Miller-Urey experiment - Proof of Evolution?

[Dancing David]

And a load of other people wanting to make your point, and doing the same thing at that website, but getting 0 or 1 TTTT would not have posted, because the results wouldn't have supported them.

HUH?

Is that what you would do? That is not what I did, what a funny bug you are! Please remember that in the four coin set that there are 24 permutations (in order) and that each of them is as uniques as HHHH, so you could choose a combination and then I can go get a trial if you want, and then you reveal the combination. It doesn't matter.

The point is just that you can get random sets of objects and that the probability of distribution only matters in large aggregates.

Tell you what i can ven do this and generate sets to control which comination I use, the time on my desktop is no 10:53 am CDT,

Here is the frist number determining what shall be called a head
Here are your random numbers:

1 Timestamp: 2008-10-31 15:54:42 UTC

Now I will go get a sixteen trial set of four flips:
0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1
0 1 1 1
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
1 0 0 1
0 1 1 1
0 0 0 1
0 0 1 1
1 0 1 0
1 1 0 1
0 1 0 1
1 0 0 1
1 1 0 0
0 1 1 0
Timestamp: 2008-10-31 15:56:11 UTC

And now for the combination
1 0 1 0
Timestamp: 2008-10-31 15:57:18 UTC



Now that last one is the match for our unique 1/16 combination (order)

[Rodney]

Each toss is .5 and if you did a trillion trials of 1,000 flips, which is a huge number of tosses I admit, you will get runs of 900 heads, maybe not a huge number of them but they will occur.
No, they won't. If you don't believe me, do you disbelieve Perpetual Student's calculation that the odds of a run of 900 heads in 1000 tosses of a fair coin are on the order of only one in 4.8*10^157? A trillion is only 10^12. Even if you did a trigintillion tosses (10^93), the odds of a run of 900 heads in 1000 tosses of a fair coin are effectively zero.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Someone should declare the last dozens (hundreds?) of posts to be off topic because no one has demonstrated any connection between probability and the Miller-Urey experiments or abiogenesis in general.

[rocketdodger]

Which is why it's ridiculous to use P(D|H), as Rodney is doing, when what everyone (including Rodney) wants to know is P(H|D). The problem is we have to know P(H) to be able to get P(H|D). But if we knew with certainty the value of P(H) these threads would be much shorter. Instead we have to rely on estimates (a.k.a educated guesses) of P(H), inferred from such things as the Miller-Urey experiment and the size and age of the universe.

So the argument is really about whose estimate of P(H) is the most reasonable.

I would suggest most people consider estimates based on consistent sources of information (e.g., scientific experiments carried out several times, each giving consistent results) more reasonable than those based on inconsistent sources of information (e.g., religion, with varied and inconsistent (creation) stories).

What is H and D? I haven't read the entire thread...

[JJM]

What assumptions and methods are used to estimate the probability of life coming into existence?In his silly book "Darwin's Black Box" Mike Behe offers a calculation of how long it would take to develop the blood clotting system. To nobody's surprise, the Earth is not old-enough. He had set one of his parameters at 10,000; I changed that to the more reasonable figure of 30. That allows the clotting system to develop in 59 years.

I think their assumptions and methods are developed to give the desired answer. :gasp:

[rocketdodger]

No, they won't. If you don't believe me, do you disbelieve Perpetual Student's calculation that the odds of a run of 900 heads in 1000 tosses of a fair coin are on the order of only one in 4.8*10^157? A trillion is only 10^12. Even if you did a trigintillion tosses (10^93), the odds of a run of 900 heads in 1000 tosses of a fair coin are effectively zero.

I don't know an easy way to make that calculation.

Anyone want to walk through it?

It doesn't matter anyway, because if the odds are not zero, and the event occurs once, you can't make any argument about whether or not the run was rigged. Point being, even if the probability of our existence is tiny, we have only one existence to compare it to -- you can't claim the universe was rigged.

[applecorped]

Even if you did a trigintillion tosses (10^93), the odds of a run of 900 heads in 1000 tosses of a fair coin are effectively zero.

Still better odds than for a deity creating life.

[Silentknight]

Yeah, I've been wondering. What exactly are the odds of a deity coming together all on its own, by sheer random chance, without cause or contingency? Even if one grants for the sake of argument that godlike beings exist, what are the chances that any one would be identical to the god of a single religion, from a particular culture, from a certain region of the world, on this specific rocky planet, orbiting this yellow sun, in this exact galaxy, of which there are hundreds of billions in the universe? What are the chances that anything is going to be an exact match to a god defined along such narrow criteria?

[Dancing David]

No, they won't. If you don't believe me, do you disbelieve Perpetual Student's calculation that the odds of a run of 900 heads in 1000 tosses of a fair coin are on the order of only one in 4.8*10^157? A trillion is only 10^12. Even if you did a trigintillion tosses (10^93), the odds of a run of 900 heads in 1000 tosses of a fair coin are effectively zero.


That is good Rodeny, ignore my other post, I said a trillion runs of 1,000 flips, up that is like, 1012 x 103 and just like other anamaolies a run of 900 can occur, but please ignore my other paosts, it makes it look like I tromped all over your logic and you can't respond to it.

So If i toss a coin twice and it comes up heads twice, and I flip it a third time, what is the chance it will be heads on the third toss?

Can you answer a simple question?

[Dancing David]

Rodney:
Obviously, the example I gave was flawed. My calculations show the odds to be one in 4.8*10^157, which is not much of a difference from your results.
So, rather than a few trillion coin tosses, lets have 10^10,000 coin tosses. Now I would venture that we would have many stretches of 900 out of 1000 heads.
I'm not sure how this discussion started, but if we are looking for the astronomical number of atoms and molecules with opportunities to combine over a billion years to make larger organic molecules in the early earth, we are talking about "off the scale" numbers. I have never attempted to estimate this. It would be an interesting exercise. Obviously it happened, so the opportunities overcame the odds against it. Paranormal explanations are not needed.


Just to rub your face in it Rodeny here is what Perpetual Student said.

So can you answer this question

I'm not sure how this discussion started, but if we are looking for the astronomical number of atoms and molecules with opportunities to combine over a billion years to make larger organic molecules in the early earth, we are talking about "off the scale" numbers. I have never attempted to estimate this. It would be an interesting exercise. Obviously it happened, so the opportunities overcame the odds against it.

Nope, lets talk about the Ganzfeld again shall we?

[Dancing David]

0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
1 0 0 1
0 1 1 0
0 1 1 1
1 1 0 1
1 0 0 0
1 0 1 1
0 1 0 0
1 0 1 0
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 0 1 0
0 0 0 1
0 1 0 1
1 1 0 0
Timestamp: 2008-10-31 19:47:39 UTC

[Dancing David]

post 251 there are
3 occurances of a number twice and one occurance of a number three times, so the probability of that experiements is

(1/256)3x 1/4096 x (1/16)7 so the odds that it would occur are
1/18,466,744,073,709,551,616 clearly impossible.

the second experiment in post 261 has two double occurances so its odds are better,

(1/256)2 x (1/16)12 or
1/18,466,744,073,709,551,616 clearly impossible.

Darn random number generator must be broken!

Any sequence of heads and tails in sets of four is (1/16)16 is
1/18,466,744,073,709,551,616

or just about ZERO!

[Rodney]

That is good Rodeny, ignore my other post, I said a trillion runs of 1,000 flips, up that is like, 1012 x 103 and just like other anamaolies a run of 900 can occur, but please ignore my other paosts, it makes it look like I tromped all over your logic and you can't respond to it.
A trillion runs of 1,000 flips is a quadrillion flips (10^15). That's a tad short of 4.8*10^157, which is what Perpetual Student calculates the odds are of 900 heads occurring in 1,000 flips.

So If i toss a coin twice and it comes up heads twice, and I flip it a third time, what is the chance it will be heads on the third toss?

Can you answer a simple question?
If the coin is fair and the toss is unbiased, the answer is 50%. But how is that in any way relevant to the point I'm making?

[Rodney]

I don't know an easy way to make that calculation.

Anyone want to walk through it?
The number of different patterns from tossing a coin 1,000 times is 2^1000. That works out to be 1.07*10^301. The number of ways that 900 heads can occur is 1000!/(900!100!). That works out to be 6.39*10^139. Dividing that number into 1.07*10^301 works out to be 1.68*10^161, according to my math. If you add to this the odds of getting 901-1000 heads, the odds of getting 900 or more heads works out to be 1.49*10^161, again according to my math. Perpetual Student gets a slightly different number, but it has no significant effect on my point.

It doesn't matter anyway, because if the odds are not zero, and the event occurs once, you can't make any argument about whether or not the run was rigged. Point being, even if the probability of our existence is tiny, we have only one existence to compare it to -- you can't claim the universe was rigged.
You're begging the question. Either the universe came into existence as a result of random events or it did not.

[RecoveringYuppy]

These physical laws are finely tuned to an incredible degree, allowing life, embodied mentality, intentionality, morality, aesthetics etc.. to exist.
If that is not evidence of disembodied mind, then what, conceivably, could be?
Could you take this up with Rodney? He seems to think the odds against life require a miracle.

You are a mind creating order just by thinking about it. The order you, as a mind, are creating, in this case, is the argument that we do not know of any minds who can create order just by thinking about it.
It's a self-defeating approach, that should be obvious.


Unfortuately for your argument we humans can't create order. All the order that we create is at the expense of order elsewhere. And there are mindless and brainless processes that do that all over the place.

[sol invictus]

Rodney, what are the odds that you exist? Let's be broad-minded and define "you" to mean "a human being with identical DNA" (I hope you don't have an identical twin). So: what are the odds that you exist?

According to creationistthink, the odds you exist are 1 divided by the number of possible human genomes. Human genomes differ at of order 1,000,000 locations, each a single nucleotide. Since there are four options (ACTG) at each location, there are about 4^1,000,000 possible human genomes, or about 10^600,000. So the odds you exist are 10^-600,000 - which is zero by your logic.

Since there's no point in me wasting any more of my time conversing with an imaginary being, I'm going to stop here.

[Rodney]

Could you take this up with Rodney? He seems to think the odds against life require a miracle.
To clarify, I think that believing a random process brought the universe into existence requires a phenomenal amount of faith in luck and further believing that random process just happened to create conditions that would result in the creation of life requires an additional phenomenal amount of faith in luck.

[Wowbagger]

To clarify, I think that believing a random process brought the universe into existence requires a phenomenal amount of faith in luck and further believing that random process just happened to create conditions that would result in the creation of life requires an additional phenomenal amount of faith in luck. This argument fails to consider these points (some of which I am repeating):

1. The process of selection is NON-RANDOM. You are correct in claiming a random process would require lots of faith and luck and what not. But, the process we are talking about is an ALGORITHM, and one that is fundamentally NON-RANDOM.

2. Even so, there is no faith in any incredible amount of luck. Just like the fact that no faith is required for SOMEONE to win the lottery jackpot. We know life is inevitably going to crop up SOMEWHERE in the Universe, the fact that Earth got it, and that we are carbon-based, etc. is just as interesting as the particular person who won the lotto.

3. The science of abiogenesis is empirical, and reliably repeatable, in nature., and obtains even more reliable results, over time. If abiogenesis was all based on luck, you would see the opposite trend.

4. Assuming some undetectable, paranormal entity was necessary seems to require more faith, than building algorithms by which life could emerge in any number of natural settings without one.

No amount of arguing about coin flipping is going to change these four points.

[Perpetual Student]

Any probability argument against existence (creation) must also consider the odds against the existence of a being, some beings or other non-natural forces or entities to account for existence (creation).
So how did such a paranormal entity or entities come about? What are the odds against such existence? Have you done the calculations, Rodney?

[articulett]

To clarify, I think that believing a random process brought the universe into existence requires a phenomenal amount of faith in luck and further believing that random process just happened to create conditions that would result in the creation of life requires an additional phenomenal amount of faith in luck.

Really? I think that thinking an invisible magic man did it requires a lot of faith. And I think it requires a lot of luck to think that you somehow learned the singular truth about this invisible magic man that is indistinguishable from all the invisible magical entities humans have been inventing for eons to explain that which they didn't understand (or to sacrifice to in order to get goodies or protection).

[applecorped]

To clarify, I think that believing a random process brought the universe into existence requires a phenomenal amount of faith in luck and further believing that random process just happened to create conditions that would result in the creation of life requires an additional phenomenal amount of faith in luck.

Luck has nothing to do with it.

[paximperium]

A trillion runs of 1,000 flips is a quadrillion flips (10^15). That's a tad short of 4.8*10^157, which is what Perpetual Student calculates the odds are of 900 heads occurring in 1,000 flips.
So?


If the coin is fair and the toss is unbiased, the answer is 50%. But how is that in any way relevant to the point I'm making?
You had a point? I thought you just enjoyed making up large numbers to argue against yourself.

The number of different patterns from tossing a coin 1,000 times is 2^1000. That works out to be 1.07*10^301. The number of ways that 900 heads can occur is 1000!/(900!100!). That works out to be 6.39*10^139. Dividing that number into 1.07*10^301 works out to be 1.68*10^161, according to my math. If you add to this the odds of getting 901-1000 heads, the odds of getting 900 or more heads works out to be 1.49*10^161, again according to my math. Perpetual Student gets a slightly different number, but it has no significant effect on my point.

So? What was your point?


You're begging the question. Either the universe came into existence as a result of random events or it did not.
To clarify, I think that believing a random process brought the universe into existence requires a phenomenal amount of faith in luck and further believing that random process just happened to create conditions that would result in the creation of life requires an additional phenomenal amount of faith in luck.
Nope. YOU are the one claiming the universe(weren't we talking about abiogenesis? Are you getting mixed up?) came into existence via random events. People have mentioned it multiple multiple times that it is not random and you have blatantly ignored them.

Why don't YOU back up YOUR own claims?
YOUR continued attack against YOUR own claim is exceedingly funny and shows how downright dishonest you are.

I say keep posting. You are a great example as to the honesty of Creationists.

[articulett]

Luck has nothing to do with it.

Ah... but think of the luck Rodney must have had to have been born into or stumbled upon the true supernatural belief at the right time in the universe where such important things could be known by him. Think of all those poor others born into the wrong belief systems and believing the wrong things about gods, demons, ancestors, and so forth... believing in reincarnation and who knows what else-- and indoctrinated wrongly... but Rodney... lucky Rodney-- he has the truth... how lucky can you get?? Talk about luck! Think of the millions who believed in Zeus or in the reincarnation of the Buddha etc.... all wrong... think of the poor Mormons and their wrong god beliefs-- think of those born to Scientologist Parents or Moonies or Hindus... all so wrong... but Rodney--lucky Rodney-- he has faith in the one really true invisible man who poofed humans into existence and cares especially about him!

So many beliefs and only one truth-- and Rodney has it. What are the odds of that?!

Talk about faith and unimaginable luck... zowie!

[Rodney]

The process of selection is NON-RANDOM. You are correct in claiming a random process would require lots of faith and luck and what not. But, the process we are talking about is an ALGORITHM, and one that is fundamentally NON-RANDOM.
I'm talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. Give me your CliffsNotes version of how life came into existence.

[Rodney]

Think of all those poor others born into the wrong belief systems and believing the wrong things about gods, demons, ancestors, and so forth... believing in reincarnation and who knows what else
But I do believe in reincarnation. In fact, in your last life, you were my slave and now you've . . . regressed. ;)

[paximperium]

I'm talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. Give me your CliffsNotes version of how life came into existence.
Why?

I believe transdimensional beings from Dimension Sexy Bikini Babes, popped into existence. They got bored, came to this dimension to create life, hid all the evidence of their little games and dissipated into the cosmos. They are now a part of and yet not a part of the cosmos.

Look at the evidence. Bikinis all over the place. Even neandethals wore bikinis. In fact all clothing are bikinis, just different interpretations of the original.
How else can you explain the human eye? It looks just a Bikini Babe's own eye. How else can you explain nature? It had to be designed by them.

If you pray real hard(or take a bong hit), you can feel their presence and they continue to answer my prayers because I have FAITH.

Come on Rodney. What are the probabilities of this not occurring?

[Dancing David]

A trillion runs of 1,000 flips is a quadrillion flips (10^15). That's a tad short of 4.8*10^157, which is what Perpetual Student calculates the odds are of 900 heads occurring in 1,000 flips.


If the coin is fair and the toss is unbiased, the answer is 50%. But how is that in any way relevant to the point I'm making?

Um, that is not the logic you were using earlier, so you adimit that probability and distribution of a run of random numbers are two speperate things?

Or are you going to say that Musgrave is still misleading?

[Wowbagger]

I'm talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. Give me your CliffsNotes version of how life came into existence. So was I. Why can't the processes of abiogenesis also be fundamentally algorithmic in nature? Especially when the concepts of self-organizing networks are applied.

I don't have my own Cliffs Notes version prepared, yet. But, I can recommend some books:

The Emergence of Life on Earth, by Iris Fey, is an excellent overview of the science. You might not think the particular history of discoveries is relevent, right now, but it does help you understand the discipline involved in making these discoveries. Though, it hardly qualifies as a "Cliffs Notes", it is still a good read, and one of my favorite books on the subject.

Life's Origins, edited by William Schopf, is a collection of essays from several authors, who contribute their own pieces to the puzzle. The whole thing adds up to a very nice Cliff-Notes type of thing.

I wish I could recommend The Emergence of Everything, by Harold Morowitz. The problem is that it is a little too "Cliff-Notesy". It is big on the Big-Picture Concepts, but hardly ever goes into detail. It is real science, I can assure you, but it reads "like a story" a little bit.

Stuart Kauffman's At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity is good for communicating the self-organizing networks thing I was just talking about, as applied to the first proto-cells. And, it also has other algorithmic things to talk about, regarding the origins of life. (Though, some of his ideas are a little on the controversial side.) It even has a chapter called "We the Inevitable", which talks about how life in the Universe would have came about, all by itself, eventually, given everything we currently know about physics and chemistry and such.

What all of these books have in common is that NONE OF THEM resort to wild probabilities, randomness or luck. They all discuss the ideas of life's origins in a very scientifically plausible manner, using arguments from physics and chemistry and various algorithmic tendancies that have been discovered.

We do not have all the answers, yet. But, the fact that we keep collecting facts in this endeavor, is indicitive that something much more than wild chance is considered, here.

So, pick a book, and get reading!

[Dancing David]

To clarify, I think that believing a random process brought the universe into existence requires a phenomenal amount of faith in luck and further believing that random process just happened to create conditions that would result in the creation of life requires an additional phenomenal amount of faith in luck.


So you don't believe in catalysts, okay.

[arthwollipot]

So, pick a book, and get reading!I'll also add The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies. It was written before he won the Templeton Prize, but the fact that Davies is sympathetic to religion should make it more palatable to a religious person than one written by a godless atheist.

[Dancing David]

I'm talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. Give me your CliffsNotes version of how life came into existence.


Chapter One, amino acids
Chapter Two, catalysts
Chapter Three, self catalyzing sets
Chapter Four , lipids.
Chapter Five, self catalyzing sets that include lipids
Chapter Six, wind on the puddle seperates a bit of an SCS in a lipid layer
Chapetr Seven, who many times is once a year in a billion years.
Chapter Eight, what are 1/1,000,000 odds.
Chapter Nine, what if there are more than two molecules in the puddle?
Chapter Ten, what if they bounce against each other more than once a year?
Chapter Eleven, what if the odds are 1/100?
Chapter Twelve, how many minutes are there in a million years?
Chapter Thirteen, how catalyzing sets are not luck.

[Dancing David]

0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 1 1
0 0 1 0
0 1 0 0
1 1 0 0
0 1 1 1
1 1 0 1
0 1 1 0
1 1 1 1
1 1 0 0
1 1 1 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 0 1
0 0 1 0
0 1 0 1
Timestamp: 2008-11-01 03:07:00 UTC

OMG!

The odds of that happening are 1/18,446,744,073,709,551,506

Darn random numbers!

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't know why so much bandwidth is being devoted to an event that obviously occured. Whenever Creationists start tangenting into probability and statistics they're admitting they can't argue the actual science and would rather muddy the waters with handwaving and number crunching. Oh and engage in the Gish Gallop...

You're begging the question. Either the universe came into existence as a result of random events or it did not.

...see.

[rocketdodger]

The number of different patterns from tossing a coin 1,000 times is 2^1000. That works out to be 1.07*10^301. The number of ways that 900 heads can occur is 1000!/(900!100!). That works out to be 6.39*10^139. Dividing that number into 1.07*10^301 works out to be 1.68*10^161, according to my math. If you add to this the odds of getting 901-1000 heads, the odds of getting 900 or more heads works out to be 1.49*10^161, again according to my math. Perpetual Student gets a slightly different number, but it has no significant effect on my point.

Thank you. I figured it would be something like that, but it has been a long time since I had to do any such calculations!

You're begging the question. Either the universe came into existence as a result of random events or it did not.

Not only am I begging the question, I am asserting that the question cannot be answered.

Think about it. Suppose 1.49 * 10^161 people toss 1000 coins. Odds are, one of them will get a string of 900 heads.

What is that person to think? Are they to think that a supernatural force interfered with the tossing, because the chances they would have gotten 900 heads is so slim, or are they to think they just got lucky?

How could they tell the difference?

[Perpetual Student]

Any probability argument against existence (creation) must also consider the odds against the existence of a being, some beings or other non-natural forces or entities to account for existence (creation).
So how did such a paranormal entity or entities come about? What are the odds against such existence? Have you done the calculations, Rodney?

So how about it, Rodney? My analysis shows the probability of the existence of paranormal entities is merely one in 10^10^10^10^10. What does your mathematics give you?

[articulett]

I'll also add The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies. It was written before he won the Templeton Prize, but the fact that Davies is sympathetic to religion should make it more palatable to a religious person than one written by a godless atheist.

Oh, don't bother Rodney with things he doesn't understand like evidence! You need a bit of education for that stuff. Rodney lucked out--haven't you heard-- he got the really true truth via faith--he, of all people, happen to have been indoctrinated with the right true supernatural unevidenced story of how life came to be! And in order to understand this story, you can't believe in things like evidence and (gasp) evolution. You just have to be lucky enough to be born into the right "belief system"! How dare you mess with his "happily ever after" by trying to suggest he look at evidence. Next thing you know, you'll be tempting his synapses with Francis Collins, the evangelical Christian geneticist who wrote The Language of God about the fascinating information uncovered from his decoding of the human genome.

[Ivor the Engineer]

What is H and D? I haven't read the entire thread...

H is a hypothesis and D is the observed data. The problem with Rodney's method of searching for truth is he uses the probability of the observed data, D, given the hypothesis, H, is true (written P(D|H)). But this is not the answer to the question everyone (including Rodney) wants to know. The actual question is: Given the observed data, D, what is the probability of the hypothesis, H (written P(H|D))?

These are linked via Bayes' rule:

P(H|D) = P(D|H).P(H)/P(D)

The problem is how to get P(H). We rely on the consistency of the results of experiments and logical reasoning to give us a subjective estimate of the probability of a particular hypothesis.

In the case of flipping a fair coin 1000 times and getting 900 heads, this gives a P(D|H) of <insert very small number here>, but tells us nothing about the fairness of the coin since it was already assumed to be fair to work out the probability!

In the case of abiogenesis what Rodney does is assume a Strawman hypothesis, specifically "Abiogenesis happened by random chance", giving a P(D|H) which is tiny, thus requiring a P(H) (the prior estimate of the probability of the hypothesis being true) practically equal to 1. I.e. he claims believers in abiogenesis rely just as much on faith as he does.

However, Wowbagger has already pointed out that coin flips are not really a suitable model; we know some chemical reactions are more likely than others. The Miller-Urey experiment also shows that amino acids can be formed in a much shorter time frame than Rodney's calculations would predict.

[Rodney]

Chapter One, amino acids
Chapter Two, catalysts
Chapter Three, self catalyzing sets
Chapter Four , lipids.
Chapter Five, self catalyzing sets that include lipids
Chapter Six, wind on the puddle seperates a bit of an SCS in a lipid layer
Chapetr Seven, who many times is once a year in a billion years.
Chapter Eight, what are 1/1,000,000 odds.
Chapter Nine, what if there are more than two molecules in the puddle?
Chapter Ten, what if they bounce against each other more than once a year?
Chapter Eleven, what if the odds are 1/100?
Chapter Twelve, how many minutes are there in a million years?
Chapter Thirteen, how catalyzing sets are not luck.
So why do you suppose that scientists such as Dr. Miller haven't been able to get beyond Chapter 1?

[articulett]

We pretty much have recreated the assorted steps... we can try and let it go on it's own, but experience shows us that takes eons of natural selection along with umpteen millions of trials and error samples...

Rodney, we can make a human in a petri dish... we understand the process... we don't need to make a sperm and egg from scratch... see? (I thought not.) It was once believed that only gods could do that.

But even if Scientists couldn't recreate life as it started, what in the hells makes you think an invisible man that you were indoctrinated to believe in could? And how, why, and when? What's the evidence? By what mechanism? Why did he take so long and create so much waste and suffering in the process... why only on this speck of the universe as far as we know???? Why would he do it in such a slow, slapdash way that it looks cobbled together by trial and error over long periods of time with tremendous numbers of failures on the way to the "successes"?

[Rodney]

In the case of flipping a fair coin 1000 times and getting 900 heads, this gives a P(D|H) of <insert very small number here>, but tells us nothing about the fairness of the coin since it was already assumed to be fair to work out the probability!
I'm still unclear what your reaction would be to obtaining 900 heads in 1000 flips of a coin. And, while you're thinking about that issue, what is your opinion about the accuracy of this quote from Dr. Musgrave's article:

"Let's go back to our example with the coins. Say it takes a minute to toss the coins 4 times; to generate HHHH would take on average 8 minutes."

[Dancing David]

So why do you suppose that scientists such as Dr. Miller haven't been able to get beyond Chapter 1?

Wow, who says they haven't?

[Rodney]

We pretty much have recreated the assorted steps... we can try and let it go on it's own, but experience shows us that takes eons of natural selection along with umpteen millions of trials and error samples...
But why can't this supposed process be short-circuited by intelligent scientists in a laboratory?

Rodney, we can make a human in a petri dish... we understand the process... we don't need to make a sperm and egg from scratch... see? (I thought not.) I'll settle for one cell.

It was once believed that only gods could do that.
But even if Scientists couldn't recreate life as it started, what in the hells makes you think an invisible man that you were indoctrinated to believe in could? And how, why, and when? What's the evidence? By what mechanism? Why did he take so long and create so much waste and suffering in the process... why only on this speck of the universe as far as we know???? Why would he do it in such a slow, slapdash way that it looks cobbled together by trial and error over long periods of time with tremendous numbers of failures on the way to the "successes"?
Who knows? I just find your alternative less likely, particularly when I read what your abiogenesis guru has to say about probability.

[Rodney]

Wow, who says they haven't?
Do you have evidence that they have? If so, what is it?

[Wowbagger]

Chapter One, amino acids
(snip)For some reason, I like that answer! I may adapt portions of it for my own CliffsNotes version.

So why do you suppose that scientists such as Dr. Miller haven't been able to get beyond Chapter 1?Many scientists have already covered ALL of those chapters fairly well. You simply haven't read up on them, yet. But, that's okay! I listed some books that will fill in some of them for you. (Assuming you really are interested in this endeavor, and not just here to troll around. You are interested in this stuff, right? I would hate to think someone as intelligent and enthusiastic as you would only be interested in endless arguing about these things)

[paximperium]

Do you have evidence that they have? If so, what is it?
I have never seen anyone so proud of their own ignorance before.

Each step mentioned has been studied and covered, some decades ago. We just haven't connected all the dots yet. We keep looking and searching for the answers. We don't have the entire picture but we have a pretty good sketch of it.

So what do you have? Magic?
What do Creationists do? Sit on their asses and say Goddidit?

Tell us. What is your alternative?

[articulett]

So let's imagine we lay out all the information for Rodney to try and assimilate in his less than scientifically educated mind... do you think, he'll slap his forehead and say, "by golly, it looks like it could have happened with my invisible friend involved??--maybe these scientist-fellows know what they are talking about after all!" Or would it be more like Behe at the Dover trial surrounded by pages and pages dismantling his notion that the flagellum and the blood clotting cascade were "irreducibly complex" all while claiming that, though he hadn't read any of them, none of them made his point any less valid? Hmm... I wonder what the odds of the latter are?

Do you think that creotards win the arrogance/ignorance award for having the most cognitive dissonance, or could that prize possibly go to another segment of the woo population?

(Do they think that one daythat Smithsonian is going to have evidence of a talking snake amongst it's Middle Eastern fossils and rooms where there's evidence that a magic invisible guy life into existence?)

[paximperium]

I'll settle for one cell.

Just curious, if and when we create a living replicating cell, then what?
How would that change any of your beliefs?

PS: Those folks up in Berkeley and Stanford have already developed an basic artificial cell wall and artificial DNA. They're in the process of getting the process right.

So tell me, Rodney...what would you do when we do develop a cell?

[articulett]

Just curious, if and when we create a living replicating cell, then what?
How would that change any of your beliefs?

PS: Those folks up in Berkeley and Stanford have already developed an basic artificial cell wall and artificial DNA. They're in the process of getting the process right.

So tell me, Rodney...what would you do when we do develop a cell?

deny, deny deny?

or

move the goalpost?

[Wowbagger]

Articulett, we are NOT trying to make Rodney believe in abiogenesis. At least I am not. And, I doubt most of us are. Rodney is still free to believe in God, if he wants to.

What we are trying to do is clarify the science. His ideas about the science were wrong. He does NOT have to accept them, but at least he will know where we stand.

Both abiogenesis/evolution and Creationism/I.D. reject the notion that luck and/or random chance had anything to do with life emerging. One replaces that with natural processes and algorithms (that we continue to learn about), the other with a mysterious supernatural entity (that we continue to know nothing about). THAT is the point we are trying to get across!!

Again, he does not need to accept these arguments, if he does not want to. But, now it is dishonest for him to claim our ideas rely on chance, because now he should know better.

[sol invictus]

I'm still unclear what your reaction would be to obtaining 900 heads in 1000 flips of a coin.

With coins one holds a set of reasonable beliefs - for example, that each flip is independent of every other. That kind of thing, if true, means that flipping 900 heads out of 1000 is fantastically unlikely if the coin is fair.

But there are lots of other sets of beliefs about the coin (for example, that each flip is almost certain to be identical to the one before) for which such an occurrence is routine - and more, that what you regard as a typical coin flip sequence would be absurdly improbable.

If you hold no prior beliefs at all, 900/1000 heads is meaningless, since nothing privileges that particular statistical test over any other. When creationists calculate the "odds" of life occurring, they are doing so according to a set of unjustified - actually, demonstrably false - beliefs. The results are empty.

[rocketdodger]

H is a hypothesis and D is the observed data. The problem with Rodney's method of searching for truth is he uses the probability of the observed data, D, given the hypothesis, H, is true (written P(D|H)). But this is not the answer to the question everyone (including Rodney) wants to know. The actual question is: Given the observed data, D, what is the probability of the hypothesis, H (written P(H|D))?

These are linked via Bayes' rule:

P(H|D) = P(D|H).P(H)/P(D)

The problem is how to get P(H). We rely on the consistency of the results of experiments and logical reasoning to give us a subjective estimate of the probability of a particular hypothesis.

In the case of flipping a fair coin 1000 times and getting 900 heads, this gives a P(D|H) of <insert very small number here>, but tells us nothing about the fairness of the coin since it was already assumed to be fair to work out the probability!

In the case of abiogenesis what Rodney does is assume a Strawman hypothesis, specifically "Abiogenesis happened by random chance", giving a P(D|H) which is tiny, thus requiring a P(H) (the prior estimate of the probability of the hypothesis being true) practically equal to 1. I.e. he claims believers in abiogenesis rely just as much on faith as he does.

However, Wowbagger has already pointed out that coin flips are not really a suitable model; we know some chemical reactions are more likely than others. The Miller-Urey experiment also shows that amino acids can be formed in a much shorter time frame than Rodney's calculations would predict.

Ah. I am very familiar with bayesian methods.

So my argument, in this context, is as follows (where H is a materialistic hypothesis and h is a theistic alternative).

1) Theists are unable to estimate, with any validity, P(h).

2) By 1), Theists are unable to generate any valid value of P(h|D).

3) We exist.

4) By 3), we must accept the H or h that gives the highest value of P(H|D) or P(h|D) as our working hypothesis.

5) Materialists are able to estimate, with validity, P(H).

6) By 5), materialists are able to generate valid values of P(H|D).

7) Valid values, no matter how small, trump invalid values.

8) By 2), 4), 6), and 7), it is always more rational to use any H as a working hypothesis than any h.

In other words, since it is impossible to estimate the apriori probability of any theistic hypothesis being true, it is impossible to logically argue that any theistic hypothesis is more probable than any materialistic hypothesis.

[arthwollipot]

But why can't this supposed process be short-circuited by intelligent scientists in a laboratory?And what if it were? You only say that this proves nothing because it required the application of INTELLIGENCE.

[Ivor the Engineer]

With coins one holds a set of reasonable beliefs - for example, that each flip is independent of every other. That kind of thing, if true, means that flipping 900 heads out of 1000 is fantastically unlikely if the coin is fair.

<snip>

What is special about testing over 1000 flips? What if the next 1000 flips produced 100 heads and 900 tails?

Isn't it our knowledge and beliefs about the behaviour of unfair coins which prompts us to investigate?

[Dancing David]

Do you have evidence that they have? If so, what is it?


here is the deal Rodeney, you have all the data you asked for, I posted a preliminary idea of how abiogenesis may have taken place, now you have moved the goal posts, did I say that they had created a cell in the lab?

Do they need to reccreate the sun for the model of solar fusion to be accurate?
Do they need to recreate the earth for plate tectonics to be accurate?
Do ethologists need to make a chimpanzee from scratch to study them?


Are you denying that catalyzing agents exists?
Are you denying that self catalyzing sets exist?

[sol invictus]

What is special about testing over 1000 flips?

Nothing.

What if the next 1000 flips produced 100 heads and 900 tails?

That would be fantastically unlikely in any of the standard models people use for coins - but not at all unlikely if you change the rules a little.

Isn't it our knowledge and beliefs about the behaviour of unfair coins which prompts us to investigate?

Yes - that's what I was saying. If the set of possibilities is that each flip is an independent event that produces heads with probability p and tails with 1-p, you can use the data to constrain p and potentially rule out p=1/2. But if you have no such model, the data is useless and you cannot rule out a fair coin no matter what the result is.

[articulett]

All unfalsifiable claims have a "chance" at being the singular truth-- but so far science and empiricism are the only method of finding out verifiable truths that have a proven track record.

[Perpetual Student]

We don't have the entire picture but we have a pretty good sketch of it.

So what do you have? Magic?
What do Creationists do? Sit on their asses and say Goddidit?

Tell us. What is your alternative?

That is the core question that Rodney and his ilk avoid simply because the answers are totally unscientific and non mathematical. While they attempt to apply excruciating scrutiny to scientific arguments, they simply wave their hand at their "alternative" answers. It is astonishing to me that so much time and effort can be spent on this thread to questions of probabilility involving creation while at the same time there is no discussion of the alternative and its lack of science and mathematics.
When doing real science, if we have two competing scientific theories, we would not engage in detailed analysis of one theory while simply accepting the other because someone likes it.
What kind of debate is this? Let's get real!

[Naughtyhippo]

Righty-ho, I'm abandoning this useless arguement about statistics. Quite frankly, a non-zero probability can occur, by definition. Also, regardless of the trail and error nature of stuff, things, and the universe, Wowbagger has rightly pointed out that it isn't simply a matter of 'chance'. In certain environments, certain things can, and do, happen.*

Back to the OP. Given that the first life forms may have worked from a smaller range of amino acids, is it possible that the first life forms created the conditions neccesary for the other amino acids (that life on earth uses today) to be created and assimilated? How were the Murchison meteorite amino acids created? What governs the presence (or lack of - maybe more important, yes?) a racemic mixture?




*yes, I know I wanted to abandon the current thread direction, but why are the anti-abiogenisis concentrating on stats drivel, when the early Earth's atmosphere is a more interesting and possibly fruitful line of arguement?

[Dancing David]

Well, I for one am always impressed by the fine structure of the universe across all levels of scale. there is a huge amount of space, material and time.

The fact that organic materials seem to be all over the place says to me that there is little reason to assume that the arising of life here on the arth is somehow special.

There are stars every where that we look, it seems. In our galaxy and others we can see, there are huge molecular clouds that are full of organic chemicals.

So, if on does not say that there is some special privilege to life on this planet, here, then abiogenesis seems more likely.

Why some people don't like it is beyond me, the universe however doesn't care.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

*yes, I know I wanted to abandon the current thread direction, but why are the anti-abiogenisis concentrating on stats drivel, when the early Earth's atmosphere is a more interesting and possibly fruitful line of arguement?

As Paximperium and Perpetual Student have pointed out, Rodney has no evidence to support his favourite hypothesis (Goddidit), so instead he is fighting a negative campaign, hoping no one will notice this lack of evidence.

[applecorped]

Why some people don't like it is beyond me, the universe however doesn't care.

Neither does god (pick one).

[sol invictus]

Neither does god (pick one).

Really?

I've certainly never heard of a religion in which a god doesn't care whether or not people believe in her/him/it. If there ever was one, I don't think it lasted very long.

[applecorped]

Really?

I've certainly never heard of a religion in which a god doesn't care whether or not people believe in her/him/it. If there ever was one, I don't think it lasted very long.

If would actually have to exist in order to care. Doesn't exist = doesn't care.

[Dancing David]

If would actually have to exist in order to care. Doesn't exist = doesn't care.

Maybe this belongs in the meaningless questions thread. :D

[Wowbagger]

Are you denying that catalyzing agents exists?
Are you denying that self catalyzing sets exist?

Just to play Devil's Advocate, for a bit: If I were to (hypothetically) respond to that by saying "Why, yes! Yes, I DO thay deny catalyzing agents and self catalyzing sets actually exist!"

What would be your response? What papers can you toss into my face, to show me that they really do?!

Just out of curiosity.

[Dancing David]

I would just sigh and shake my head slowly, and tomorrow see what I could whomp up in the way of research to support my case.

(Of course the real research may have taken longer and been more haphazard than my scenario of recreation.) :D

[articulett]

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/forgotten-exper.html

Lightening and volcanic heat are catalyzing agents... so are amino acids... they all speed up or "jump start" (catalyze)chemical reactions including the formation of life. In fact, to grow an embryo, we often shock it in the petri dish... to get things "started".

[Wowbagger]

Here's my own brilliant, new formula for the origins of life:

Catalyst = Mega Probability Reducer

Find out how catalysts could come about, and you found yourself a way for otherwise improbable chemical reactions to take place, almost instantly!

[Wowbagger]

I would just sigh and shake my head slowly, and tomorrow see what I could whomp up in the way of research to support my case. Heh. I see you haven't answered my question. The DA in me is saying "typical evolutionist!" :p

[arthwollipot]

Given that the first life forms may have worked from a smaller range of amino acids, is it possible that the first life forms created the conditions neccesary for the other amino acids (that life on earth uses today) to be created and assimilated?I think this is extremely plausible. Given how opportunistic life is, I think that it would quite quickly evolve the capability to use whatever it could find.