1 edit
dear PK, after I posted my question in a Maths forum i received this reply,
What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at
random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only
one in 10 to the 113th power (1 followed by 113 zeros).
It appears that this particular claim (along with the data underlying
the beans illustration) comes from this 1980 article:
Glycolysis and Alcoholic Fermentation by Jean Sloat Morton, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/glycolysis-alcoholic-fermentation/
To illustrate, let us consider a simple protein containing only
100 aim acids. There are 20 different kinds of L-amino acids in
proteins, and each can be used repeatedly in chains of 100.
Therefore, they could be arranged in 20^100 or 10^130 different
ways. Even if a hundred million billion of these (10^17)
combinations could function for a given purpose, there is only one
chance in 10^113 of getting one of these required amino acid
sequences in a small protein consisting of 100 amino acids.
So the figure 10^113 comes from two assumptions not mentioned in the
popular version: a chain length of 100, and an arbitrary redundancy
factor of 10^17. It doesn't make use of the 100 kinds of amino acids
available, or their chirality, as illustrated by the kinds of beans
and their colors.
As you are evidently aware, the whole argument is irrelevant for
biological evolution, which is not a purely random process; it is only
relevant in chemical evolution, where it makes it clear that the first
protein (before there were processes available to form them) could not
have arisen randomly.
- Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum
<http://mathforum.org/dr.math/>
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe thing they always forget is the number of molecules available and the multiple energy sources, like under the sea, the hot water vents, above the sea, volcano's, sunlight, lightning, earthquakes, storms, etc.
dear PK, after I posted my question in a Maths forum i received this reply,
What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at
random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only
one in 10 to the 113th power (1 followed by 113 zeros).
It appears that this particular claim (along with the data underlying
the bea ...[text shortened]... e arisen randomly.
- Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum
<http://mathforum.org/dr.math/>[/b]
And all that going on in parallel, quintillions of quintillions of molecules getting ripped one way and another with all sorts of energy sources, sunlight, lightning, etc.
People keep on bringing up the randomness issue, it's nothing but a strawman.
There is no random to it, certain molecules will attach themselves to certain other molecules, especially in the presence of carbon, which combined with H2, H20, O2, N2, NH2, etc., will of necessity eventually make much longer molecules, amino acids and such so given time, big amino acids will crunch together under the influence of any of a number of energy sources.
No randomness at all.
It's like the quantum computer they all talk about, except instead of one molecule in a quantum computer being in a near infinite number of states, the precursor molecules come in nearly infinite numbers from day one.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI found where you got those numbers from - Life — How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? published by the Watchtower Society in 1985. Here's a lengthy rebuttal of that book page by page -
dear PK, after I posted my question in a Maths forum i received this reply,
What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at
random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only
one in 10 to the 113th power (1 followed by 113 zeros).
It appears that this particular claim (along with the data underlying
the bea ...[text shortened]... e arisen randomly.
- Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum
<http://mathforum.org/dr.math/>[/b]
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Life--How_Did_It_Get_Here%3F_By_Evolution_or_By_Creation%3F
and here's the rebuttal for page 44 concerning the number 1x10^113 -
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/The_odds_of_life_forming_are_incredibly_small
Enjoy.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseno its not a straw man, merely moving the location does not change the maths, nor
The thing they always forget is the number of molecules available and the multiple energy sources, like under the sea, the hot water vents, above the sea, volcano's, sunlight, lightning, earthquakes, storms, etc.
And all that going on in parallel, quintillions of quintillions of molecules getting ripped one way and another with all sorts of energy source inite number of states, the precursor molecules come in nearly infinite numbers from day one.
does the energy source, or the numerous postulated places where its proposed that it
occurred. Its not only mathematically improbable, its outrageously improbable. In the
case of so called chemical evolution it is nothing but a random occurrence, that is, if
you refuse to believe in intelligence.
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobyou might like to try again, the link is given in the answer that i received is not a
I found where you got those numbers from - Life — How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? published by the Watchtower Society in 1985. Here's a lengthy rebuttal of that book page by page -
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Life--How_Did_It_Get_Here%3F_By_Evolution_or_By_Creation%3F
and here's the rebuttal for page 44 concerning the num ...[text shortened]... 113 -
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/The_odds_of_life_forming_are_incredibly_small
Enjoy.
watchtower publication although it may have been quoted in the publication that you
mention, the source is in fact,
http://www.icr.org/article/glycolysis-alcoholic-fermentation/
a paper prepared by Jean Sloat Morton, Ph.D. who appears to be a creation scientist,
never the less, your post doesn't even begin to address the content of her claims and
neither does the attempt to debunk the book life how did it get here by evolution or
creation.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieInstitute For Creation Research!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!
you might like to try again, the link is given in the answer that i received is not a
watchtower publication although it may have been quoted in the publication that you
mention, the source is in fact,
http://www.icr.org/article/glycolysis-alcoholic-fermentation/
a paper prepared by Jean Sloat Morton, Ph.D. who appears to be a creation sc ...[text shortened]... either does the attempt to debunk the book life how did it get here by evolution or
creation.
Jesus Christ on a bike, you're trying to pass this off as science?!! I nearly fell off my chair laughing. 🙄🙄
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobIts not my fault, it was provided in the answer that i received from my maths doctor I
Institute For Creation Research!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!
Jesus Christ on a bike, you're trying to pass this off as science?!! I nearly fell off my chair laughing. 🙄🙄
am merely passing it along, never the less, Dr Mortons qualifications are outstanding,
i quote,
Dr. Morton holds a Ph.D. from George Washington University in Cellular Studies, has
taught biology at American University and George Washington University, and has
served as a consultant in microbiology. She is author of an outstanding book Science in
the Bible (Moody, 1978) and has written numerous science instructional units for
various grade levels. At the time of this article's writing, she was a member of I.C.R.'s
Technical Advisory Board.
where did she get her doctorate, another one that fell in the Clyde and came up with
it in her pocket.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you somehow forgetting just how big planet Earth is? Besides quadrillions of molecules pitched down from asteroid, comets, meteorites where there already are complex molecules, you know they don't just start out with bare carbon, bare nitrogen, you know that don't you? Besides all that, there are literally trillions of separate places on earth for complex molecules to come together, over billions of years. Remember, life on Earth only started up, however that came about, a couple of billion years after the planet was formed and so much energy was available for reactions, lightning, sunlight, comet strikes, etc.
no its not a straw man, merely moving the location does not change the maths, nor
does the energy source, or the numerous postulated places where its proposed that it
occurred. Its not only mathematically improbable, its outrageously improbable. In the
case of so called chemical evolution it is nothing but a random occurrence, that is, if
you refuse to believe in intelligence.
Don't know what is so hard to fathom when you have a practically unlimited number of molecules, a lot of them coming in from comets and already complex, then combining with others of like form when energy hits them and that over a time span of literally billions of years, can't see how anyone can say numbers like 14 to the 110 power or some such rot.
That is science done in retrospect by statisticians who have an agenda to support creationism, simple as that.
This argument is a lot like the YEC'ers who try to show the Earth is 6000 years old, not seeing the forest for the trees, blinded from reality by their stupid agenda.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieShow me where this paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal and i'll take it seriously, in the meantime forgive me while my ass off at you trying to pass of something from the ICR and a Young Earth Creationist as 'science'.
Its not my fault, it was provided in the answer that i received from my maths doctor I
am merely passing it along, never the less, Dr Mortons qualifications are outstanding,
i quote,
Dr. Morton holds a Ph.D. from George Washington University in Cellular Studies, has
taught biology at American University and George Washington University, and ...[text shortened]... she get her doctorate, another one that fell in the Clyde and came up with
it in her pocket.
Originally posted by Proper Knobwell i am glad that it brought a smile to your face but you know as much as me.
Show me where this paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal and i'll take it seriously, in the meantime forgive me while my ass off at you trying to pass of something from the ICR and a Young Earth Creationist as 'science'.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt includes a lot more assumptions than that.
So the figure 10^113 comes from two assumptions not mentioned in the
popular version:
1. It assumes that amino acids combine at random with equal probability and are available in equal quantities.
Much more importantly
2. It assumes that the desired outcome is the only available 'special' outcome.
Its similar to the old monkeys on a typewriter and shakespheres works. If the problem is changed to "any book in any language past present or future" the numbers change quite dramatically. Similarly, for this case, if the challenge is changed to "any protein that may be useful to any possible life form" then not only do the numbers change completely, but they cannot possibly be estimated because we have no idea what proteins may be useful nor what possible life forms there are.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseAs I understand it, left-handed amino acids are necessary for life to exclude right-handed amino acids which will not work. Scientist have never been able to produce a left-handed amino acid. Even with ruling out random chance, they can't do it. Right-handed amino acids are a detriment to any life.
The thing they always forget is the number of molecules available and the multiple energy sources, like under the sea, the hot water vents, above the sea, volcano's, sunlight, lightning, earthquakes, storms, etc.
And all that going on in parallel, quintillions of quintillions of molecules getting ripped one way and another with all sorts of energy source inite number of states, the precursor molecules come in nearly infinite numbers from day one.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/18/microwave-hazards.aspx
Originally posted by RJHindsI think its more like matter Vs anti-matter. If everything in the universe is anti-matter, everything is ok.
As I understand it, left-handed amino acids are necessary for life to exclude right-handed amino acids which will not work. Scientist have never been able to produce a left-handed amino acid. Even with ruling out random chance, they can't do it. Right-handed amino acids are a detriment to any life.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/18/microwave-hazards.aspx
I think left handedness and righthandedness can both lead to life but like matter overtaking antimatter in our universe, there was a wee bit more matter than anti and matter won out but it could have been the other way around.
I think we will find opposite handedness life someday. Its just that our handedness won out, doesn't mean the opposite is deadly to life.
Originally posted by sonhouseDo you still think I have nothing new to contribute to the discussions?
I think its more like matter Vs anti-matter. If everything in the universe is anti-matter, everything is ok.
I think left handedness and righthandedness can both lead to life but like matter overtaking antimatter in our universe, there was a wee bit more matter than anti and matter won out but it could have been the other way around.
I think we will f ...[text shortened]... ife someday. Its just that our handedness won out, doesn't mean the opposite is deadly to life.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsHandedness is nothing new. That has been bandied about in the literature for decades.
Do you still think I have nothing new to contribute to the discussions?
The fact they have not found righthand life forms is not proof righthandedness is impossible as a life form, only that we don't find it here on Earth.
It might take 400 years to prove it but so what, that is a short time even in the space of mankind's historic existence for the last 10,000 years or so.
It matters little if I don't live to see the answer, the unbiased search for the truth is the main thing not 2000 year old books with nothing but God did it and a plagiarized version of creation on top of it. It's not even Jewish. It's early Egyptian.