The probability that life could occur without the aid of God

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]The author doesn't know much relevant biology and his calculations are nonsense.

So how may peer reviewed articles have you written on the topic that have been published in scientific journals? And what are your academic qualifications relative to his. This is quite rich coming from the same person who claimed to be an ignoramus on the matter a short while ago.[/b]

So how may peer reviewed articles have you written on the topic that have been published in scientific journals?

What a silly rhetorical trick. I was not aware that Twithead had been set up as an authority, and so there is no requirement whatever to establish his academic credentials. What is important is the credentials of the sources on which he does rely in his arguments. Otherwise, no civilian would be entitled to any opinion which is absurd.

Originally posted by sonship
You are acting like a FRAUD.

In what way?

You are being DISHONEST. You accuse me of FRAUDULENT behaviour yet the description you give is actually YOUR OWN behaviour ie TOTAL AND UTTER FAILURE to actually discuss what you did agree to discuss. Instead you keep DODGING with RIDICULOUS arguments over page number, side topics, demands for quotes WHEN YOU ALREADY HAVE THE BOOK AND QUOTED FROM IT ALREADY.

Would anyone else like to step into twhitehead's role and discuss the possible errors of the models proposed to do probability analysis concerning Evolutionary concepts in the book - The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder?
Now you are pretending that you wish to discuss it with someone else. Why should someone else STEP INTO MY ROLE, when you HAVEN'T even ATTEMPTED to address the point I made at the very beginning?
It is YOUR MOVE. You need to explain whether or not you accept that the author is making a FUNDAMENTAL ERROR and if not explain why you think so. I have made my position CRYSTAL CLEAR. The author made the DEMONSTRABLY FALSE assumption that he knows what proteins or DNA sequences are necessary for survival and because of that DEMONSTRABLY FALSE assumption the rest of his argument is COMPLETE UTTER NONSENSE.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In what way?

You are being DISHONEST. You accuse me of FRAUDULENT behaviour yet the description you give is actually YOUR OWN behaviour ie TOTAL AND UTTER FAILURE to actually discuss what you did agree to discuss. Instead you keep DODGING with RIDICULOUS arguments over page number, side topics, demands for quotes WHEN YOU ALREADY HAVE THE BOOK AND QUOT ...[text shortened]... cause of that DEMONSTRABLY FALSE assumption the rest of his argument is COMPLETE UTTER NONSENSE.

"ultimately his view means that Genesis, the foundation of the Bible, would have been completely misunderstood until the theory of relativity was posited. Indeed, it would have been impossible to understand until less than fifty years ago. All it is doing is causing confusion. "

From one of many Goodreads reviews, this comment comes close to clinching a point that too many people ignore. The Bible is available for anyone to take a contemporary point of view and project this onto the text, and with sufficient flexibility, almost anything can be made to seem consistent with biblical writings. The fact that this game can be played by an educated physicist does not prove that he is right but only that he is the latest in a long line of charlatans writing fiction for popular consumption among the credulous and the uncritical. Educated Christians have always enjoyed inserting biblical (and Shakespeare and sometimes Cicero too) quotes into any and every comment they care to make in order to lend it an undeserved gravitas (as Muslims love to insert the Quran and so on - anyone for Confucius?).

The fact that this charlatan is an orthodox Jew is probably very relevant, since the practice of seeking out passages in the Torah to address current concerns, without trying to reconcile the countless alternative interpretations of the same passages, is encouraged and, indeed, is not without interest, until some idiot wants to believe that Genesis (itself cobbled together from more than one original text) was written in anticipation of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, both of which only emerged at the start of the 20th century and both of which may well be superceded long before the end of the 21st.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I read the text leading up to and surrounding the bit you quoted.
Now are you going to just continue with your stupid claims that I didn't read enough, or are you going to address my points?

So far you have totally ignore the points I have made and instead pretended over and over that I didn't read the necessary bits. Whether I read the necessary bits ...[text shortened]... nd that I retype the pages of text in this thread because you are too lazy to go read it online.

I do not have time to waste on junky squabbles today.
I am in glance mode looking past arguments about process. I am glancing for substance.

I don't give a crap about cheap stuff.
I am not going to be impressed.

Address this in your next post to me please:

When Richard Dawkins says this concerning statistical analysis pertaining to evaluating Evolution, is he talking "utter nonsense" or is he making sense ?

"Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability." ( from The Blind Watchmaker )

Do you think he is talking utter nonsense because of the fact that there are things about proteins we do not yet know ?

Originally posted by sonship
I do not have time to waste on junky squabbles today.

Then don't start junky squabbles. More especially don't call me a FRAUD while accusing me of failing to discuss a topic when it is blatantly obvious that it is you that is UTTERLY FAILING to discuss the topic and instead trying your best to avoid it. If you make that sort of BLATANTLY FALSE accusation and put it in ALL CAPS in the hope that that will make it true, I am going to call you on it. Do it again and I will even start a thread on it.

When Richard Dawkins says this concerning statistical analysis pertaining to evaluating Evolution, is he talking "utter nonsense" or is he making sense ?

"Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability." ( from The Blind Watchmaker )

Do you think he is talking utter nonsense because of the fact that there are things about proteins we do not yet know ?
No, he is not talking utter nonsense.

Now, I have answered a number of similar questions from you and you have simply ignored the answers and continued to ask more and then called me a FRAUD for not wanting to discuss the topic.
What relevance did that question have if any?

How many more such questions will you be asking in the hope that the original issue will be forgotten or buried?

There are still two outstanding issues for you to answer. The figures in the YouTube video in the other thread that you supported despite apparently knowing nothing whatsoever about their origin. Will you admit that you don't have clue where they came from or their validity?
The second is the topic you have been clearly not discussing regarding a book you quoted from which you then immediately misplaced and kept asking for quotes from which makes an argument based on a clearly false assumption that I have detailed. Will you admit that you either simply don't understand enough of the contents of that book to know if I am right, or that I am clearly right?
How many more years before we get either answer from you?

Originally posted by sonship

For example, aside from Jesus who is confirmed outside the Bible and by secular historians, many people surrounding His story are confirmed as to their historicity.

When will you people realise that Jesus is not universally accepted by historians and
references to Christ have not been validated as describing one man.

The evidence for Jesus is very, very poor.

Originally posted by twhitehead

me:

Do you think he is talking utter nonsense because of the fact that there are things about proteins we do not yet know ?

tw:
No, he is not talking utter nonsense.

Thankyou.

Shortage of knowledge about the real world does not forbid scientists from learning about approximations with probability models.

Now, I have answered a number of similar questions from you and you have simply ignored the answers and continued to ask more and then called me a FRAUD for not wanting to discuss the topic.

I retract the well spoiling fraud comment.
I don't expect much you will stop your own insulting condensations

To the problem at hand then:

.
What relevance did that question have if any?

You contention - Incomplete knowledge of some aspects of proteins makes modeling with approximations "utter nonsense". In any branch of science, approximate models may lack full information about their parameters.

You severely limit science research by insisting it is utter nonsense to use less than omniscient knowledge of related factors in doing some probability analysis.

How many more such questions will you be asking in the hope that the original issue will be forgotten or buried?

The ORIGINAL ISSUE - Anyone who used statistics concerning biological evolution's probability being influenced to say the evidence for the non-random or God's creative work was in life creation and operation is more probable is talking nonsense.

No they are not.
They may be talking with incomplete knowledge of all factors.
And the book discussed, i think, has some reasonable models which are not "utter nonsense".

There are still two outstanding issues for you to answer. The figures in the YouTube video in the other thread that you supported despite apparently knowing nothing whatsoever about their origin. Will you admit that you don't have clue where they came from or their validity?

I'll admit that I did not gather the numbers myself and I don't know exactly how that the speaker did. I do not admit them to be "utter nonsense".

My admitting this has nothing to do with your generalizations that ALL statistical models lacking complete knowledge of some factors renders them useless and nonsensical.

So your OP I reject.
And I think within it are seeds of an anti-science attitude.
Hating where the evidence leads in probability analysis is no excuse for accusing theorists of talking " "utter nonsense."

Secondly, you overplay your "You don't understand Evolution" complaint.
The fact of the matter is that if YOU TOO do not know everything about proteins in biological than YOU don't understand Evolution either.

Do you admit that though you accuse Schroeder of not understanding Evolution, YOU DON'T EITHER ?

Will you admit that you either simply don't understand enough of the contents of that book to know if I am right, or that I am clearly right?

I don't know what you think demanded confessionals are doing for your argument.

I already expressed posts ago my limitations of knowledge.
You see your trust is showing incomplete, none omniscient knowledge is proof that statistical models of Evolution's probability are utter nonsense, doesn't hold.

You are simply not going to get all that much mileage out of this line of attack.
I asked you to cut and paste the exact quotations that were the source of objection, so I could understand. I don't even think about you wanting to cooperate here anymore.

No fella. Statistical models of any branch of science, I don't care what branch it is, are not automatically useless or nonsensical because the modeler or the observer has incomplete knowledge.

1.) "You won't dare discuss the book" does not establish your point. I am discussing the book.

2.) "You don't understand everything about how modelers derived their paramaters" does not establish your point.

3.) Problems with statistical models in their representation of the real world, does not establish your point.

4.) Repeated Catholic like confessions demanded by you of the need for more study do not establish your point.

The point being ... probability models (even Evolution friendly ones, lenient ones) which expose the unlikelihood of random life origin or life development are utterly nonsensical ipso facto. Your OP fails.

I take all such models to be approximations with incomplete knowledge and consisting of calculations which I personally did not work out.

So exactly what about proteins would have to be known exhaustively before a statistical probability model of Evolution could be useful ? Are you suggesting that not one thing could be left unknown about proteins before any such model of Evolution could make sense and be a useful approximation ?

Yes or No ?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
When will you people realise that Jesus is not universally accepted by historians and
references to Christ have not been validated as describing one man.

The evidence for Jesus is very, very poor.

So let's deal with this troublesome Jesus person this way -

Divide and conqueror. Cut the beast into little pieces and say umpteen hundred people each contributed a little chunk of the myth.

And somebody connected all the fragments of fiction, and presented to the world a hoax of four biographies of ONE person - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.

This is an attempt to kill the life by cutting the life into clearly separated pieces and driving them far from each other.
You're gullible.

Were you the one I asked about the historical figures in your lampoon fairy tale which you say is equivalent to the New Testament?

Couldn't do it, could you ?

Originally posted by twhitehead

The figures in the YouTube video in the other thread that you supported despite apparently knowing nothing whatsoever about their origin.

You are not going to get as much mileage out of this as you want.

A person takes a class or attends a lecture usually because he has not mastered the material already.
Sure, I could ask the video guy some questions.

You're not going to get from that - a leap of trust in your evaluation that it was nonsense.

Give it to me simple cutting to the bottom line.

You DO then believe that the millions of species on the planet developed from a process with absolutely NO GOAL ? One organism being the ancestor from which all species randomly were derived through selecting luckily benefitial mutations from the number of overwhelmingly non-benefitial ones ?

The purposeless process produced the biosphere of all living things you see around you ?

And any model with incomplete knowledge of all aspects of its parameters suggesting the process seems not to be random, is utter nonsense ?

Originally posted by sonship

The figures in the YouTube video in the other thread that you supported despite apparently knowing nothing whatsoever about their origin.

You are not going to get as much mileage out of this as you want.

A person takes a class or attends a lecture usually because he has not mastered the material already.
Sure, I could ask the video ...[text shortened]... all aspects of its parameters suggesting the process seems not to be random, is utter nonsense ?

How would one determine empirically that there had been a "goal"?

Suppose that there is a goal behind the Coulomb force. How would one go about and measure it?

Rephrasing this question somewhat: given the essential ingredients for evolution in the modern synthesis: DNA, the reproduction thereof, mutations therein (and genetic drift), and the effect of DNA on the phenotype, in which of these ingredients is a "goal" required?

Originally posted by sonship
Shortage of knowledge about the real world does not forbid scientists from learning about approximations with probability models.

It depends on the situation as well you know. Further, you say that as if it is revelation, when in fact it is kind of obvious and has not been disputed in any way.

I retract the well spoiling fraud comment.
But do you retract the FALSE ACCUSATION? Or just the FRAUD word? Do you admit that in fact I have NOT refused or avoided discussing the topic in question? Is this retraction just because you don't like the BACKLASH your FALSE ACCUSATION brought on, or do you GENUINELY REGRET having made the FALSE ACCUSATION?

You contention - Incomplete knowledge of some aspects of proteins makes modeling with approximations "utter nonsense". In any branch of science, approximate models may lack full information about their parameters.
I made no such contention. Go back and read all the posts again and you will see that I never once made such a contention. NOT ONCE.

You severely limit science research by insisting it is utter nonsense to use less than omniscient knowledge of related factors in doing some probability analysis.
I have never insisted any such thing.

The ORIGINAL ISSUE - Anyone who used statistics concerning biological evolution's probability being influenced to say the evidence for the non-random or God's creative work was in life creation and operation is more probable is talking nonsense.
No, that is not the ORIGINAL ISSUE, and I have never said ANY SUCH THING. Please go back and read the OP more carefully.

And the book discussed, i think, has some reasonable models which are not "utter nonsense".
The book you discussed makes a false assumption that you have UTTERLY FAILED to address in any way. The models are not reasonable as I have CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED. The models REQIURE knowledge of what proteins or DNA sequences are useful or essential for life. No such knowledge exists even as a ballpark estimate.

I'll admit that I did not gather the numbers myself and I don't know exactly how that the speaker did.
Do you know ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about how the speaker obtained them?

I do not admit them to be "utter nonsense".
But you cannot honestly say that you know they are not utter nonsense given that you have no idea where they came from.

My admitting this has nothing to do with your generalizations that ALL statistical models lacking complete knowledge of some factors renders them useless and nonsensical.
I have made no such generalisations.

So your OP I reject.
You reject it because you didn't read it or your reading comprehension is abysmal.

And I think within it are seeds of an anti-science attitude.
Hating where the evidence leads in probability analysis is no excuse for accusing theorists of talking "utter nonsense."
Demonstrating flaws in other peoples arguments when they exist is quintessential science.

Secondly, you overplay your "You don't understand Evolution" complaint.
When I use it, it is accurate. You have never once said: "OK, lets discuss where I got it wrong".

Do you admit that though you accuse Schroeder of not understanding Evolution, YOU DON'T EITHER ?
I do not understand everything about it nor have I claimed to. My accusation that Schroeder makes false statements about proteins still stands.

I don't know what you think demanded confessionals are doing for your argument.
I already expressed posts ago my limitations of knowledge.
What I want is either an admission that you lack sufficient knowledge to make the claims you have made regarding the validity of the arguments in question or an admission that the arguments are in fact wrong. You cannot rightly claim a lack of understanding of the argument whilst still claim to know the argument is correct.
You have already admitted for the YouTube video that you lack sufficient knowledge of the origin of the figures to make a reasonable estimation of their value. ie when you state that you think the conclusion is valid, you do so purely because you like the conclusion, not because you find the argument to be valid. You have no idea whether the argument is valid because you lack sufficient knowledge of the origin of the key figures used.

I asked you to cut and paste the exact quotations that were the source of objection, so I could understand.
Cutting and pasting what you can already read online or in the source you have access to will not increase your understanding.

No fella. Statistical models of any branch of science, I don't care what branch it is, are not automatically useless or nonsensical because the modeler or the observer has incomplete knowledge.
And I have claimed no such thing.

1.) "You won't dare discuss the book" does not establish your point. I am discussing the book.
No you are not. This whole post you have said nothing whatsoever with regards to the actual contents of the book.

So exactly what about proteins would have to be known exhaustively before a statistical probability model of Evolution could be useful ?
It depends on the statistical model. The one in the book attempts to compare the number of possible proteins with the number of proteins either useful or necessary for life. It is therefore CLEARLY NECESSARY to have SOME IDEA about which proteins are useful or necessary for life.

Are you suggesting that not one thing could be left unknown about proteins before any such model of Evolution could make sense and be a useful approximation ?

Yes or No ?
No.

Originally posted by sonship
You are not going to get as much mileage out of this as you want.

I already have. I have demonstrated without a doubt that you do not know where the key figures came from and that you knew that from the start yet have spent many many posts trying your best not to admit it. I have demonstrated the type of person you are and your lack of honesty in such matters.

You're not going to get from that - a leap of trust in your evaluation that it was nonsense.
I never ask for, nor expects any such leap of trust. I have however proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not have any evidence whatsoever that it is not nonsense. I have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you support or promote the video you do so purely based on the conclusion and not because you understand and agree with the argument being made.

You DO then believe that the millions of species on the planet developed from a process with absolutely NO GOAL ? One organism being the ancestor from which all species randomly were derived through selecting luckily benefitial mutations from the number of overwhelmingly non-benefitial ones ?
With strong reservations about your phrasing, and some specifics, yes.
I do not know for a fact that all organisms are descended from a single one. Life is complicated.
I do believe there was and is NO GOAL.

The purposeless process produced the biosphere of all living things you see around you ?
Yes.

And any model with incomplete knowledge of all aspects of its parameters suggesting the process seems not to be random, is utter nonsense ?
No, I have not said nor implied any such thing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I 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.

I also think that the position that life can and did arise from non-life without intelligent des ...[text shortened]... ere by natural means or whether God put it there. You assume that God was not directly involved.

I concur.

I also agree that the questions how life got started and how species change and diverge are separate issues.

Originally posted by sonship

Assertion: Anyone who claims to have worked out an explicit probability for life occurring 'at random' or what they really mean 'without the aid of God', is talking nonsense.

Assertion: Anyone claiming probably life arose accidentally over a long period of time by the R word, is talking nonsense.

And anyone saying so and also trying ...[text shortened]... rd "random" out the back door so as if it has nothing to do with Evolution, is talking nonsense.

False dichotomy. "Random" and "intelligent design" do not exhaust the options. There is also the repeated operation of natural laws, which is neither random (laws are by definition regular) nor goal-oriented.

Originally posted by sonship
So let's deal with this troublesome Jesus person this way -

[b] Divide and conqueror. Cut the beast into little pieces and say umpteen hundred people each contributed a little chunk of the myth.

And somebody connected all the fragments of fiction, and presented to the world a hoax of four biographies of ONE person - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John[ ...[text shortened]... on fairy tale which you say is equivalent to the New Testament?

Couldn't do it, could you ?

No, that was me you asked that question to.

I will get back to that. We don't all have the amount of time you have to write assay after assay on a forum, sonship.