1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBecause I don't believe you don't know the answer. So I must conclude you have some other purpose in asking such a stupid question. What is your purpose? Is this just time wasting to avoid admitting that you said something stupid?
If you can answer it why don't you answer it?
You know perfectly well that mostly everything related to the primordial soup is guess work ...
I know no such thing.
yet there are claims that only Theists are imagining things and that your position is somehow more tenable.
Yes, my position is more tenable. Repeatedly asking stupid questions about the sun isn't going to change that. In fact, quite the opposite. The more you display your ignorance, the less tenable your position becomes.
Your position in this thread so far supposedly relies on good knowledge of how life may or may not have begun. That you don't even know if there was a sun at the time suggests that you have near zero knowledge thus any 'position' you may have is worthless.
Originally posted by sonshipWhy do you keep insisting 'evolutionists' are even working on life origins?
[b] No, nobody in the science forum would dispute it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are so sure that this is a matter of good science and having nothing to do with Theism why don't you demontrate it is nonsense for anyone to apply probability analysis to the the origin of a cell ?
It seems odd t ...[text shortened]... have the right to attempt to apply probability analysis to the origin of a cell ?
Yes or No.[/b]
Life origins is a separate discipline, evolution studies the changes life undergoes and they 'evolutionists' could give a crap less about how life got here. It doesn't matter to them. Of course they might have personal hypotheses but life origin studies is not going to get a evolution scientist grant money and that is the only way they can study evolution, in league with geologists, math experts, archaeologists, organic chemists, and the like.
Life origin science may use some of the same disciplines in their quest but their quest is completely different from 'evolutionists'. The entire thrust of their discipline is to study life origins and 'evolutionists' say, good luck with that, but we have some fossils to study.
So kindly leave 'evolutionists' out of the discussion of life origins.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkMy position in the OP is that nobody knows everything. My argument is one of ignorance. The more you can demonstrate ignorance about the conditions necessary for life, the stronger my argument is.
You are the one who claims to know everything.
My argument is that nobody knows enough to make an explicit probability calculation with regards to the likelihood that life could without the aid of God.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAn interesting hypothesis. Would you say, then, that a fruit fly has some segment of its DNA that codes for "fruit fly"-ness, and that this segment is immune to mutations?
Yeah sure we observe a fruit fly evolving into another fruit fly. That means without a shadow of a doubt that a blob of goo by way of the zoo became you.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you saying that believers in intelligent design can never know for sure that there was design, and also that science can never know there was 'not' design. That both sides have their opinions, but will each never know for certain?
My position in the OP is that nobody knows everything. My argument is one of ignorance. The more you can demonstrate ignorance about the conditions necessary for life, the stronger my argument is.
My argument is that nobody knows enough to make an explicit probability calculation with regards to the likelihood that life could without the aid of God.
If so, that sounds reasonable.
Originally posted by chaney3All science can do is find possible evidence in favour of design, and so far, none has been found. Of course, if evidence for design is found then existing theories ought to be revised, although perhaps proponents of design should first attempt to describe what would be the empirical result of design and how we might measure it.
Are you saying that believers in intelligent design can never know for sure that there was design, and also that science can never know there was 'not' design. That both sides have their opinions, but will each never know for certain?
If so, that sounds reasonable.
Originally posted by chaney3I am saying that any position based solely on a probability calculation of life arising from non-life is currently untenable as there simply isn't enough evidence. I am not saying that it will remain that way forever or that all other arguments are invalid.
Are you saying that believers in intelligent design can never know for sure that there was design, and also that science can never know there was 'not' design. That both sides have their opinions, but will each never know for certain?
I also think that the position that life can and did arise from non-life without intelligent design is the default position until evidence or argument to the contrary is provided. After all that is the same standard we apply to everything else in the universe. When you discover a rock in a field, you do not ask yourself whether or not it could have got there by natural means or whether God put it there. You assume that God was not directly involved.
8 edits
Originally posted by sonhouse
Why do you keep insisting 'evolutionists' are even working on life origins?
I am quite well familiar with the concept that many Evolutionists do not work on origin of life issue. IMO they were smart to distance themselves from that thorny problem (Thorny to the Evolutionists).
The challenge of this thread's OP does not have to involve life origin.
Life origins is a separate discipline, evolution studies the changes life undergoes and they 'evolutionists' could give a crap less about how life got here.
Aside from sounding like "sour grapes" in the extreme, ie. "they couldn't give a crap" you are right. IMO, some anti-theists strongly assert that "Evolution has NOTHING to do with life origin. And we don't give a crap!" reflects some realization that Darwinian processes can't yet account for life origin.
It doesn't matter to them.
I think it matters to some of them.
Of course they might have personal hypotheses but life origin studies is not going to get a evolution scientist grant money and that is the only way they can study evolution, in league with geologists, math experts, archaeologists, organic chemists, and the like.
Life origin science may use some of the same disciplines in their quest but their quest is completely different from 'evolutionists'. The entire thrust of their discipline is to study life origins and 'evolutionists' say, good luck with that, but we have some fossils to study.
So kindly leave 'evolutionists' out of the discussion of life origins.
No, I don't think I will always do that. Sorry. However, considering the challenge of the OP, still some probability analysis can be applied to the theory assuming the pre-existence of living things.
For example, with some limited understanding we still can do a statistical model to see what is an approximated likelihood of a non-purposeful, non-directed and non-intelligent process on life continuation into surviving phyla after the origin of first life.
Losing combinations are vastly more probable than winning ones.
Out of the possible protein combinations only a relative minuscule amount have resulted in no fatalities or non-extinctions.
If 250 million years ago more than 90% of marine life went extinct because of non-fitness for life, the probability of unsuccessful body plans (thus protein combinations) far outnumber the emergence of successful ones.
Life has selected from the [10 to the 390th power] possible combinations the fewer 2 x [10 to the 12th power] [combinations] that work. The selection of that minuscule fraction (the one out of [10 to the 378th] [edited] of protein combinations) that function for life from the vast number of possible combinations cannot have been by random point mutations on the DNA of the genome. It would be as if nature chose by random from a bag containing a billion billion billion ... (repeated forty times) proteins the one that worked, and then repeated the trick a trillion times. If protein generation were a random process, then as with random word generation, the result would also be gibbersh, but with life it would be fatal gibberish.
Taken from [The Science of God, G. Schroeder, Chapter 7, Evolution: Statistics Versus Random Mutations, pg. 103, Broadway Books] Some editing my own.
I have selected on a portion of a larger discussion and have not explained all the parameters the author used and explained how he calculated.
Some backround is mentioned here.
1.) thirty-four phyla or body plans to define all animal life
2.) 30 millions species (which number I find varies depending on sources)
3.) Hypothetically all plans like the human genome of 70,000 genes with no proteins common among species.
4.) Life constructed of 2 x 19 to the 12th power [two million million] different proteins.
5.) Hypothetically a typical protein of 300 amino acids (with 20 typically needed for life).
6.) Out of possible 10 to the 390th power protein combinations, life resulting from using one in 10 to the 378th combinations.
I gather that some of these amounts are approximations. The low probability Scheoder discusses pertains to POST origin of all life situation after the Cambrian explosion.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipAlthough it is a different scenario to the one in my OP, and you haven't done a particularly good job of explaining what is being calculated, it appears to be utter nonsense to me. It would appear that he has made to totally and demonstrably false assumption that only life that exists today is 'possible'. Am I correct in this?
I gather that some of these amounts are approximations. The low probability Scheoder discusses pertains to POST origin of all life situation after the Cambrian explosion.
Originally posted by sonshipThey haven't "yet" and they never will since the origin of life is not an evolutionary process. I think your confusion between an explanation for the origin of life and an explanation of the diversity thereof is a symptom of a poor understanding of what the theory of evolution is and what we know about life's origins. Have you considered reading a bit about these topics?
[...] Darwinian processes can't yet account for life origin.
Originally posted by sonhouseBecause he means something different by the word than you do.
Why do you keep insisting 'evolutionists' are even working on life origins?
You mean 'scientists that specialise in the branch of Biology that studies evolution' (in reality almost all biologists must include evolution in their work).
Sonship on the other hand is referring to members of an imaginary religion.
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy argument is one of ignorance.
My position in the OP is that nobody knows everything. My argument is one of ignorance. The more you can demonstrate ignorance about the conditions necessary for life, the stronger my argument is.
My argument is that nobody knows enough to make an explicit probability calculation with regards to the likelihood that life could without the aid of God.
So then why are you calling me ignorant if you are in fact arguing that you are ignorant? 😀
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAll science can do is find possible evidence in favour of design, and so far, none has been found.
All science can do is find possible evidence in favour of design, and so far, none has been found. Of course, if evidence for design is found then existing theories ought to be revised, although perhaps proponents of design should first attempt to describe what would be the empirical result of design and how we might measure it.
All evidence that is found is be labelled as pseudoscience by those who do not believe in intelligent design.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI am argument that we are all ignorant and therefore cannot make claims about things we are ignorant about. I am calling you ignorant because you are, and pointing out that because of that you cannot make claims about things you are ignorant about.
So then why are you calling me ignorant if you are in fact arguing that you are ignorant? 😀