any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
it is pointless to calculate probabilities as long as one doesn't know the mechanism!!!
We know the mechanism. It's broken down into millions of molecular parts. The mechanism is YOU.
for instance as the quoted review shows there are molecular mechanisms which cause certain amino acids to form peptide bonds with higher frequency.
Which has nothing to do with evolution.
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
Your question on quantum mechanics is just confusing the issue. I may as well ask: how come a hockey stick is really great on an ice-rink, but totally sucks on a tennis court?
Ridiculous analogy. Probability math is used in ALL the sciences, engineering, insurance...ANYWHERE dead nuts probabilty is needed. You've proven you don't have a clue.
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
You're missing the point again. You do not know whether the essay uses wrong starting numbers.
Yes I do. He says WHERE HE GOT HIS STARTING NUMBERS and one of them IS WRONG.
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
a) your calculation is irrelevant because no one is talking about a 300 amino acid long protein.
Excuse me, but that was the very topic of the article presented.
very short polypeptides have already enzymatic activity.
Your point?
b) there are transitional forms. take archeopterix as the most prominent example. there are many many others. however transitional forms are of course rare since species stay in more or less the same form for most of their existence. transitional forms gain importance only if environmental changes occur that allow the adaptaion to a new niche.
If evolution were true, there would be BILLIONS of transitions in the fossil record. There would be species NOW in the transitional MODE. Both are NOT TRUE.
c) if you would have a scientific mind then you would try to come up with an alternative scientific explaination instead of refering to God who somehow and miracously put everything here (despite a gigantic pile of evidence against that idea)
Why sidestep the truth? Again, more claims of EVIDENCE and facts wirth NONE presented. Staus Quo.
d) just on the side: biological evolution does NOT depend on how the first cell formed.
It surely does, because without that first cell, there is NO LIFE AT ALL.
e) here is an abstract from a rather new review about peptide formation:
Peptides and the origin of life. Rode BM.
Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Institute for General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Innsbruck, Austria. [email protected]
Considering the state-of-the-art views of the geochemical conditions of the primitive earth, it seems most likely that peptides were produced ahead of all other oligomer precursors of biomolecules. Among all the reactions proposed so far for the formation of peptides under primordial earth conditions, the salt-induced peptide formation reaction in connection with adsorption processes on clay minerals would appear to be the simplest and most universal mechanism known to date. The properties of this reaction greatly favor the formation of biologically relevant peptides within a wide variation of environmental conditions such as temperature, pH, and the presence of inorganic compounds. The reaction-inherent preferences of certain peptide linkages make the argument of 'statistical impossibility' of the evolutionary formation of the 'right' peptides and proteins rather insignificant. Indeed, the fact that these sequences are reflected in the preferential sequences of membrane proteins of archaebacteria and prokaryonta distinctly indicates the relevance of this reaction for chemical peptide evolution. On the basis of these results and the recent findings of self-replicating peptides, some ideas have been developed as to the first steps leading to life on earth.
How in the hell does a salt induced peptide formation undermine the statistical impossibility of evolution using the RIGHT peptides and proteins? It doesn't.
Edited by - pomegranate on 18 October 2002 17:42:20
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
It seems ridiculous to invoke a supernatural entity for one little act of abiogenesis. That deus ex machina approach never sits well with skeptics. If you mean that god actually directed (or directs) evolution, then that abolishes the need for or possibility of natural selection, the cornerstone of modern evolutionary theory.A god would have to be cruel or at least pitiless to allow progress to happen in such a slow and brutish manner. If humans are simply primates with very evolved brains, then it's hard for fundamentalists to argue that God has any interest in us. And a god who uses such an inefficient means of creation is hardly awe-inspiring.
I agree.
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
The whole point of the essay is to show that probability calculations are pointless regarding abiogenesis. The statistical errors explained by the essay illustrated that. Your response pointing out where you thought there were further statistical errors merely emphasized that point.
First, the essay uses WRONG starting numbers. An elementary mistake right from the beginning.
Second, how is it that probabilty math is usable in the infinite complexities of atomic quantum mechanics AND BE GOOD AND USEFUL, and of no use to the SIMPLE NUMBERS of connecting biological elements into CHAINS of life? Of course evolution has to try and release itself from probability math, because the numbers show IMPOSSIBILTY.
Evolutionists want the theory to be EASIER than the math shows.
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
Here is what Jan says:
"Pome, Your intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking."
And also:
But you are right about one thing: all species now living have evolved from a common ancestor. That is a fact.
Here is what his linked article reveals:
"Common descent is a general descriptive theory..."
"Simply put, the hypothesis of common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions; these predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the hypothesis fairs in light of the observable evidence."
Didn't you read that Jan? HYPOTHESIS. NOT FACT.
You calling something a fact that your OWN ARTLICE says is just a hypothesis and theoretical postulation I believe is dishonest, don't you?
PS. Dig this sentence of spectaculor scholarly reasoning from the same article introduction:
"In fact, without assuming the truth of universal common descent, it is highly probable that the hypothesis will indeed fail for most of these predictions - and this is exactly why many of these predictions are such strong evidence for common descent."
In order for you to understand this HYPOTHESIS, you have to assume it is a universal truth first, otherwise it's predictions wil FAIL.
That's A FACT.
Edited by - pomegranate on 18 October 2002 17:17:8
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
The above is another classic example. All CLAIMS and NO FACTS, whilst diminishing pomegranate by intellectual insult.
Kewl.
At least there's consistency.
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
Pomeganete,
Just wanted to say thanks for a well thought out discourse. We both stated our views, and neither of us resorted to personal attaks or name calling. I've really enjoyed your posts as well. I wish I could have more discussions like this, just an open exchanange of ideas by folks with differing thoughts. I believe this is how we learn things. If your ever in California let me know, and I'll take you up on that cup of coffee.
You have a admirable "air" about your posts which I enjoy. I concur that reasonable men can disagree and not be derogatory toward another. Even when I am being belittled, I try to maintain an absence of ill demeanor. It is challenging though and I do fail sometimes!
I'd love to get out to Cal someday rap over some good java. I was out there many years ago in Orange County...
Peace be with you.
Thanks, and back at ya twice as much.
pomegranate aka Ric
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
it becomes really pointless to discuss science with people who have no idea what they are talking about.
I guess that means me eh? Well why are you still here, don't you know you defy your own statement?
i don't blame anyone for not having the time to study physics, biology or whatever science.
Sorry. That's a pitiful cope out.
but then they should at least not try to argue against proven scientific facts.
Ooo. Another guy eluding to these "proven facts." Sure wish someone would reveal these "facts."
non of the people here who are defending creation have a clue about the facts that support evolution.
That's because nobody here defending evolution has presented any FACTS to support their position. Can you blame us?
in fact they have no clue about how science works.
Here we go again. Creationists have no clue how science works. I believe the FACTS I have presented wholey disprove your disparaging claims.
otherwise they would keep their rediculous statements to themselfs.
A statement like the above wit NO FACTS is so much hot air.
i think decency would require that they read the scientific facts and explanations before they post.
Why not present these marvels of evolutionary facts for us would you? Seems no one else will.
but unfortunately they are not even willing to read summaries like that provided on talkorigins.
Why not present them on your OWN understanding? Or are you incompetent? I have already poked a hole in talkorigins "math" with no refute.
