a sterile tube, waited a while, took a subsample, put it in a fresh tube, with new nuclueotides etc. After a few "generations" they had a small, replicating RNA chain. Of course, RNA replicase wasn't around 4 billion years ago, but a reasonable substitite for it was, Zinc.
23 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThere is a small probability that not even one of those 43,000 chinamen will manage 50 heads in a row. Heck, there's even a chance that all of them will get 50 heads in a row.
If we had 43,000 chinamen flipping coins costantly for 50,000 years, one of them would get 50 heads in a row.
Another two would get 49, another four 48, another eight 47 and so on.
That's the chances of coins flipping to give a predetermined sequence, of course. Nucleotides spontaneously form chains anyway, and with a "test tube" the size of the ...[text shortened]... plicase wasn't around 4 billion years ago, but a reasonable substitite for it was, Zinc.
But if we allow an infinite to creep into things as the good doctor did, then we know that the probability that any finite sequence will come up converges to 1 almost surely.
Now that I've gotten that annoying "know-it-all" aside (which you already knew anyway) out of the way, zinc is a good substitute for RNA replicase? I'll remember that when I'm bartending my next cocktail party.
23 Jul 06
Originally posted by telerionIndeed, of course I did know that. However, I'm talking on average, for simplicities sake.
There is a small probability that not even one of those 43,000 chinamen will manage 50 heads in a row. Heck, there's even a chance that all of them will get 50 heads in a row.
But if we allow an infinite to creep into things as the good doctor did, then we know that the probability that any finite sequence will come up converges to 1 almost surely.
...[text shortened]... stitute for RNA replicase? I'll remember that when I'm bartending my next cocktail party.
Yes, indeed, a thorough knowledge and understanding is important when trying to calculate these things, and not letting poor assumptions through (as creationists are too often guilty of) is also of utmost importance. Scientists often try to underestimate everything and evaluate the worst possible set of conditions imaginable. If they can get something to be statistically probable under harsh conditions, it's likely to have happened under the real conditions.