Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability

by pomegranate 145 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  crownboy

  pomegranate, this link should answer your question about the probabilities you presented:

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

  Basically, the first self replicators were alot simpler than you propose, so what you raised was a moot point.

  And Zechariah, the reason we link to articles is because it is entirely unnecessary and time consuming to retype something that has already been discussed. I already know what I speak of, I'm mearly trying to show you the same thing. Plus if you asked for "references", you already know where to go, since the articles contain footnotes for you to do further research on.

  As for the "angry at dad" thing, once again you are wrong. When we talk of god in such language it's mearly to point out the absurdity of the concept, not because of anger issues. If you point out that God has deliberately killed off 99% of his creation, then calling him "inefficent" (in the hypothetical) is mearly an observation that a guy who has to get rid of 99% of the things he initially declared "good" is, well... inefficent.

  I guess you also believe that people who would have a heated debate with a Holocaust denier secretly shares his views?
• 

  pomegranate

  Basically, the first self replicators were alot simpler than you propose, so what you raised was a moot point.

  All you guys seem to think this talkorigin site is the final word. Sorry, it is a site full of the hypothetical and theoretical of which it itself PLAINLY states. Yet guys like Jan mysteriously turn this site into a presentation of FACTS.

  The man above raises talkorigin verbage on how "simple" the first self replicators were. Well, there has been very intense study in that regard.

  Dr. Harold J. Morowitz* of Yale University has done extensive research for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to discover the theoretical limits for the simplest free-living thing which could duplicate itself, or, technically, the minimal biological entity capable of autonomous self-replication. From these important studies, the conclusion was that the smallest such theoretical entity would require 239 or more individual protein molecules. Which is not so simple an entity.

  This data was published in the mid to late 60's and has not and is not refuted by any scientist. Please note, that the smallest known autonomous living organism, is the minuscule, bacteria-like Mycoplasma hominis H39. It has around 600 different kinds of proteins.

  But theoretical postulation leaves it at 239 in the number of proteins that could MAYBE be the bare minimum.

  *Harold J. Morowitz and Mark E. Tourtellotte, The Smallest Living Cells, The Living Cell, ed. Donald Kennedy [San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1965], pp. 31-39. Also: Harold J. Morowitz, Biological Self-Replicating Systems, Progress in Theoretical Biology, ed. Fred M. Snell, Vol. 1 [1967], pp. 52-57
• 

  pomegranate

  PS. crownboy, someone already plastered that article earlier in this thread. Before getting into a technical debate like this, why not READ the thread to find out where it's been instead of REPEATING info that has already been parsed.
• 

  crownboy

  pomegranate, I'm well aware of the fact that this article was cited earlier in the thread. But judging from your repetition of the same false info, I thought maybe you didn't get it, so I posted it again (I guess you simply ignored the arguments ).

  Wow, now you're quoting evolutionist again? Dr. Morowitz was a witness on the side of science during the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision that shot down an Arkansas law that attempted to put YEC views in the classrooms (read about it at this YEC website: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-105.htm ).

  Also, if you'd have actually read Morowitz's works instead of copying & pasting from creationist books/ websites, you'd have known that he was talking about environments that operated at thermal equilibrium in those calculations. Since the earth is not, and has never been at thermal equilibrium, the stuff he writes about on that topic is irrelevant to our topic at hand. If you'd like to read about what Morowitz really thinks about the subject, perhaps you should read his book The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex. He certainly does not agree with your views.

  Just as extra info, Morowitz is a theistic evolutionist. So to paraphrase rem, he may believe God got it started, but it was evolution the rest of the way, baby .
• 

  Zechariah

  REM,

  Says Rem-And how is this not possible through evolutionary theory? Are you saying that evolutionary theory is falsifiable because species cannot interbreed? That's an interesting argument indeed.

  You evolutionists bend over backwards to try to minimize the needed processes that would have to occur for evolution to be responsible for all the marvels of the universe. Not even the minimal requirements are plausible. Here are some side factors you are conveniently ignoring.
  

  • Evolutionist find it impossible to believe that there is a God that has no beginning. Yet they have expressed their belief that what started everything was a advanced intelligence inherently present in everything in life that always was. They believe this ever present intelligence was all that was needed to guide and direct the development of all creation.

  • You try to imply that the original intelligence necessary to begin the process could be so simple it requires only a minimal amount of amino acids, peptides, bata bing, bata ba.. (I'm watching the Godfather :)) If that original organism had to maintain the coding to produce all the varieties and complexities of life for eons to come it would have to be the most detailed complex organism there ever was.

  
  

  It is not irrelevant. Such extinction is expected in the evolutionary model and is unexpected in a god-creation model. It makes no sense for a diety to create millions of life forms just to have them become extinct. Note, not just many life forms, but 99% of them.

  How freely you manipulate stats and ideas to your advantage. 99% of all the lifeforms have become extinct. Surely you have the documentation to back that up. Why should anybody believe anything you say when you feel free to exaggerate in such a manner.
  
  Nothing makes sense but what you want to make sense from your most limited biased viewpoint. You think you can just speak it and its so or get some worldly educated man to vouch for you. The theory lacks any common sense which I suppose this thread about probabilities is really all about. Nothing prevents God from allowing his creation to die for any reason other than your personal ideas of what is moral for God. It is just your opinion definitely not fact.

  Why would a god trying to teach humans a lesson in extinction when humans had nothing to do with 99% of the extinctions.

  There you go again with your 99%. Just say it and its so. If you were a little more vague so as to say something like many or the vast majority it might be more acceptable. But you to try decieve with specific numbers as if you believe no one would call for your documentation.

  That's an awful lot of lost species just to make a point. Seems pretty inefficient for an all-knowing, all-powerful diety.
  rem

  What universes have you created lately that you can be so opinionated in the proper ethics of a supreme being.

  Zechariah
• 

  Realist

  so was i right or not?

  i posted an abstract that shows that lab experiments demonstrate that d amino acids are excluded because of chemical interactions...

  was pom able to read and understand that text? was he able to argue against the experiment? NO ...the only thing he was able to do was to ignore the point made!

  bravo!!!

  again...it is pointless to discuss science with ignorant people who try to defend their idea of God by ignoring facts. they are afraid to live without their fantasies because if they do they would have to face their mortality and insignificance.
• 

  rem

  Zech,

  Evolutionist find it impossible to believe that there is a God that has no beginning. Yet they have expressed their belief that what started everything was a advanced intelligence inherently present in everything in life that always was. They believe this ever present intelligence was all that was needed to guide and direct the development of all creation.

  Would this include Christian Evolutionists?

  I don't think Evolutionists are advocating that any intelligence is necessary for the diversity of life that we see today. In fact, much of the life we see today speaks against intelligence. Natural Selection is a powerful mechanism that accounts for most of the diversity we see in life. Other mechanisms, such as genetic drift and sexual selection play a part as well.

• You try to imply that the original intelligence necessary to begin the process could be so simple it requires only a minimal amount of amino acids, peptides, bata bing, bata ba.. (I'm watching the Godfather :)) If that original organism had to maintain the coding to produce all the varieties and complexities of life for eons to come it would have to be the most detailed complex organism there ever was.

  This is a complete misunderstanding of genetics. Mutation causes the varieties. The first living organism did not have to contain the encoded information for every other living lifeform. Are you fond of arguing topics that you have no knowledge in? Do you also do this much arguing about rocket science and quantum mechanics? At least get yourself up to the basics before wasting our time. But I suppose this is entertainment for us (and perhaps for the lurkers). But it's not much of a challenge, I must say, and the entertainment value for me is waning.

How freely you manipulate stats and ideas to your advantage. 99% of all the lifeforms have become extinct. Surely you have the documentation to back that up. Why should anybody believe anything you say when you feel free to exaggerate in such a manner.

Thank you for correcting me! I should have said "Over 99% of all of the lifeforms that have ever existed have become extinct.":

http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/philosophy/Gould.htm

http://www.cyber.vt.edu/geol3604/Extinct.pdf

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/extinction/

Exciting reading, eh? Nah, I doubt you will even click to see what those lying, god-hating scientists have to say.

What universes have you created lately that you can be so opinionated in the proper ethics of a supreme being.

Well, according to the ancient religious text that you ascribe to, when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, they became like god, knowing good and bad. Even god acknowledged this in the account. So, if you believe that, then I have every right to judge god's ethics. I am supposedly a decendent of Adam and Eve and I know good and bad.

rem