Origin :) the numbers

@stellspalfie said
I've explained several times why the probability calculated in the video is wrong.

I'll repeat one of my explanations and you can specifically tell me what you don't accept about it - Part of the videos calculation is based on the wrong assumption that the protein forms RANDOMLY. Proteins do not form RANDOMLY. This makes their calculation wrong.

Over to you.

Again you are failing to understand.
Randomly or letting Kelly do it, do not change the odds.

Chance for a coin flip looking for heads is 1/2.
Kelly placing the coin on heads removes chance, what it doesn't do is alter the odds of the coin, it still is 1/2. The video pushed how great the odds were it wasn't saying and this is how it had to happen. It even acknowledged in the video it was altering reality for its demonstration. Still the odds do not change regardless of how it was really done, the only important point in that video was how great the odds are.

Proteins forming today, was not the topic, today there are processes in place that do overcome the odds, but where did those processes come from? You are not following along very well it seems to me. You want to remove the probability truthfulness of the protein by suggesting the video distorts how it was really done at abiogenesis without KNOWING how it was done at abiogenesis.

@kellyjay said
Again you are failing to understand.
Randomly or letting Kelly do it, do not change the odds.

Chance for a coin flip looking for heads is 1/2.
Kelly placing the coin on heads removes chance, what it doesn't do is alter the odds of the coin, it still is 1/2. The video pushed how great the odds were it wasn't saying and this is how it had to happen. It even acknowledged i ...[text shortened]... video distorts how it was really done at abiogenesis without KNOWING how it was done at abiogenesis.

No Kelly, its you miss understanding the probability difference in something being ordered by random and something being ordered by mechanism.

The video uses the example of 30ish segments of protein randomly forming in a specific order (segment 1 being in position 1, segment 2 being in position 2 and so on). Obviously the chances of this are miniscule.
What actually happens is that many of the segments are interchangeable, segment 1 can work in position 2,10,15 and 20 (for example).
What also happens is that not all segments can connect (like the example of magnets I gave you earlier, with proteins is caused by chemical bonds). This reduces the chances of invalid protein chains forming.


The odds in your video or just flat out wrong.

@stellspalfie said
No Kelly, its you miss understanding the probability difference in something being ordered by random and something being ordered by mechanism.

The video uses the example of 30ish segments of protein randomly forming in a specific order (segment 1 being in position 1, segment 2 being in position 2 and so on). Obviously the chances of this are miniscule.
What actually ...[text shortened]... s the chances of invalid protein chains forming.


The odds in your video or just flat out wrong.

Hardly in the English language there are 26 letters, 21 of them are consonants with 5 vowels.

We can randomly place these letters on a sheet of paper.
Letters on paper, utter gibberish without meaning outside of their own names.
Letters on paper in rows of order where all like letters were combine.
Letters on paper that form words, but when together they are meaningless.
Letters thrown together that form ideas, carry meaning to the reader, or instructions.

Proteins in order to be what they are, have specific sequences be it a static list, or an interchangeable one by position you don't get to insert into it anything, and still get what you want.

Shuffle a deck of cards they end up in a sequence the odds for that are one, but saying you can guess what the sequence is not, the odds are the same no matter what the card could be in position 1.

@kellyjay said
Hardly in the English language there are 26 letters, 21 of them are consonants with 5 vowels.

We can randomly place these letters on a sheet of paper.
Letters on paper, utter gibberish without meaning outside of their own names.
Letters on paper in rows of order where all like letters were combine.
Letters on paper that form words, but when together they are meaningles ...[text shortened]... uess what the sequence is not, the odds are the same no matter what the card could be in position 1.

If you have a bag of 3 scrabble tiles a, b and c. If you randomly pick the tiles out of the bag (no peeking Kelly) what are the odds that they will line up alphabetically?

@stellspalfie said
If you have a bag of 3 scrabble tiles a, b and c. If you randomly pick the tiles out of the bag (no peeking Kelly) what are the odds that they will line up alphabetically?

(1/3)*(1/2)*(*1)=1/6

Going back to letters you can produce sentences which is your point I believe.

today is good
good today is
good is today

What you run into with all the possible combinations its all on the table.

oday is gotod
godod i tosay
zebra tosay

In order to have a specific protein all of those properties need to be present that make up that protein. Suggesting that some other combination might work for something else only introduces more complexity to over come.

My example of the "today is good" in a string of code that is required to make something, is ONLY just one line in it. In order to build anything the whole book needs to be written properly. Being able to slide a few of the pieces around and still come up with it still means all of the pieces need to be present and not every order is acceptable. For me your argument only shows how complex life's building blocks really are.

@kellyjay said
(1/3)*(1/2)*(*1)=1/6

Going back to letters you can produce sentences which is your point I believe.

today is good
good today is
good is today

What you run into with all the possible combinations its all on the table.

oday is gotod
godod i tosay
zebra tosay

In order to have a specific protein all of those properties need to be present that make up that prot ...[text shortened]... order is acceptable. For me your argument only shows how complex life's building blocks really are.

1/6 is correct. Ill ignore the rest of your post because I wasn't asking or implying anything else.

Right, now lets imagine that the three tiles are not picked out of the bag. They exist in a moving liquid in a container and swish around bumping against each other.

Scrabble 'A' has a shape that means it will lock into shape 'B' if they touch, but will only lock into shape 'C' every 2nd time they touch (on average). Shape 'B' will lock into shape 'C' every time they touch (on average).


Is the likelihood of A,B,C forming in order the same, lower or higher than 1/6??

@stellspalfie said
1/6 is correct. Ill ignore the rest of your post because I wasn't asking or implying anything else.

Right, now lets imagine that the three tiles are not picked out of the bag. They exist in a moving liquid in a container and swish around bumping against each other.

Scrabble 'A' has a shape that means it will lock into shape 'B' if they touch, but will only lock int ...[text shortened]... (on average).


Is the likelihood of A,B,C forming in order the same, lower or higher than 1/6??

I have already discussed this with you. I can place the tiles in order, you can take a mechanical process to place the tiles in order, you can come up with a chemical solution to put the tiles in order. All of these solutions if they work removes the randomness of the process, what it doesn't do is alter the odds of being 1/6.

You have not come up with anything for abiogenesis in the whole time we have been talking. You cannot use natural selection for abiogenesis since there is nothing there to select. You can look at the planets, stars, and all laws of nature acting upon things, what these laws cannot do is take something by themselves and act upon them.

Sir Isaac Newton said it well.

“ The planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolu-tions in orbits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained; but though these bodies may, indeed, continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws"
(Principia, “General Scholium,” 1713).

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being."
(Principia, “General Scholium,” 1713)

C.S. Lewis in a talk about religion and science spells it out very well in this little short doddle clip. If you watch the video it is well done I hope you will see why I keep asking for your reasoning for what could take the pieces and put them together to form a protein. Saying it could be done without specifics is meaningless.

Around 7 minutes 11 seconds long. I love the art work in the video.

YouTube

@kellyjay said
I have already discussed this with you. I can place the tiles in order, you can take a mechanical process to place the tiles in order, you can come up with a chemical solution to put the tiles in order. All of these solutions if they work removes the randomness of the process, what it doesn't do is alter the odds of being 1/6.

You have not come up with anything for abioge ...[text shortened]... und 7 minutes 11 seconds long. I love the art work in the video.

[youtube] AJu0oYvi-cY [/youtube]

So according to your logic....a preprogramed chain of three numbers, programmed to line up as 1.2.3 has the same odds as a random selection of 1,2,3 occurring.

Honestly.....I'm lost for words. This is basic stuff.

@stellspalfie said
So according to your logic....a preprogramed chain of three numbers, programmed to line up as 1.2.3 has the same odds as a random selection of 1,2,3 occurring.

Honestly.....I'm lost for words. This is basic stuff.

Odds of it occurring would be 1, the variables would remain the same.
You still have not given a method for the formation at the beginning.

@kellyjay said
Odds of it occurring would be 1, the variables would remain the same.
You still have not given a method for the formation at the beginning.

So you agree that the odds of a particular order occurring by random compared to by mechanism can be different.

@stellspalfie said
So you agree that the odds of a particular order occurring by random compared to by mechanism can be different.

A random event only looks at the odds, a directed event depending on how competent the one doing the work is different than random yes, unless the cometency is very bad.

Had you been reading my posts instead of ignoring portions you would have seen that!

I remind you that you still have not given anything towards that end at abiogenesis.

@kellyjay said
A random event only looks at the odds, a directed event depending on how competent the one doing the work is different than random yes, unless the cometency is very bad.

Had you been reading my posts instead of ignoring portions you would have seen that!

I remind you that you still have not given anything towards that end at abiogenesis.

Excellent, so is it fair to say that we agree that IF proteins have the properties that I described early, that the probability of them forming is more likely than described in the video you provided. Do you agree?



Ill happily discuss abiogenesis later, after we have some sort of resolution here.

@stellspalfie said
Excellent, so is it fair to say that we agree that IF proteins have the properties that I described early, that the probability of them forming is more likely than described in the video you provided. Do you agree?



Ill happily discuss abiogenesis later, after we have some sort of resolution here.

I never said that was how they were formed, I have been saying it was a representation of the odds. I don’t think you have read anything that I have said.

@kellyjay said
I never said that was how they were formed, I have been saying it was a representation of the odds. I don’t think you have read anything that I have said.

Read my post again. I said 'IF' they were formed that way. So 'IF' they form the way I said would the odds be different to the odds described in the video.