Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 128

Thread: Origin of life status

  1. #71
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,386
    Amen (Given)
    464
    Amen (Received)
    248
    Source: Hubert Yockey

    A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory.

    Geological evidence for the “warm little pond” is missing. It is concluded that belief in currently accepted scenarios of spontaneous biogenesis is based on faith, contrary to conventional wisdom.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  2. #72
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,463
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    That's just 1-probability(nature did it).
    A probability that we don't know either, so i'm not sure how it helps you.

    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    That won't hold up in court, "Your honor, we don't know yet, because there might be a natural explanation for my car hitting that other car."
    Gee, it's a good thing science doesn't hold to the standards of evidence used in court then. Or that a car crash is not in any way analogous to the issues that science addresses.

    You're avoiding the issues, not addressing them.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  3. #73
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,463
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Source: Hubert Yockey

    A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory.

    Geological evidence for the “warm little pond” is missing. It is concluded that belief in currently accepted scenarios of spontaneous biogenesis is based on faith, contrary to conventional wisdom.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Blessings,
    Lee
    Did you actually read the full abstract you're quoting? It's random strings of unrelated gibberish.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  4. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  5. #74
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,786
    Amen (Given)
    714
    Amen (Received)
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    Did you actually read the full abstract you're quoting? It's random strings of unrelated gibberish.
    So, just like Dory's posts, than?
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.

  6. #75
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,386
    Amen (Given)
    464
    Amen (Received)
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    A probability that we don't know either, so i'm not sure how it helps you.
    We can estimate the probability of certain events in nature, such as the formation of a biomolecule randomly.

    Gee, it's a good thing science doesn't hold to the standards of evidence used in court then. Or that a car crash is not in any way analogous to the issues that science addresses.
    My point was that forensic analysis is acceptable and widely acknowledged.

    Did you actually read the full abstract you're quoting? It's random strings of unrelated gibberish.
    Yes, I have read it, and it seems reasonable to me.

    Source: Hubert Yockey

    Taking into account only the effect of the racemic mixture the longest genome which could be expected with 95 % confidence in 109 years corresponds to only 49 amino acid residues. This is much too short to code a living system so evolution to higher forms could not get started.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Blessings,
    Lee
    Last edited by lee_merrill; 01-21-2020 at 01:42 PM.
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  7. #76
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,463
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    We can estimate the probability of certain events in nature, such as the formation of a biomolecule randomly.
    Only if we know every possible pathway by which it can form. Which takes us back to my earlier point: we will never know if there is something that we don't know about yet.


    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Yes, I have read it, and it seems reasonable to me.
    Well, let's go through it, shall we? For starters, it dates from 1976, which means it's so far out of date on the biology that it's essentially meaningless. But hey, why should it matter, given the person writing it wasn't a biologist, so shouldn't be expected to know the field anyway.

    Next, he's calculating the probability of life arising by calculating the probability of the instant appearance of an entire genome, which nobody who knows biology thinks actually happened. Then he suddenly switches to negative entropy, making the typical creationist mistake of assuming the earth is a closed system (which it's not). He then switches to Cytochrome C, a mature, highly evolved protein complex, which is completely unlike anything that would have existed at the origin of life. Yet he uses its probability of appearing at random as if it's relevant. He then refers to amino acid length as "too short to code a living system", apparently unaware that amino acids don't encode genetic information. Then he switches to geology, and makes a completely unsubstantiated and irrelevant claim. And then he accuses his opponents of having faith.

    It's a hot mess, an incoherent mix of fragments of standard creationist arguments presented in random order.

    If it seems reasonable to you, the only conclusion i can reach is that you are simply not reasonable, in that you'll accept anything, no matter how incoherent, if you think it supports what you want to believe.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  8. Amen Roy, HMS_Beagle, Leonhard amen'd this post.
  9. #77
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,386
    Amen (Given)
    464
    Amen (Received)
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    Only if we know every possible pathway by which it can form. Which takes us back to my earlier point: we will never know if there is something that we don't know about yet.
    No, we only need to be able to say our knowledge of the situation is reasonably comprehensive.

    Next, he's calculating the probability of life arising by calculating the probability of the instant appearance of an entire genome, which nobody who knows biology thinks actually happened.
    No, he's using cytochrome c as an analog for a complex first biomolecule.

    Then he suddenly switches to negative entropy, making the typical creationist mistake of assuming the earth is a closed system (which it's not).
    Well, he says there's no such thing as negative entropy, and instead says let's use complexity, in the information theoretic sense. This would not seem to imply that the earth is a closed system.

    He then switches to Cytochrome C, a mature, highly evolved protein complex, which is completely unlike anything that would have existed at the origin of life. Yet he uses its probability of appearing at random as if it's relevant. He then refers to amino acid length as "too short to code a living system", apparently unaware that amino acids don't encode genetic information.
    Well, again, this is only used as an analogous biomolecule. You may substitute nucleotides for amino acids if you wish.

    Then he switches to geology, and makes a completely unsubstantiated and irrelevant claim. And then he accuses his opponents of having faith.
    Do you mean his statement about geological evidence? I think that includes biological evidence on a geological timescale.

    To refute him you must therefore refute his argument.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  10. #78
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,463
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    No, we only need to be able to say our knowledge of the situation is reasonably comprehensive.
    And how do we say that about possible chemical environments on the early earth? There's been dozens of papers about possible unrecognized chemical pathways in the last few years alone. You're willing to declare we know all we need to right now, even as scientists are busy studying additional ones?

    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    To refute him you must therefore refute his argument.
    He doesn't make an argument. He makes a bunch of nonsensical statements, many of which we already know are bogus.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  11. Amen HMS_Beagle amen'd this post.
  12. #79
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,763
    Amen (Given)
    1640
    Amen (Received)
    1006
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    We can estimate the probability of certain events in nature, such as the formation of a biomolecule randomly.
    Biomolecules do not form randomly as previously documented.

    My point was that forensic analysis is acceptable and widely acknowledged.
    Only in forensic medicine.

    Yes, I have read it, and it seems reasonable to me.

    Source: Hubert Yockey

    Taking into account only the effect of the racemic mixture the longest genome which could be expected with 95 % confidence in 109 years corresponds to only 49 amino acid residues. This is much too short to code a living system so evolution to higher forms could not get started.

    © Copyright Original Source

    You lack the knowledge of the biological sciences to realize this is gibberish.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-22-2020 at 08:04 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  13. #80
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,386
    Amen (Given)
    464
    Amen (Received)
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    And how do we say that about possible chemical environments on the early earth? There's been dozens of papers about possible unrecognized chemical pathways in the last few years alone. You're willing to declare we know all we need to right now, even as scientists are busy studying additional ones?
    I think we know enough to estimate the probability of a biomolecule forming randomly.

    He doesn't make an argument. He makes a bunch of nonsensical statements, many of which we already know are bogus.
    He does indeed make an argument, good enough to be published. Are you implying that the editors of the Journal of Theoretical Biology were duped?!

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •