1. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    23 Jun '10 15:001 edit
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Regardless, the probability as time goes to infinity is 1. And the universe is also a big place.

    Unless you want to make a claim about how many times amino-acids combine in the whole universe per second, then you can't really claim it's unlikely.
    not only do i make the claim that its unlikely, i am making the claim that its almost impossible! after the football , i shall post something for your consideration , suffice to say, France have more chance of winning the 2010 world cup than life having arisen from non living matter.
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    23 Jun '10 15:102 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    not only do i make the claim that its unlikely, i am making the claim that its almost impossible! after the football , i shall post something for your consideration , suffice to say, France have more chance of winning the 2010 world cup than life having arisen from non living matter.
    Never mind the odds of nonlife coming to life on its own, what of the odds of the Big Bang exploding at the correct force and speed etc in order for life to even have the hope to exist? Try googling the Big Bang and fine tuning the universe.
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    23 Jun '10 15:101 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    We would need to know:
    1. The number of amino acids required to make the 'correct sequence'.
    2. The number of times amino acids combine by chance per second in the universe.
    3. The age of the universe.
    4. The number of possible 'correct sequences' that could work.
    Since it is highly unlikely that you know any of those numbers to any degree of accurac ...[text shortened]... life started from a random coincidence with amino acids rather than by some other process).
    what are you talking about?, there are 100 known amino acids, 22 of which are needed to make proteins (they must be in the correct sequence). if we can work out the probability of getting into sequence those 22 amino acids from 100 then it should be a simple matter of probability. The time factor is actually irrelevant (the probability of hitting a six from the role of a dice is not dependent upon the time it takes to do so, but on the number of throws), there is only one possible correct outcome.
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    23 Jun '10 15:11
    Originally posted by whodey
    Never mind the odds of nonlife coming to life on its own, what of the odds of the Big Bang exploding at the correct force and speed etc? Try googling the Big Bang and fine tuning the universe.
    my goodness, lets give them some concessions, never mind the big bang, have you seen how complex a cell is?
  5. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    23 Jun '10 15:16
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    what are you talking about?, there are 100 known amino acids, 22 of which are needed to make proteins (they must be in the correct sequence). if we can work out the probability of getting into sequence those 22 amino acids from 100 then it should be a simple matter of probability. The time factor is actually irrelevant (the probability of hitting a ...[text shortened]... here is only one possible correct outcome, for if it were out of sequence it would not function.
    Are you saying amino acids only combined once and never again?
  6. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    23 Jun '10 15:192 edits
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Are you saying amino acids only combined once and never again?
    nope, i am saying they needed to be in the correct sequence once for life to have arisen. all i am interested in is ascertaining the probability of that happening. If Slovenia score ill convert 😉
  7. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    23 Jun '10 15:30
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    If Slovenia score ill convert 😉
    LOL, I'll take those odds. 😉
  8. Standard memberua41
    Sharp Edge
    Dulling my blade
    Joined
    11 Dec '09
    Moves
    14434
    23 Jun '10 16:04
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Don't mix science into your religion. It cannot be done.
    Unfair to say. The only thing that limits this mixing is the person's religious perspectives.


    As for the amino acid probability discussion, I don't see what's so hard to buy that right combinations will match. If all of our life building blocks were swirling around in some primordial soup, there would be a definite chance of a right combination to accomodate life. The fact that we have this particular matchup with these particular conditions can be a different discussion of rather it's coincidence or intentional from a deistic perspective.

    And a simple cell is not as complex as I've noted fundamentalists/theists to describe. In labs, we find simple fatty lipids naturally enveloping around genetic material. Life reproduces and cells continue on. Once you have the right combination, it releases a storm of life.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    23 Jun '10 16:04
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    what are you talking about?, there are 100 known amino acids, 22 of which are needed to make proteins (they must be in the correct sequence).
    As per one of my points, you do not know that there is only one 'correct sequence'.

    if we can work out the probability of getting into sequence those 22 amino acids from 100 then it should be a simple matter of probability.
    Well lets have that number then.

    The time factor is actually irrelevant (the probability of hitting a six from the role of a dice is not dependent upon the time it takes to do so, but on the number of throws), there is only one possible correct outcome.
    The time factor is totally relevant because the total number of throws is [frequency of throws] times [time taken].
    If, however, you claim to know the total number of throws by other means then please let us know.
  10. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    23 Jun '10 16:25
    Originally posted by ua41
    Unfair to say. The only thing that limits this mixing is the person's religious perspectives.
    Whenever a fundamentalist use science to prove his religious dogmas, he fails. Show me an exception, and I'll reconsider.

    Science doesn't deal with religion. Its outside the domain of science. The most fundamental thing about the christian religion is the existance of their god.
    If we can scientifically can prove that he doesn't exist, then the base of the christian religion is gone totally. But has never been done, because it cannot be done.
    If we can scientifically can prove that he indeed exist, then science will be totally meaningless. But has never been done, because it cannot be done.

    If you can propose an scientific experiment that can prove something extranatural, please do. And we can take the discussion further from there.

    Sometimes fundamentalists use science to prove something. Then they think science is good. (Like bringing in statistics to show that evolution is impossible.)
    However, when science has a scientific explanation of something that violates his beliefs, then science is bad, even satanic. (Like absence of the global flooding.)

    I'm eager to know of an experiment that shows that god exists.

    Until then - my opinion stands - religion and science cannot be mixed.
  11. Standard memberua41
    Sharp Edge
    Dulling my blade
    Joined
    11 Dec '09
    Moves
    14434
    23 Jun '10 16:33
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Whenever a fundamentalist use science to prove his religious dogmas, he fails. Show me an exception, and I'll reconsider.

    Science doesn't deal with religion. Its outside the domain of science. The most fundamental thing about the christian religion is the existance of their god.
    If we can scientifically can prove that he doesn't exist, then the base ...[text shortened]... s that god exists.

    Until then - my opinion stands - religion and science cannot be mixed.
    Your conditions for religion are constrained. You feel that it has to incorporate supernatural aspects or even a deity. I definitely know the sentiments you are coming from and I think it can be applied to many of our mainstream religions (particularly theistic).

    However, there are many other spiritual ideals that work just fine with science. Science (agreed) shouldn't be used to prove your religious ideals but they can still live side by side. Suppose a person believe science is simply the communication of a creative force, kind of a pagan/pantheistic mesh. Or suppose they simply just believe in science and that is their god.

    And what about the non dualistic views?
  12. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    23 Jun '10 16:44
    Originally posted by ua41
    Your conditions for religion are constrained. You feel that it has to incorporate supernatural aspects or even a deity. I definitely know the sentiments you are coming from and I think it can be applied to many of our mainstream religions (particularly theistic).

    However, there are many other spiritual ideals that work just fine with science. Science (agreed ...[text shortened]... imply just believe in science and that is their god.

    And what about the non dualistic views?
    My definition of religion is this: "The belief of supernatural phenomena."

    Meaning that the monotheistic religions are included, belief of destiny (including astrology), belief of a 'soul' that exist before the birth an after the death, luck (used in casinos opposed by statistics), and many other branches of supernatural phenomena. So it doesn't have to do with existance of a god only.

    But the most basic thing about the christian religion is the existance of their god. If they can prove this scientifically, then I am wrong. However, this hasn't been done, because it cannot be done, any try will fail.

    But I am open minded. I think it would be a very exciting times when gods, and gods existance can be proven scientifically and successfully carried out. Until then I remain unreligious.
  13. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    23 Jun '10 16:521 edit
    yes i do know that there is only one possible sequence, for it there were not, proteins would not have been formed and the cell would not have functioned. please look at the characteristics of a single cell for confirmation. Time is still irrelevant, the probability of hitting a three on the first role of the dice is still the same whether it takes me one hours our three days to do so. You are erroneously confusing the time taken with frequency of throws, they are not synonymous.
  14. Standard memberua41
    Sharp Edge
    Dulling my blade
    Joined
    11 Dec '09
    Moves
    14434
    23 Jun '10 16:58
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    yes i do know that there is only one possible sequence, for it there were not, proteins would not have been formed and the cell would not have functioned. please look at the characteristics of a single cell for confirmation. Time is still irrelevant, the probability of hitting a three on the first role of the dice is still the same whether it takes ...[text shortened]... You are erroneously confusing the time taken with frequency of throws, they are not synonymous.
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    My definition of religion is this: "The belief of supernatural phenomena."

    Meaning that the monotheistic religions are included, belief of destiny (including astrology), belief of a 'soul' that exist before the birth an after the death, luck (used in casinos opposed by statistics), and many other branches of supernatural phenomena. So it doesn't have to do with existance of a god only.

    But the most basic thing about the christian religion is the existance of their god. If they can prove this scientifically, then I am wrong. However, this hasn't been done, because it cannot be done, any try will fail.

    But I am open minded. I think it would be a very exciting times when gods, and gods existance can be proven scientifically and successfully carried out. Until then I remain unreligious.



    Then for your definition of religion, your view holds. Just keep in mind not every aspect of spirituality is confined to the supernatural and plenty ideals don't even account for it 🙂

    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    yes i do know that there is only one possible sequence, for it there were not, proteins would not have been formed and the cell would not have functioned. please look at the characteristics of a single cell for confirmation. Time is still irrelevant, the probability of hitting a three on the first role of the dice is still the same whether it takes me one hours our three days to do so. You are erroneously confusing the time taken with frequency of throws, they are not synonymous.

    The probability is the same for each single throw separate, yes, but the probability for the sum of all these increases with time. It's a simple function
  15. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    23 Jun '10 17:042 edits
    Originally posted by Palynka
    LOL, I'll take those odds. 😉
    please consider this my friend, taken from a publication produced by Jehovahs Witnesses, of which you are no doubt aware, an organisation i am part of. I reproduce it here for i have always wondered how the statistics have been worked out. If you or any other brainy fellows could help then it would be appreciated (i did ask a student whom i met once when i was going from house to house and he did it for me, but that was a while ago and i have forgotten (he actually went inside and came out with his calculator and demonstrated it to me)), anyhow here is the little snippet.


    Probability and Spontaneous Proteins

    What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?

    The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only 1x10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 1x10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 1x10^13 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!

    Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cells activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 1x10^40,000! “An outrageously small probability,” Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated spontaneously on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”1

    However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”



    1.Evolution From Space, p. 24.
    2.New Scientist, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree