Fmf

Originally posted by Kepler
Fractals are fascinating things and, as it happens, one of the big bits of evidence that very complex things can be generated from very simple rules without recourse to gods, demons, angels, fairies, imps, pixies, dragons or any other supernatural jiggery pokery.

rules, hmm, never come across a law yet that did not require a law maker.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you were asked to produce a figure for what you might think could be mathematically so improbable as to be almost impossible, so far you have produced nada, if you dont think that evolutionists make the claim, then here is your chance to put it right. No amount of caustic diatribe can make up for lack of content. Where are your statistics?

Where are your statistics? So far you have quoted a figure that is ahem, how shall I put this? Bollocks? Yes, bollocks is a good word for it. No one has seen life emerge spontaneously so we don't know how likely it is to do so. We do know it seems unlikely to emerge when there is other life about to hoover it up and turn it into dinner. It might be impossible, one up to the creationists. It might be inevitable under the conditions prevailing on earth at the time, one up to the non-creationists. More likely it lies somewhere between those two extremes. Where exactly, we don't know and have no data (statistics) on which to base a guess.

Now, the figure you quoted is a probability which is not the same as statistics. That probability is the chance of one trial being successful, getting heads on a very many sided coin if you like. Life probably isn't the result of a single trial, a single toss of a coin, though. Toss a bucketload of those coins and how likely is life then? Give me enough coins and I can make it as close to certain you will get a head as you like!

Originally posted by Kepler
Where are your statistics? So far you have quoted a figure that is ahem, how shall I put this? Bollocks? Yes, bollocks is a good word for it. No one has seen life emerge spontaneously so we don't know how likely it is to do so. We do know it seems unlikely to emerge when there is other life about to hoover it up and turn it into dinner. It might be impossible ? Give me enough coins and I can make it as close to certain you will get a head as you like!

one does not need to see it, there are roughly 100 known types of amino acids, 22 of which need to be of the right kind and in the right sequence to produce proteins, the very building blocks of life, even if the whole universe was a pre organic soup, the chances of this happening mathematically are virtually impossible. Now you can accept the fact or you can continue to perpetuate the irrational and unscientific (unobserved phenomena) idea of the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter.

Yes its a probability, an absurdly large probability, in fact so large as to be virtually non happening.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
one does not need to see it, there are 100 known types of amino acids, 22 of which need to be of the right kind and in the right sequence to produce proteins, the very building blocks of life, even if the whole universe was a pre organic soup, the chances of this happening mathematically are virtually impossible. Now you can accept the fact or you c ...[text shortened]... eration of life from non living matter.

Yes its a probability, an absurdly large probability.

Absurdly large probabilities generally mean very very likely. Best to mug up on some probability before you start trying to engage in mental arm wrestling with someone who makes part of his living from statistics and probability.

Originally posted by Kepler
Absurdly large probabilities generally mean very very likely. Best to mug up on some probability before you start trying to engage in mental arm wrestling with someone who makes part of his living from statistics and probability.

its irrelevant to me what you do, its irrelevant to the probabilities or the logistics of producing proteins either. So lets get this, absurdly large probabilities are very very likely, so I have more of a chance with a small probability say an one in two chance (50/50) than i do with an absurdly large one? lets say a 1 in 10^50 chance? is that really what you are saying? is it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
one does not need to see it, there are roughly 100 known types of amino acids, 22 of which need to be of the right kind and in the right sequence to produce proteins, the very building blocks of life, even if the whole universe was a pre organic soup, the chances of this happening mathematically are virtually impossible. Now you can accept the fact ...[text shortened]... a probability, an absurdly large probability, in fact so large as to be virtually non happening.

there are roughly 100 known types of amino acids, 22 of which need to be of the right kind and in the right sequence to produce proteins.

As you would say, evidence please.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]there are roughly 100 known types of amino acids, 22 of which need to be of the right kind and in the right sequence to produce proteins.

As you would say, evidence please.[/b]

YouTube

YouTube

its amazing.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
one does not need to see it, there are roughly 100 known types of amino acids, 22 of which need to be of the right kind and in the right sequence to produce proteins, the very building blocks of life, even if the whole universe was a pre organic soup, the chances of this happening mathematically are virtually impossible. Now you can accept the fact ...[text shortened]... a probability, an absurdly large probability, in fact so large as to be virtually non happening.

you are making the same silly mistake the guy you posted did.

you are calculating from nothing to life. meaning 0 amino acids in order to 22 in one step.

but thats not how it is thought to have happened. there were lots of steps in between.

so at one point we had something much simpler floating around made of a few amino acids, lots and lots of different simple combinations.

some of the simple combinations didnt work well or combine with others. some simple combinations worked well and linked well with others making more complex combinations.

the fact that some combinations are prone to working well with others dramatically improves the odds of more of those combinations occurring.


this is why it is impossible to get a true calculation. we do not know how easily or hard different combinations formed. life could be a odds defeating one off, it could also be as common as a glasgow tower block, we just do not know.

there are examples i could show you of how easily synthetic simple organisms can form into more complex things and show many of the steps that exist between a chemical reaction to 'life'.

so just to be clear, so the dodgy odds dont come up again. you would not calculate the odds of a pile of molecules suddenly forming a fully grown human. the odds would be so huge it would make a human existing impossible.......so we do not calculate the odds of any life like that. it is not done in one step.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxobgkPEAo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3fOXt4MrOM

its amazing.

Give me something I can read, not a YouTube video.

I found this scientific paper after a little search, which seeks to answer the question - 'what is the minimum number of amino acid types required to encode complex protein folds?'

http://biophy.nju.edu.cn/papers/jmb-328-921.pdf

First, we study the minimum sequence complexity that can reserve the necessary structural information for detection of distantly related homologues. Second, we compare the ability of designing foldable model sequences over a wide range of reduced amino acid alphabets, which find the minimum number of letters that have the similar design ability as 20. Finally, we survey the lower bound of alphabet size of globular proteins in a non-redundant protein database. These different approaches give a remarkably consistent view, that the minimum number of letters required to fold a protein is around ten.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its irrelevant to me what you do, its irrelevant to the probabilities or the logistics of producing proteins either. So lets get this, absurdly large probabilities are very very likely, so I have more of a chance with a small probability say an one in two chance (50/50) than i do with an absurdly large one? lets say a 1 in 10^50 chance? is that really what you are saying? is it?

Absurdly large in probability terms would be very close to one. Probability values range from zero (impossible) to 1 (certain). Bigger numbers mean greater likelihood. What you are doing is saying "10^50 is a large number so the probability is large". Not so. 1 in 10^50 is actually a probability of 10^-50, a very small number indeed, a decimal point followed by 49 zeroes and a 1. So very unlikely but not impossible.

I consider divine intervention similarly unlikely. I have not so far had to resort to filling any gaps in human knowledge with god and I do not expect to have to do so any time soon. Furthermore, the addition of a god is unscientific in that it adds another layer of unnecessary complexity without needing to. And of course we have no evidence for a divine being.

So let's have a go at working out some probabilities. How likely is there to be life on earth? Well, that has probability 1. I'm alive, you're alive, plenty life on planet earth.

How did life arise? We have no idea and therefore have no basis for assigning probabilities to the possibilities. You say it is hugely unlikely on the basis of the likelihood of amino acids joining together spontaneously to form proteins. If that is so you would have to accept that it is absurdly unlikely that any cell could function! That cells do function and produce proteins is self evident, again probability 1. So how do they do it? Is magical fairy dust involved in cell function? No, there is another chemical involved in protein construction, RNA. RNA is related to DNA and is present in many viruses as the genetic coding material. There are even simpler pathogens called viroids that consist entirely of RNA and code for no proteins at all. RNA is much simpler than the proteins it codes for in cells, forms most of a cells critical components and can carry out many of the functions of proteins.

What probability would you like to assign to RNA forming spontaneously? It has to be much likelier than that for proteins. Given no evidence for divine intervention, I'll say 1 in 14 million. About the same as lottery odds. Strangely, people do win the lottery.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you are making the same silly mistake the guy you posted did.

you are calculating from nothing to life. meaning 0 amino acids in order to 22 in one step.

but thats not how it is thought to have happened. there were lots of steps in between.

so at one point we had something much simpler floating around made of a few amino acids, lots and lots ...[text shortened]... sible.......so we do not calculate the odds of any life like that. it is not done in one step.

It is likely that the first life didn't involve proteins at all.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
rules, hmm, never come across a law yet that did not require a law maker.

thats actually a semi decent point. the origins of the physics that controls our existence are still a mystery. where did the laws of physics come from?

we dont know.

no need to start inventing answers though.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
thats actually a semi decent point. the origins of the physics that controls our existence are still a mystery. where did the laws of physics come from?

we dont know.

no need to start inventing answers though.

Don't know does not equate to god must have done it. Otherwise I could quite rightly blame god for hiding my car keys as I have no idea where they are at present.

Originally posted by Kepler
Don't know does not equate to god must have done it. Otherwise I could quite rightly blame god for hiding my car keys as I have no idea where they are at present.

he like to take my socks and hide one of each pair......bstd!!!!

Originally posted by stellspalfie
he like to take my socks and hide one of each pair......bstd!!!!

That's the sock drawer goblins. Nasty little buggers.