Proof - of what? (page 9)

telemetry11

RE your “Why wait for someone else to endorse the video?”

I have several comments on “the video”. D & C’s endorsement or failure to endorse helps narrow my options.

Since their failure is evident I returned to comment on the video. However …

_______

As if Cofty can’t produce the evidence to support his objection to “500 amino acids in the primordial soup”, you jump in with your own version of Cofty’s false opinion, “you are missing the point.”

The point: Did life emerge on its own or not? What is the tested reality?

On point, which one is your best, your strongest argument-- “It doesn't matter …. peptides and proteins.” OR the video?

Pick your best and I’ll be there post-haste.

cofty

I didn't object to your assertion that there were "500 amino acids in the primordial soup".

Your ability to follow simple arguments makes conversation very tiresome.

telemetry11

Cofty,

You say: I didn't object to your assertion that there were "500 amino acids in the primordial soup".

Great! You have no objections to “500 amino acids in the primordial soup.”

So when you say, “Stop throwing around big numbers …”, to what numbers are you objecting?

cofty

Please go and read our conversation. My explanations are very lucid.

telemetry11

Cofty, No matter; just curious.

Did life emerge on its own or not? What is the tested reality?

My thanks to Cofty for this review of argument incorporating the cytochrome c family of proteins.

And for his unusually lucid-- “I didn't object to your assertion that there were 500 amino acids in the primordial soup".

What is the probability that one functional cytochrome c protein sequence emerged on its own from the primordial soup?

By the numbers:

100 amino acids in the cytochrome c sequence.

500 amino acids in the primordial soup.

So we have 500^100 or 10^269 possible sequences.

Now suppose there are 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences.

There is 1 chance in 10^176 that a functional cytochrome c sequence emerged on its own from the primordial soup.

Of course one functional protein is not alive. But, if cytochrome c could have beat the odds, there it was ready to transport some electrons in the fundamental metabolic process of oxidative phosphorylation. Too bad the rest of the team didn’t make it.

Ruby456

tele

obviously there is a difference between noting the natural history of how life as we know it started and how life starts generally. When we examine the natural history of an organism then evolution by natural selection makes sense. But this functions as an explanation and not as a theory imo. To function as a theory it would need to be falsifiable. the explanatory framework of strict natural selection is very circular - the organism fits its environment and the environment fits the organism. If there is no fit the organism becomes extinct. And this is what we see on the earth. Humans, however, have managed to be very creative with their environment but even so we do come up against constraints.

The current thinking is that rather than thinking about how life started we need to think of evolution as process - in this scenario life doesn't start - the potential for it is always there - opportunities perhaps exist for combinations to occur according to whatever bits and combos are floating around in the universe. this is what is often emphasized on this site. Pay attention!!! I guess on this understanding probabilities can produce something as miraculous as a beautiful life form despite the odds being against it. edit: Indeed if you asked me now 'do you believe in miracles, Ruby'. I would say yes yes yes

doltissimo - when the witnesses visit you next - please tell then so - that you believe our lives are very miraculous but perhaps not for the reasons they think so

edit: okay finished my long speech. have a nice day

cofty

The current thinking is that rather than thinking about how life started we need to think of evolution as process - in this scenario life doesn't start - the potential for it is always there - Ruby

Really? Who thinks that?

Tele you are making the assumption that life began with protein molecules. Why?

telemetry11

cofty,

You: "Tele you are making the assumption that life began with protein molecules."

Wrong again. I assume no such thing.

Ruby456

cofty, I wish that you would acknowledge (sometimes at least) how far I agree with you. after all even if the agreement sounds weak it is still a level of agreement. In fact i won't reply to you until you do

telemetry11

The greatness of science must be that it rests on facts, not on opinion.

________

“In the beginning”--The physics for life

Life’s genesis began with the incredible precision in the organization of the initial universe.

An environment suitable for life, some 13.8 billion years in development, was the result of the very, very, special organization of things at the moment of the big bang.

How very, very, special was it?

Roger Penrose quantified the precision needed in the conditions and energy distributions at the moment of the big bang to have eventually produced an environment suitable for life.

The odds of that special initial state coming about by chance is less than 1 chance in 10^10^123.

Proof - of what?

Share this