Originally posted by whodey Setting the essay aside, how would one go about honestly calculating the possibility of abiogenesis? Or are you saying that such a calculation, no matter how it is done, would be just as meaningless as the statistical chances of two Jessica's?
All that is really required for the evolution of life is the presence of replicating RNA or DNA molecules. Everything after that is window dressing. Since, both RNA and DNA form spontaneously under the conditions prevalent at the time, and the precursors were there, I don't think it'd be too difficult, especially with the millions of billions of chances I indicated there would be, above.
Go read Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" and "Blind Watchmaker" for a complete synopsis.
Originally posted by whodey Setting the essay aside, how would one go about honestly calculating the possibility of abiogenesis? Or are you saying that such a calculation, no matter how it is done, would be just as meaningless as the statistical chances of two Jessica's?
I'm trying to remove this from the context of abiogenesis so that I can get you to look at the problem objectively.
I'm not making any points about meaninglessness. I'm saying that there are some serious flaws with the way that essay tries to calculate the probabilities of a protein molecule with a chain of 100 amino acid molecules and then pass that off as at all similar to the odds of abiogenesis.
All I'm asking you to do is find a good objection to the assumptions behind my calculation. Surely something about it must be wrong (actually there are a lot of bad assumptions).
I'll give a hint for the first one. Why is it that if the odds of anyone having the name 'Jessica' is so incredibly unlikely that hundreds of thousands of American women have that name? Better yet, if you have any kids, how did you come up with their names?
Originally posted by whodey Setting the essay aside, how would one go about honestly calculating the possibility of abiogenesis? Or are you saying that such a calculation, no matter how it is done, would be just as meaningless as the statistical chances of two Jessica's?
Oh my God.
Telerion, where do you store your seemingly endless reserves of patience for dealing with such students?
Originally posted by amannion What?
That the notion of god makes logical sense and is statistically probable?
What are you smoking?
A supernatural creator makes as much logical sense as fairies in the bottom of the garden, the flying spaghetti monster, or ... muffy!
A spiritual God is as certain as your eternal torment in Hell or Life in Heaven.
You never know untill you die!
Which everyone will one day do!
No man is immortal!
Originally posted by royaltystatement A spiritual God is as certain as your eternal torment in Hell or Life in Heaven.
You never know untill you die!
Which everyone will one day do!
No man is immortal!
Originally posted by royaltystatement A spiritual God is as certain as your eternal torment in Hell or Life in Heaven.
You never know untill you die!
Which everyone will one day do!
No man is immortal!
Right.
That pretty much sums up the crackpot brigade.
RS you should hook up with Nosrac - you'll have a lot to talk about.
But there's nothing worthwhile for the rest of us.
Originally posted by scottishinnz Some very interesting moralistic questions. I agree that the reproduction of a neanderthal man would not undermine christianity in any way, the same way that the dinosaurs of hakaman's thread do not disprove god. Rationality, of course, does have something to say though, once you have god, and therefore miracles etc, then you have no need of logical d ...[text shortened]... ple would have. Perhaps something akin to the Delta double negatives of "Brave New World"?
Scott, did you read the Hominid series by Robert Sawyer by any chance? He delved into the possiblity of advanced Neantertals and the differances between humans and them. Total SF of course but interesting.
Originally posted by royaltystatement 666 burns eternally and all affiliated with it.
Period(bleeding included)
Lets see if I have this straight: God creates the universe and mankind. It knows all, so it already knows the outcome of every person's live in the universe. So it creats humans anyway and then knowing what is to happen to them before they are even born, god creates a hell for some of them but not others, sets up a situation where said humans burn in said hell for all eternity. Does that sum it up?
Originally posted by telerion I'm not making any points about meaninglessness. I'm saying that there are some serious flaws with the way that essay tries to calculate the probabilities of a protein molecule with a chain of 100 amino acid molecules and then pass that of have that name? Better yet, if you have any kids, how did you come up with their names?[/b]
A spiritual GOD is as certain as your eternal torment in the fires of hell!!
Originally posted by telerion Forget about it. I asked an honest question and gave you an honest hint. I see that my posts were a waste of time.
Oh come on, where is your sense of humor? Your posts were not wasted on me and I appreciate the time and effort you put into them. I assume your point is that one needs a large enough random sample of the general population in order to better assess the statistiacal likelyhood of the name Jessica being chosen, no?
Originally posted by scottishinnz What does this have to do with this thread?
That has to do wity you eternal damnation.
Which no science can save you from.
Will your complex theories of life and the universe be able to save your soul from the fires of Hell?
Neanderthal DNA
22 Jul '06 04:19
Back to Top