Lol yeah.

I agree, I find the "design" we have to be remarkably arduous and convoluted. It's solving problems that needn't have ever been there.

Did God make the rules, or did he show up with some rules already in place? Pick a side! Seriously, I allow theists to make up whatever they want. All I ask is to keep the story straight. So far, I don't think anyone ever has.

He has to both have made the rules, and also have rules that apply to him, because theists need both sides to account for all arguments. This should be a giveaway that it's not a very fitting explanation for what we observe.

(April 1, 2016 at 2:34 pm)AAA Wrote: It isn't too hard to calculate the odds of abiogenesis. This is the probability of a protein with a specific sequence forming by chance alone. Most proteins are hundreds or thousands of amino acids long. Lets use 100 amino acids as an example. There are 20 different amino acids that could possibly be at any position in the sequence. So each position has a one in 20 chance of being the correct amino acid. (1/20)^100 shows how likely it is that all 100 amino acids will be correct. This results in a 100 amino acid protein with a specific sequence forming one out of every 7.89 x 10^131 chances. That is unbelievably improbable. We can go even further than that. 

Each chance to get the correct sequence takes 100 amino acids. Multiply that by the number of chances to get the total number of amino acids required to arrive at it and you get 7.89 x 10^133 total amino acids necessary. We can now figure out the mass of amino acids needed. Take the number of amino acid molecules and divide it by avogadro's number to get the number of moles of amino acids. This results in (7.89 x 10^133 molecules / 6.022 x 10 ^23 molecules /mole) = 1.31 x 10^110 moles. The average molar mass of an amino acid is 129.45 g/mole. You multiply this by the number of moles and you get 1.70 x 10^112 total grams of amino acids. 

To give you some reference as to how large this mass is, the mass of the earth is 5.97 x 10^27 grams. The mass of amino acids is ((1.70 x 10^112/5.97 x 10^27) =2.84 x 10^84 times more massive than earth. There aren't even that many atoms in the universe. 

In other words, the mass of amino acids you would need to get a small functional protein by chance are approximately the number of atoms in the universe times the mass of the earth. There probably haven't even been this many amino acids throughout all of time in the whole existence of the universe.

*Yawn* And you're assuming strict protein chemistry constitutes the origins of life over something simpler... why? Do you have any reason other than that it allows you to produce scary big numbers without appealing to any real citations at all? That's sort of the problem here: do you really think scientists just don't have an answer for your contentions?

Besides, you're a christian! Do you really want to be talking about probabilities when your alternative answer is an eternal space wizard existing outside of time and space that poofed everything into existence with a golem spell? You are aware, it seems, that probabilities are derived from data sets and not just pulled out of empty air, and to have a data set with which to derive positive probabilities you need observations: there are no observations suggesting that any part of your religion's claims are true, and hence no positive probability can be derived.

In essence, your position is that abiogenesis, a hypothesis which uses strictly observed data points about the ways chemicals interact, backed up by experimental results that support this, should be discarded because the probability is too low, but that your god alternative, for which the probability is zero, should take its place. That's... that's seriously what you're suggesting, here.

The probability someone won the lottery is like one in several millions. There's no way that could have happened, it's too unlikely. So it must have been designed to happen that way.

(April 1, 2016 at 2:43 pm)AAA Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 2:20 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Yes, nice job of ignoring that preliminary evidence I provided you a few pages back.

No, I read the actual research article. You read the tertiary article. Tertiary articles distort science to try to gain attention. No, glycolysis did not accidentally occur in a lab. They put known intermediates in test tubes, added thermal energy, and noticed that some other glycolytic intermediates as well. It is still speculative to say that this explains how glycolysis metabolic pathway developed. Or are you talking about a different preliminary evidence that I did not see?

Okay...so...for abiogenesis we have preliminary (though speculative), observable, measurable data. For the Christian God we have...zilch. And some how you think this research detracts from the likelihood of abiogenesis and enhances the likelihood of God? ...What?!

And we still have not answered how an infinitely complex entity can appear out of nowhere yet a minuscule cell of significantly minor complexity is a "probability" issue.

(April 1, 2016 at 4:19 pm)IATIA Wrote: And we still have not answered how an infinitely complex entity can appear out of nowhere yet a minuscule cell of significantly minor complexity is a "probability" issue.

Lol, right. Which is going to be a lot harder to answer for now that Esq. has lanced the biggest flaw in their argument that complexity is evidence of design.

(April 1, 2016 at 3:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 2:34 pm)AAA Wrote: It isn't too hard to calculate the odds of abiogenesis. This is the probability of a protein with a specific sequence forming by chance alone. Most proteins are hundreds or thousands of amino acids long. Lets use 100 amino acids as an example. There are 20 different amino acids that could possibly be at any position in the sequence. So each position has a one in 20 chance of being the correct amino acid. (1/20)^100 shows how likely it is that all 100 amino acids will be correct. This results in a 100 amino acid protein with a specific sequence forming one out of every 7.89 x 10^131 chances. That is unbelievably improbable. We can go even further than that. 

Each chance to get the correct sequence takes 100 amino acids. Multiply that by the number of chances to get the total number of amino acids required to arrive at it and you get 7.89 x 10^133 total amino acids necessary. We can now figure out the mass of amino acids needed. Take the number of amino acid molecules and divide it by avogadro's number to get the number of moles of amino acids. This results in (7.89 x 10^133 molecules / 6.022 x 10 ^23 molecules /mole) = 1.31 x 10^110 moles. The average molar mass of an amino acid is 129.45 g/mole. You multiply this by the number of moles and you get 1.70 x 10^112 total grams of amino acids. 

To give you some reference as to how large this mass is, the mass of the earth is 5.97 x 10^27 grams. The mass of amino acids is ((1.70 x 10^112/5.97 x 10^27) =2.84 x 10^84 times more massive than earth. There aren't even that many atoms in the universe. 

In other words, the mass of amino acids you would need to get a small functional protein by chance are approximately the number of atoms in the universe times the mass of the earth. There probably haven't even been this many amino acids throughout all of time in the whole existence of the universe.

*Yawn* And you're assuming strict protein chemistry constitutes the origins of life over something simpler... why? Do you have any reason other than that it allows you to produce scary big numbers without appealing to any real citations at all? That's sort of the problem here: do you really think scientists just don't have an answer for your contentions?

Besides, you're a christian! Do you really want to be talking about probabilities when your alternative answer is an eternal space wizard existing outside of time and space that poofed everything into existence with a golem spell? You are aware, it seems, that probabilities are derived from data sets and not just pulled out of empty air, and to have a data set with which to derive positive probabilities you need observations: there are no observations suggesting that any part of your religion's claims are true, and hence no positive probability can be derived.

In essence, your position is that abiogenesis, a hypothesis which uses strictly observed data points about the ways chemicals interact, backed up by experimental results that support this, should be discarded because the probability is too low, but that your god alternative, for which the probability is zero, should take its place. That's... that's seriously what you're suggesting, here.

It is math, I don't need to appeal to citations because it is universal. If you don't like the math, then point out where it went wrong. 

It doesn't matter if we start with proteins or not, we eventually have to account for there formation. Also how could we start with something similar? DNA and RNA are going to give you the same problem, only worse, because you have to eventually develop a code for proteins with a specific structure that allows them to interact with the DNA/RNA. Also, even attempts to artificially design RNA that is capable of autocatalysis have failed. The reason I chose protein is that they are necessary in every living system that has ever been observed, so to say that we can start with something simpler is speculation. I figured we should start with what we know to exist rather than something we don't know existed (a self replicating RNA). And yes, scientists don't have a counter to this. That why the origin of life issue is so difficult. Most researchers recognize that chance alone is not sufficient. The typical counter is that some simpler self replicating molecules began competing, but these ideas are often vague and chemically impractical. 

Also, you saying that I believe a wizard poofed everything into existence is an unfair oversimplification. That would be like me saying that you believe a rock magically turned into a human.

(April 1, 2016 at 4:13 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 2:43 pm)AAA Wrote: No, I read the actual research article. You read the tertiary article. Tertiary articles distort science to try to gain attention. No, glycolysis did not accidentally occur in a lab. They put known intermediates in test tubes, added thermal energy, and noticed that some other glycolytic intermediates as well. It is still speculative to say that this explains how glycolysis metabolic pathway developed. Or are you talking about a different preliminary evidence that I did not see?

Okay...so...for abiogenesis we have preliminary (though speculative), observable, measurable data.  For the Christian God we have...zilch.   And some how you think this research detracts from the likelihood of abiogenesis and enhances the likelihood of God?   ...What?!

No, there is not measurable data for abiogenesis for several reasons.
1. It occured in the past, and is therefore immeasurable/unobservable unless it is still occurring, which I don't think anyone believes to be true. 
2. We were talking about the origin of glycolysis. And the measurable data were just that molecules changed from one type to another. This is hardly evidence for the origin of glycolysis, let alone abiogenesis. 

I do not think that this research detracts from the likelihood of abiogenesis, and I do not think that it enhances the likelihood of God. I think it is pretty irrelevant to both. I was just responding to it because you seemed to think that glycolysis had been created in the lab by some sort of accident, which is incorrect.

(April 1, 2016 at 3:54 pm)robvalue Wrote: The probability someone won the lottery is like one in several millions. There's no way that could have happened, it's too unlikely. So it must have been designed to happen that way.

That's a common misunderstanding. The chance that someone wins the lottery is 100%. The chance that one specific person would win the lottery is low. An analogy to the protein example would be this. If you bought a lottery ticket, and the lottery people decided that only if they drew your ticket, they would pay. If they drew anyone else's ticket, they would keep the money for themselves. Suddenly it isn't so likely that someone will win the lottery. 

In the analogy you are analogous to the functional protein, while everyone else who bought a ticket is analogous to a functionless protein. It is unlikely that you will win the lottery just as it is unlikely that the functional protein will form. 

Furthermore, there is a HUUUUGE difference between one in several million (5 x 10^6) and the number I just calculated one in (7.89 x 10^131). It is difficult to stress how large of a difference this is. There have only been like some 10^17 seconds since the beginning of the universe.

How is it 100% someone wins the lottery?

Yes, the numbers are different. My point is that any event can be calculated as exceedingly unlikely if you rewind far enough back in time. But once it's happened, it's no longer an issue. You can't infer magic by looking at numbers.