Then show us your probability calculations and justify any assumptions you make.
Printable View
How can that possibly be true if we're still discovering completely unknown chemical pathways to their formation?
No, i'm saying they did a poor job. If you see a single, coherent argument there—one that hasn't already been refuted—please spell it out. Because the abstract certainly didn't.
Well, that's what Hubert Yockey did, isn't it? "A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory."
And I did a back-of-the-envelope for a ribozyme in another thread, and came up with 1 in 4 x 10^{87}, assuming all the nucleotides are interchangeable with one other nucleotide.
Blessings,
Lee
Because the probability calculations start with the constituents already formed, and just needing assembly.
I'd have to buy his paper to justify his conclusions--but presumably the editors thought his conclusions were reasonable.Quote:
No, i'm saying they did a poor job. If you see a single, coherent argument there—one that hasn't already been refuted—please spell it out. Because the abstract certainly didn't.
Blessings,
Lee
They do all the time, it's called falsifying the null hypothesis, in statistics. "Testing (accepting, approving, rejecting, or disproving) the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are (or there are not) grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science; the field of statistics, more specifically hypothesis testing, gives precise criteria for rejecting or accepting a null hypothesis within a confidence level." (Wikipedia, emphasis mine)
Blessings,
Lee
Null hypothesis does not apply to scientific hypothesis, because the natural processes and laws of nature are not random as previously cited. The Laws of NAture and NAtural processes determine the outcome over time, and NOT the randomness of individual events. Also as cited before the probability calculations used by Creationists at the Discovery Institute are dishonest, unethical, and unsupported by a scientific hypothesis. Also as shot down by The Lurch.
This has been repeated demonstrated with references in the past by both The Lurch and myself.
To repeat, "Testing ... the null hypothesis … is a central task in the modern practice of science" (Wikipedia) Many natural processes (notably chemical reactions) are describable as random processes. And have you heard of "five sigma"?
But I'm talking about Hubert Yockey and his work, no friend of ID.Quote:
Also as cited before the probability calculations used by Creationists at the Discovery Institute are dishonest, unethical, and unsupported by a scientific hypothesis. Also as shot down by The Lurch.
This has been repeated demonstrated with references in the past by both The Lurch and myself.
Blessings,
Lee
Yockey used the same dishonest unethical applications of probability as Discovery Institute.
Again . . . Null hypothesis does not apply to scientific hypothesis, because the natural processes and laws of nature are not random as previously cited. The Laws of Nature and Natural processes determine the outcome over time, and NOT the randomness of individual events.
Natural processes over time are not random, because the causes are known as Laws of Nature, an the outcome can be predicted over time by objective verifiable evidence.
You need to respond coherently to The Lurch.
We'll leave aside the fact that your calculation completely ignored the fact that other ribozyme structures may be functional, and that the same structure could also be formed by different length RNAs (ie - your probability is wrong). Even if we were to accept that value, it doesn't mean that forming the molecule is improbable.
In fact, i showed that in the earlier discussion, where i did the calculations to show that any specific 98-base long RNA will show up, on average, in a batch of random RNAs that weighs less than a gram. Therefore, if producing a gram of random RNAs is probable, producing a functional catalytic RNA becomes probable.
(This was something you'd never responded to, other than indicating you really didn't get it.)
In any case, that's why the following statement is irrelevant:
The probability of getting a specific RNA will necessarily depend on how frequently the assembly of RNAs take place. And that frequency will be dependent upon how readily some prebiotic chemistry can form them. Which, in turn, can't be known without a complete catalog of all the reactions that can form them.
Thus, without that complete catalog - which we clearly don't have - you can't say anything about these probabilities.
From which we can only conclude that your argument is wrong.