Miller-Urey experiment - Proof of Evolution?

[applecorped]

This is interesting info and new to me. Anyone hear of this before?

"Re-analysis published in October 2008 of material from the experiments showed 22 amino acids rather than 5 were created in one apparatus. This was an apparatus thought to simulate an eruption of a volcano, with lightning. These new results provide stronger evidence that organic molecules can be synthesized from inorganic reactants."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

[Shalamar]

This really wouldn't be 'proof of evolution'. I think it would be more 'evidence of Abiogenesis.'

[paximperium]

The experiment is not proof of evolution. It is an experiment that gives a plausible method of abiogenesis.

Prior to the experiment, theists claim that no living substance could come from unliving substances and science had no evidence to refute that.

In the experiment, while the environ used is not the same as our proto-atmosphere, it did produce organic molecules from non-organic substances and this additional evidence adds to that. The proto-atmosphere hypothesis lost a bit popularity when other similarly plausible mechanisms such as underwater vents and panspermia came to the forefront.

What was once "impossible" as per theistic claims is now plausible...more plausible than magic creating man out of dirt for instance.

[applecorped]

This really wouldn't be 'proof of evolution'. I think it would be more 'evidence of Abiogenesis.'

I stand corrected. Thank you.

[Pixel42]

This is interesting info and new to me. Anyone hear of this before?
Yes, it was reported by the BBC a few days ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7675193.stm

[RecoveringYuppy]

Prior to the experiment, theists claim that no living substance could come from unliving substances and science had no evidence to refute that.

These new results provide stronger evidence that organic molecules can be synthesized from inorganic reactants."


I'm sure it's unintentional, but I think both those statements make the evidence sound weaker than it actually was and is. This may have been the most plausible natural pathway demonstrated but synthesizing organic chemicals from non organic had been done quite a few times before.

And I would think the most powerful response to a claim that life can't come from non-life would be that simple chemotropic and phototropic lifeforms turn non-life in to life by the megaton all over planet Earth and they do so by a variety of chemical mechanisms. So we actually know hundreds of ways chemistry can convert non-life to life, we just don't know the first.

So we don't know what the abiogenesis chemistry was, but wording that implies there is still some unexplained hard wall between life and non-life is long refuted.

[sanguine]

Prior to the experiment, theists claim that no living substance could come from unliving substances and science had no evidence to refute that.


On that note, some theists must have moved the goal posts a bit on this one*, as the first "living substance" that was made from unliving materials, to many people's minds, was urea (as synthesized by Friedrich Wohler in the early 19th century).

More on that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%B6hler_synthesis

The Urey-Miller experiment was still pretty cool and important, as I think a number of the basic building blocks of Earthly life looked "too complex" to have happened abiotically, at least on an intuitive basis. But it's not really new; the coolness of this latest finding is that all these samples were just hanging around in the old offices, and still produced novel and interesting results.


*I'm not shocked.

[Wowbagger]

Well, we still can't go from there, to complete living cells, yet. Though, I suspect we will be able to, in the future.

By studying abiogenesis theories, we learn more and more about how life could come about through natural causes, from non-life, even if we will never truly know all of the exact historic details.

[shadron]

The experiment is not proof of evolution. It is an experiment that gives a plausible method of abiogenesis.

Prior to the experiment, theists claim that no living substance could come from unliving substances and science had no evidence to refute that.

Ummmmmm, I've got to doubt that last statement there. Organic chemistry flourished in the 19th and especially the early 20th centuries, and I'm sure that a great number of "living substances" (however you want to define that) were fully synthesized. On example that popped out immediately is urea, and chemical synthesis of complex organic compounds (hormones, for example) were well underway. See, for more examples, the life of Julian Percy at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/julian/program.html; he synthesized physostigmine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physostigmine) and stigmasterol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmasterol) in the early 1930s.

[Skeptic Guy]

It was always known that the Miller - Urey experiment produced amino acids, what is new here is that there was a series of experiments (simulating the presence of volcanoes) that produced many more amino acids. What remains unknown is how those amino acids formed proteins and eventually "life". I don't think this changes much about our knowledge of abiogenesis.

[CapelDodger]

It was always known that the Miller - Urey experiment produced amino acids, what is new here is that there was a series of experiments (simulating the presence of volcanoes) that produced many more amino acids. What remains unknown is how those amino acids formed proteins and eventually "life". I don't think this changes much about our knowledge of abiogenesis.

Perhaps not, but it does suggest that any non-living process that does stitch amino acids together would have a reasonable amount of material to work with.

A Possible Primordial Peptide Cycle
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;301/5635/938

"Amino acids can undergo peptide formation by activation with carbon monoxide (CO) under hot aqueous conditions in the presence of freshly coprecipitated colloidal (Fe,Ni)S. We now show that CO-driven peptide formation proceeds concomitantly with CO-driven, N-terminal peptide degradation by racemizing N-terminal hydantoin and urea derivatives to -amino acids. This establishes a peptide cycle with closely related anabolic and catabolic segments. The hydantoin derivative is a purin-related heterocycle. The (Fe,Ni)S-dependent urea hydrolysis could have been the evolutionary precursor of the nickelenzyme urease. The results support the theory of a chemoautotrophic origin of life with a CO-driven, (Fe,Ni)S-dependent primordial metabolism. "

I don't know if that work's gone any further, but it's intriguing.

[Skeptic Guy]

Perhaps not, but it does suggest that any non-living process that does stitch amino acids together would have a reasonable amount of material to work with.

A Possible Primordial Peptide Cycle
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;301/5635/938



I don't know if that work's gone any further, but it's intriguing.

I agree, it's very intriguing and I didn't mean to suggest that there isn't any value to the experiments. I just don't think the recent discovery provides anything new to the discussion. I think there is value in doing other experiments to try to figure out how those amino acids got stitched together to form more complext molecules.

I wonder if there is anyone still working on that?

[geni]

Well, we still can't go from there, to complete living cells, yet. Though, I suspect we will be able to, in the future.


I don't. I'm still betting on an RNA based route.

[paximperium]

Ummmmmm, I've got to doubt that last statement there. Organic chemistry flourished in the 19th and especially the early 20th centuries, and I'm sure that a great number of "living substances" (however you want to define that) were fully synthesized. On example that popped out immediately is urea, and chemical synthesis of complex organic compounds (hormones, for example) were well underway. See, for more examples, the life of Julian Percy at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/julian/program.html; he synthesized physostigmine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physostigmine) and stigmasterol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmasterol) in the early 1930s.

You are correct. Thanks for the the correction.

[Rodney]

Prior to the experiment, theists claim that no living substance could come from unliving substances and science had no evidence to refute that.
And 56 years later, theists are still claiming that no living substance can come from unliving substances because science still has no evidence to refute that.

[shadron]

And 56 years later, theists are still claiming that no living substance can come from unliving substances because science still has no evidence to refute that.

(They say, as they take their synthetic antibiotics for that pesky infected toe, and eat their One-A-Days, full of synthetic color, flavor, and....Oh!, yes, synthetic vitamins.)

[Rodney]

(They say, as they take their synthetic antibiotics for that pesky infected toe, and eat their One-A-Days, full of synthetic color, flavor, and....Oh!, yes, synthetic vitamins.)
Off-point. None of your examples demonstrate how life can be created from non-life.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Off-point. None of your examples demonstrate how life can be created from non-life.

As I pointed out earlier, there are lifeforms on Earth that turn tons and tons of non-living material in to life everyday. You might point out that we don't know how non-living substances turn in to living for the first time, but non-living material is turned in to living material constantly.

[paximperium]

And 56 years later, theists are still claiming that no living substance can come from unliving substances because science still has no evidence to refute that.

Define living and alive.

[Acleron]

The Miller-Urey experiments were important in showing that organic compounds can be formed from inorganic (if you consider methane to be inorganic) materials under relatively natural and realistic conditions. This has now been superseded by the discovery that organic compounds can be found in interstellar space (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18059).

Eight of the naturally occurring amino acids have also been found in comets (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/comet_life_010405.html). This work also shows that comet impact on earth can produce small peptides.

None of this provides a mechanism for abiogenesis but it all shows that lack of organics is not a problem.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Off-point. None of your examples demonstrate how life can be created from non-life.

Life isn't "created" non-life. Life is "non-living" materials (look at the vitamins listed on Shadron's One-A-Day) that replicate and metabolize.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif

[Rodney]

Define living and alive.

See conventional definition of life at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

[Rodney]

Life isn't "created" non-life. Life is "non-living" materials (look at the vitamins listed on Shadron's One-A-Day) that replicate and metabolize.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif

Talkorigins's "real theory of abiogenesis" is just another way of saying: "We have no clue as to how life originated on Earth."

[drkitten]

Talkorigins's "real theory of abiogenesis" is just another way of saying: "We have no clue as to how life originated on Earth."

Except it isn't.

For example, the theory presented in that picture specifically lists polymers, instead of crystals, as intermediate stages; we've got a pretty good idea that inorganic crystals were NOT involved in the development of life.

Yet another misrepresentation from the Creationists. Whooda thunk?

[paximperium]

See conventional definition of life at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

According to YOUR definition. Are self replicating enzymes and polymers alive?

[paximperium]

Talkorigins's "real theory of abiogenesis" is just another way of saying: "We have no clue as to how life originated on Earth."

What's yours?
Be very specific about YOUR theory of how life came into being.

[BenBurch]

So, Rodney, when, in a few weeks, or months, it is announced that a living mycoplasmid was produced in the lab entirely from "non-living" materials, will your argument vanish, or will you move the goalposts again?

Really, what you have to understand is that none of the chemicals in a cell are alive. They are all dead. Only the SYSTEM formed by those chemicals is "alive" in the conventional sense of metabolizing materials from the environment, replicating with fidelity, and being complex enough to be nontrivial.

[Rodney]

Except it isn't.

For example, the theory presented in that picture specifically lists polymers, instead of crystals, as intermediate stages; we've got a pretty good idea that inorganic crystals were NOT involved in the development of life.

Yet another misrepresentation from the Creationists. Whooda thunk?
So when will life be created in a laboratory?

[Rodney]

According to YOUR definition. Are self replicating enzymes and polymers alive?
No.

[Rodney]

So, Rodney, when, in a few weeks, or months, it is announced that a living mycoplasmid was produced in the lab entirely from "non-living" materials, will your argument vanish, or will you move the goalposts again?
When did I move them the first time?

[thaiboxerken]

Until scientists make a human from dirt, Rodney will continue to believe "Gawd diddit"

On this experiment...........It's interesting that intelligent scientists had to design the conditions for organic material to come from non-organic material. (yes, it's a stupid argument, but one I've already heard from the creationist morons.)

[Dancing David]

And 56 years later, theists are still claiming that no living substance can come from unliving substances because science still has no evidence to refute that.

Where is your evidence?

Hmmmm?

[Dancing David]

Off-point. None of your examples demonstrate how life can be created from non-life.

And you have posted nothing to prove your non-existant point!

Hmmmm?

[Dancing David]

No.

Better check is that your defintion or wikis?

Will you give us your defintion?

Hoist meet peard, perad meet hoist:

Conventional definition: The concensus is that that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:[8][9]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (Phototropism and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.


So most , hmmm.

[sanguine]

No.

Are viruses? :)

[paximperium]

What's yours?
Be very specific about YOUR theory of how life came into being.

Rodney: I noticed you "missed" answering this question.
So what is YOUR theory?

[Wowbagger]

Rodney,
I think you are missing the point, somewhere. Science is NOT a destination, it is a journey. By conducting experiments in the field of abiogenesis, we learn more and more details about biochemistry and other related fields. And this knowledge fuels our growth in technologies, such as those employed by medical researchers.

In the process, we learn how it could be possible for life to arise from non-living materials. Though, no one is naive enough to assume we will have complete answers on that, yet. It does not matter. The science still gets done, by thinking in terms of natural processes.
How can Creationism add anything of value to this science? If it can't, you will have to excuse scientists for thinking of Creationism as superfluous.

Science is NOT really about finding ultimate truth. It is all about building models. Our models for abiogenesis continue to get refined and updated, as experimental results in testing its ideas come back. Complaining that "we still don't really know" will not faze the scientific process.

[JJM]

You are correct. Thanks for the the correction.That correction missed the point. The usual, laboratory synthesis of the molecules of life is irrelevant to how said molecules may have come about in nature, that is, without intentional intervention.

ETA, I should acknowledge that the intentional intervention in the Miller-Urey experiment was to provide the primordial conditions, not a specific synthesis.

[drkitten]

So when will life be created in a laboratory?

Dunno. Since you can't define "life," it's difficult for me to predict when an ill-defined event will happen. Some people have claimed that amino acids were alive, until Miller et al. showed how they could be produced in a lab. Under that definition, life has been created in laboratories for more than fifty years.

[JJM]

See conventional definition of life at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeProperly educated biologists do not define "life." Once again, Wiki fails.

The joke in biology is that they study life, and life is what biologists study (a knowing, circular definition). It's like "I can't define pornography; but I know it when I see it." True, some biologists try to define life; but their definitions are flawed.

ETA, there should be a "Wiki Law" that says anyone who cites Wiki needs to justify the citation. That is difficult to do when one notes that the Wiki citation can change at any time, invalidating the citation and justification.

[RecoveringYuppy]

I know I've posted about this before, but there are some biologists who beleive that Fox's protocells constitute life. They are a minority, but there are some and the point is arguable.

I'll post a link from some doubters (AKA "the usual suspects") this time, but other links are easily found:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=79

If you can't define life, how could you says Fox's protocells aren't alive?

[Ixion]

So when will life be created in a laboratory?

Since we are moving goalposts anyways, I submit the following:
Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12114528) ;)

[drkitten]

When did I move them the first time?

Post #28 is an example of your previous attempts to move goalposts, although it's hardly the first time.

[BenBurch]

Properly educated biologists do not define "life." Once again, Wiki fails.

The joke in biology is that they study life, and life is what they study (a knowing, circular definition). It's like "I can't define pornography; but I know it when I see it." True, some biologists try to define life; but their definitions are flawed.

Very much true. I've discussed this with biologists. If I ever go in for a second career its going to be in the life sciences somewhere. Paleontology, especially inverts, is fascinating, but also Botany, the non-Paleo sort.

[UnrepentantSinner]

So when will life be created in a laboratory?

Perhaps never. What does that have to do with the fact that science has discovered ways by which abiogenesis or steps for abiogenesis could have occured?

[Rodney]

Rodney: I noticed you "missed" answering this question.
So what is YOUR theory?
Pretty clearly, it was a paranormal event -- otherwise, scientists would have figured out how to replicate it by now.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Pretty clearly, it was a paranormal event -- otherwise, scientists would have figured out how to replicate it by now.

Since we can't replicate the formation of the Moon, was that a paranormal event too?

[Rodney]

Dunno. Since you can't define "life," it's difficult for me to predict when an ill-defined event will happen. Some people have claimed that amino acids were alive, until Miller et al. showed how they could be produced in a lab. Under that definition, life has been created in laboratories for more than fifty years.
Who are these "some people"?

[paximperium]

Pretty clearly, it was a paranormal event -- otherwise, scientists would have figured out how to replicate it by now.
How? Please clearly detail how life came into being.
What is this "paranormal" mechanism you're talking about.

You seem to have the answer.

[paximperium]

Since we can't replicate the formation of the Moon, was that a paranormal event too?

Since we can't replicate the "creation" of Rodney, does that mean that was a paranormal event too?

[Rodney]

Since we can't replicate the formation of the Moon, was that a paranormal event too?
You're comparing two completely different things. How would we go about replicating the moon, and why would we want to anyway? On the other hand, if life originated by a random process, why is it so difficult to replicate, despite the best scientific minds trying, using the most sophisticated equipment?

[thaiboxerken]

Pretty clearly, it was a paranormal event -- otherwise, scientists would have figured out how to replicate it by now.

Your lack of logic is astounding.

[paximperium]

You're comparing two completely different things. How would we go about replicating the moon, and why would we want to anyway?
Why not?


On the other hand, if life originated by a random process, why is it so difficult to replicate, despite the best scientific minds trying, using the most sophisticated equipment?
Because we're stupid. How is that evidence for anything besides our complete and utter stupidity?

[Rodney]

How? Please clearly detail how life came into being.
What is this "paranormal" mechanism you're talking about.

You seem to have the answer.
Just because I know more than you doesn't mean that I know everything. ;)

[paximperium]

Just because I know more than you doesn't mean that I know everything. ;)

So you have no idea?
So you're claiming something but have absolutely no idea how it occurred?
Am I reading you right?

[Rodney]

Because we're stupid. How is that evidence for anything besides our complete and utter stupidity?
But what about a brilliant scientist like Stanley Miller? The poor guy spent the last 54 years of his life trying to figure out how life originated and ran into a brick wall.

[paximperium]

But what about a brilliant scientist like Stanley Miller? The poor guy spent the last 54 years of his life trying to figure out how life originated and ran into a brick wall.

He was too stupid to figure anything out. All those scientists are just morons. Really dumb. Creationists and Intelligent Design Scientists have the answers. You also seem to have the answer.

So. How does the complete and utter stupidity of scientists at this issue provide any evidence that some "paranormal" event caused it?

How did this "paranormal" mechanism do it?

[UnrepentantSinner]

You're comparing two completely different things. How would we go about replicating the moon, and why would we want to anyway? On the other hand, if life originated by a random process, why is it so difficult to replicate, despite the best scientific minds trying, using the most sophisticated equipment?

In the context of your claim they're entirely analagous. You claim that since science has not been able to replicate abiogenesis (but we have some intriguing hypotheses) that it was a paranormal event. Science similarly cannot replicate the formation of the Moon (but we have some intriguing hypotheses) so by your logic it to must have been a paranormal event.

And spare us your Creationist Jedi mind tricks. Abiogenesis was not a "random" process as noted by the graphic I provided earlier. Chemical processes are well known, as are biochemical ones and they are not "random".

[Rodney]

So you have no idea?
So you're claiming something but have absolutely no idea how it occurred?
Am I reading you right?
If someone demonstrates a paranormal phenomena to the JREF and wins the million dollars, would you know how it occurred?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Just because I know more than you doesn't mean that I know everything. ;)

I'm skeptical of one half of this assertion. Care to guess which part?

So, are you actually going to tell us what this paranormal event was are will you merely allude to it?

[UnrepentantSinner]

If someone demonstrates a paranormal phenomena to the JREF and wins the million dollars, would you know how it occurred?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Alabama_Field-Goal.JPG/180px-Alabama_Field-Goal.JPG

How about if you actually answer questions being asked of you instead of moving the goal posts by asking your own question.

Here's pax's question one more time.

How did this "paranormal" mechanism do it?

[Rodney]

Abiogenesis was not a "random" process as noted by the graphic I provided earlier. Chemical processes are well known, as are biochemical ones and they are not "random".
So prior to the creation of life on earth, chemical processes were finely tuned to support it?

[paximperium]

If someone demonstrates a paranormal phenomena to the JREF and wins the million dollars, would you know how it occurred?

That's called a red herring and moving the goalpost. You're acting as if you have the answer, so tell us. Why are you playing coy? Creationists and ID Scientists claim to have the really obvious answer that has stumped those really stupid scientists.

So. How does the complete and utter stupidity of scientists at this issue provide any evidence that some "paranormal" event caused it?

How did this "paranormal" mechanism do it?

You're claiming to have an answer to this question so give it to us. Show us how Creationists and ID-iots are so much smarter than those moronic scientists.

[paximperium]

Ignore

[arthwollipot]

Who are these "some people"?Before Miller/Urey, it was generally understood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism) in the scientific community that "living" chemicals - those that are used in the various forms of life - were distinct from "nonliving" chemicals - those that aren't. It was thought that the "stuff" that made living creatures and everything else never coincided with each other - living stuff could only ever be created by other living stuff and not by nonliving stuff. It's part of the reason why we still have a distinction today between organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry.

The Miller-Urey demonstrated that this view was false. Organic chemicals could be produced through inorganic chemical means. Of course, this fact had been demonstrated previously - in 1828 when Wöhler synthesised urea - but the fact still remains that no inorganic mechanism for synthesising amino acids was known at the time of the experiment.

[shadron]

Off-point. None of your examples demonstrate how life can be created from non-life.

Bull, Rodney. I defy you or anyone to be able to differentiate between acetylsalicylic acid synthesized in a lab (or extracted from a bottle of Bayer's) from that extracted from willow bark. If you can't do that (and you can't) then there is no difference, and humans can therefore create a living substance from non-living precursors. No doubt you may argue that aspirin is not a living substance, but that would have been an untenable position before 1853 when Charles Gerhardt first prepared it synthetically.

On-point, I'm afraid.

[Madalch]

Bull, Rodney. I defy you or anyone to be able to differentiate between acetylsalicylic acid synthesized in a lab (or extracted from a bottle of Bayer's) from that extracted from willow bark.
I thought willow bark contained salicylic acid, not the acetylated derivative.

[UnrepentantSinner]

So prior to the creation of life on earth, chemical processes were finely tuned to support it?

I'm sorry Padawan, the Force is not strong in you. Phsyical and chemical laws (and biochemical ones should proto-life or life arise) are universal so the Earth isn't special in this case. Life wasn't created and put on Earth like a foot into a custom made shoe. It's more like a puddle that formed within a depression because that's the only shape it could take.

[JJM]

Bull, Rodney. I defy you or anyone to be able to differentiate between acetylsalicylic acid synthesized in a lab (or extracted from a bottle of Bayer's) from that extracted from willow bark. {snip}

I thought willow bark contained salicylic acid, not the acetylated derivative.It is a common misconception that willow bark contains aspirin. Using sensitive techniques, one may find salicylic acid in the bark; however, the primary analgesic in willow bark is salicin.

It has recently been determined (ca. 1990) that salicin is digested to salicylic alcohol (and glucose) in the gut, and, after absorption, it is metabolized into salicylic acid. Thus, the pharmacological relationship between aspirin and willow bark was unknown when aspirin was developed.

Aspirin is found in nature, in a plant named Filipendula ulmaria. It is, as shadron notes, indistinguishable from Bayer's.

[BenBurch]

Bull, Rodney. I defy you or anyone to be able to differentiate between acetylsalicylic acid synthesized in a lab (or extracted from a bottle of Bayer's) from that extracted from willow bark. If you can't do that (and you can't) then there is no difference, and humans can therefore create a living substance from non-living precursors. No doubt you may argue that aspirin is not a living substance, but that would have been an untenable position before 1853 when Charles Gerhardt first prepared it synthetically.

On-point, I'm afraid.

Just a nitpick.

I bet *I* could tell you the difference.

Carbon isotope ratios.

Not that this matters at all.

[Rodney]

Before Miller/Urey, it was generally understood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism) in the scientific community that "living" chemicals - those that are used in the various forms of life - were distinct from "nonliving" chemicals - those that aren't. It was thought that the "stuff" that made living creatures and everything else never coincided with each other - living stuff could only ever be created by other living stuff and not by nonliving stuff. It's part of the reason why we still have a distinction today between organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry.

The Miller-Urey demonstrated that this view was false. Organic chemicals could be produced through inorganic chemical means. Of course, this fact had been demonstrated previously - in 1828 when Wöhler synthesised urea - but the fact still remains that no inorganic mechanism for synthesising amino acids was known at the time of the experiment.
Which is interesting, but irrelevant to my question. Drkitten asserted: "Some people have claimed that amino acids were alive, until Miller et al. showed how they could be produced in a lab." So give me the name of someone who "claimed that amino acids were alive."

[Rodney]

No doubt you may argue that aspirin is not a living substance
Yes, but you might convince me if you were to make a compelling horror movie titled "Attack of the Living Aspirin." :)

[Wowbagger]

Pretty clearly, it was a paranormal event -- otherwise, scientists would have figured out how to replicate it by now.
If had to be a paranormal event, then how come scientists are learning more and more about how to replicate the process, every day?

It is taking a long time because there are a lot of details involved, and precious few scientists tackling them! Is it too much to ask for a bit more time? And, perhaps even better: More scientists interested in this research?
(How about: Fewer people trying to get in the way, and knock it all down with unhelpful assumptions, such as "oh, it's paranormal!", at least?)

Perhaps it might take another 100 or 200 years or so to replicate the whole thing. But, the more we learn, in the process, the more we can use that new knowledge to innovate medical research and other technological and scientific fields. Is that not better than declaring it's all paranormal?

Remember this post of mine:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4144702#post4144702

[JJM]

{snip} I bet *I* could tell you the difference.

Carbon isotope ratios. {snip}Yeah, I thought of that; but I rather doubt we know if they can be distinguished that way.

Anyway, nicely observed.

[Pixel42]

Perhaps it might take another 100 or 200 years or so to replicate the whole thing. But, the more we learn, in the process, the more we can use that new knowledge to innovate medical research and other technological and scientific fields. Is that not better than declaring it's all paranormal?
"The correct scientific response to something that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.

Precedent suggests he is correct. Unless Rodney thinks we should have given up trying to explain thunder and lightening, and just accepted that "the gods are angry"?

[paximperium]

Which is interesting, but irrelevant to my question. Drkitten asserted: "Some people have claimed that amino acids were alive, until Miller et al. showed how they could be produced in a lab." So give me the name of someone who "claimed that amino acids were alive."

Hey, Rodney. You are completely and utter right. No one claimed that amino acids are alive ever. We made it all up. Scientists and evolutionists are stupid that way.

Since you are so smart and have the answers I;m still waiting for you to enlighten us all.

So. How does the complete and utter stupidity of scientists at this issue provide any evidence that some "paranormal" event caused it?

How did this "paranormal" mechanism do it?

You're claiming to have an answer to this question so give it to us. Show us how Creationists and ID-iots are so much smarter than those moronic scientists.[/QUOTE]

[Rodney]

If had to be a paranormal event, then how come scientists are learning more and more about how to replicate the process, every day?
What do we know now about replicating the process that we didn't know following publication of the Miller-Urey experiment?

[Rodney]

No one claimed that amino acids are alive ever.
I'm still looking for the name of someone who did claim that.

[drkitten]

Which is interesting, but irrelevant to my question. Drkitten asserted: "Some people have claimed that amino acids were alive, until Miller et al. showed how they could be produced in a lab." So give me the name of someone who "claimed that amino acids were alive."

Vitalist chemists generally, Louis Pasteur in particular.

Now, the next thing you are going to ask is when he claimed that amino acids were alive. He didn't use those words. He claimed that "organic chemicals" (which assuredly include amino acids) were alive, and in fact, spent many years trying to prove that life could only come from life (in fact, he's well known for his writings and experiments against spontaneous generation).

Other examples would include Xavier Bichat and Justus Liebig.

[Wowbagger]

I think the claim about amino acids was that they were a "special chemistry" that could not be re-created in the lab. It would have been that "special" chemistry that defined the difference between life and non-life. But, this has been demonstrated false. Along with all the other "elan vital" type of theories.

[drkitten]

I think the claim about amino acids was that they were a "special chemistry" that could not be re-created in the lab. It would have been that "special" chemistry that defined the difference between life and non-life.

Yes. But note that this is equivalent to a claim that amino acids are alive (since the "special chemistry" is what defines the difference, and amino acids have that special chemistry, and therefore, are alive.)

ETA: But, of course, what Rodney will attempt to do now is play some sort of word game, claiming that if Pasteur didn't actually write the four word sequence "amino acids are alive," then he didn't imply it, agree with it, or believe it. In the same way that people will argue that a statement like "I supported an amendment to the state constitution establishing a ban on gay marriage and I think the federal government should do the same thing" is not a statement of support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I'm not even sure that Pasteur knew about amino acids per se, but he was pretty convinced that the special chemistry that characterized life defined it and could not be produced by non-living methods.

Miller-Urey would have rocked his little 18th century world. Unfortunately, many fundamentalists seem to live in the same 18th century world....

[drkitten]

What do we know now about replicating the process that we didn't know following publication of the Miller-Urey experiment?

One of the major criticisms of the Miller-Urey experiment is that they didn't get enough different amino acids. That's actually a fairly bogus criticism, since you would expect to see a lot less variety in a lab-scale experiment running a few hours than you would in a planetary-scale experiment running for thousands if not millions of years.

But the new analysis shows that there were a lot of amino acids produced that Miller/Urey were not able to identify because they didn't have the analysis techniques available. So that criticism (about an insufficient variety of amino acids) is now shot to hell again.

[RecoveringYuppy]

@drkitten,

Pasteur was 19th century, though perhaps you mean that his views on "vitalism" were 18th century-ish.

[drkitten]

@drkitten,

Pasteur was 19th century, though perhaps you mean that his views on "vitalism" were 18th century-ish.

No, that was a simple mistake on my part -- but inspired in part by the conservatism of Pasteur's scientific views. I had him pegged as a contemporary of Lavoisier.

[RecoveringYuppy]

The progress of biology in the 19th century vs the physics of that time strike me as a bit incongruous. The physics strikes me as bordering on the 20th century, but the biology does seem from an earlier time. The time from Leeuwenhoek to Pasteur seems too long for the advances that occurred.

Another incongruous notion that's relevant to this thread is that the 17th century church had no objections to the opinions of the time that some forms of advanced life arose spontaneously and continuously. But now creationists don't think that life forms so simple they couldn't even be observed at that time are "too complicated". Do wish the Church could identify which revealtions are meant to be jokes.

[paximperium]

I'm still looking for the name of someone who did claim that.
So looks like its been answered. Now back to the questions that you've been carefully keeping from us. It would be really appreciated if you would answer it.
Since you are so smart and have the answers I'm still waiting for you to enlighten us all.

So. How does the complete and utter stupidity of scientists at this issue provide any evidence that some "paranormal" event caused it?

How did this "paranormal" mechanism do it?

You're claiming to have an answer to this question so give it to us. Show us how Creationists and ID-iots are so much smarter than those moronic scientists.

[Wowbagger]

But, of course, what Rodney will attempt to do now is play some sort of word game, claiming that if Pasteur didn't actually write the four word sequence "amino acids are alive," then he didn't imply it, agree with it, or believe it.
But, more importantly, I would still like Rodney to explain how declaring "it's paranormal" is better than trying to figure out what we can through science.

[shadron]

I thought willow bark contained salicylic acid, not the acetylated derivative.

Oh, nuts. Comers from being an Electrical Engineer wandering around in goo-goo land. Time for another beer, I think...

[shadron]

Yes, but you might convince me if you were to make a compelling horror movie titled "Attack of the Living Aspirin." :)

And the same for stilbesterol, and a raft of other hormones and precursors that were synthesized in the 1930's? You're getting slippery. Pretty soon you'll be ruling out amino acids as "living chemicals". Before we go any further, please do define your living chemicals so we can stop playing dodge ball.

[Madalch]

I find this discussion odd.

The vitalists claimed that organic compounds contained a "vital force" that distinguished organic compounds from inorganic ones. I don't think any chemist ever considered these molecules to be "alive." Even the alchemists knew that killing an animal meant that it was dead, even if it was still made of organic matter.

The vitalists believed that organic matter could only by made by living things- a chemist could convert one organic compound into another, but couldn't turn an inorganic carbon-containing substance (such as calcium carbonate, graphite, or carbon monoxide- sorry slimething) into an organic one. This notion was itself slain by Werner's synthesis of urea from ammonium cyanate, and was well and truly dead long before the M-U experiment.

Besides, the M-U experiment didn't show that organics could be made from inorganics, since they started with methane- an organic substance. What it showed was that complicated organic molecules could be made by natural, non-living forces without being directed by a synthetic chemist. Any first-year chemistry student can come up with a paper sythesis of an amino acid starting from graphite. But for it to happen without a deliberate synthesis was amazing.

[Rodney]

I find this discussion odd.

The vitalists claimed that organic compounds contained a "vital force" that distinguished organic compounds from inorganic ones. I don't think any chemist ever considered these molecules to be "alive." Even the alchemists knew that killing an animal meant that it was dead, even if it was still made of organic matter.

The vitalists believed that organic matter could only by made by living things- a chemist could convert one organic compound into another, but couldn't turn an inorganic carbon-containing substance (such as calcium carbonate, graphite, or carbon monoxide- sorry slimething) into an organic one. This notion was itself slain by Werner's synthesis of urea from ammonium cyanate, and was well and truly dead long before the M-U experiment.

Besides, the M-U experiment didn't show that organics could be made from inorganics, since they started with methane- an organic substance. What it showed was that complicated organic molecules could be made by natural, non-living forces without being directed by a synthetic chemist. Any first-year chemistry student can come up with a paper sythesis of an amino acid starting from graphite. But for it to happen without a deliberate synthesis was amazing.
Thank you, Madalch, for cutting through the nonsense. The idea that Pasteur thought amino acids were alive is completely unsupported.

[paximperium]

Thank you, Madalch, for cutting through the nonsense. The idea that Pasteur thought amino acids were alive is completely unsupported.

Hey, great. Glad we cleared that up. I don't know how this was relevant to your claim of some "paranormal cause" for life at all except some red herring(great tasting fish by the way).

Since we've cleared up that we are complete and utterly wrong and that the Miller-Urrey Experiment is worthless we can get back to this:
So looks like its been answered. Now back to the questions that you've been carefully keeping from us. It would be really appreciated if you would answer it.
Since you are so smart and have the answers I'm still waiting for you to enlighten us all.

So. How does the complete and utter stupidity of scientists at this issue provide any evidence that some "paranormal" event caused it?

How did this "paranormal" mechanism do it?

You're claiming to have an answer to this question so give it to us. Show us how Creationists and ID-iots are so much smarter than those moronic scientists.

[arthwollipot]

The idea that Pasteur thought amino acids were alive is completely unsupported.I think that there was a poor choice of words further up the thread, which Rodney has latched onto. As I explained before, the difference between "alive" and "not-alive" is what we today recognise between "organic" and "inorganic". As has been pointed out several times, it was once thought that organic chemicals were exclusively the domain of life. While it may be superficially misleading to say that organic chemicals are "alive", it is a greatly simplified but not completely innacurate way of saying that organic chemicals are found exclusively in living organisms and cannot be produced in any other way. (See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_spontaneous_generation#Spontaneous_gener ation))

So no, Rodney, you are still wrong. Or rather it would be more accurate to say that you are right in only the most trivially superficial of ways - that of semantics. Your victory is shallow.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Thank you, Madalch, for cutting through the nonsense. The idea that Pasteur thought amino acids were alive is completely unsupported.
No, but Pasteur thought that chirality could only be accomplished by life.

ETA: Asymmetric molecules; I could not point out any more profound distinction between the products formed under the influence of life and all others. — Louis Pasteur

[Rodney]

But, more importantly, I would still like Rodney to explain how declaring "it's paranormal" is better than trying to figure out what we can through science.
I'm not suggesting that scientists give up, but I think you're failing to appreciate how optimistic the scientific community was in the 1950s about the Miller-Urey experiment leading to major scientific breakthroughs that have not occurred. For example, in a May 17, 1953 editorial, the New York Times stated that Miller's synthesizing of amino acids "may lead a century or so hence to the creation of something chemically like beefsteak or white of egg." The Times editorial also waxed poetic that "t is not an impossibility that a few generations hence synthetic muscle will be created, which will not be alive but which can be stretched just as we stretch our living muscles, which will spring back when released and which will even twitch when poked." The editorial further noted that Miller "dwells on the possibility of improving his technique so that amino acids may be produced in factories." Others went further. As Noam Lahav notes at page 50 of his [i]Biogenesis: Theories of Life’s Origin book (Oxford University, New York, 1999):

"Soon after the Miller–Urey experiment, many scientists entertained the belief that the main obstacles in the problem of the origin of life would be overcome within the foreseeable future. But as the search in this young scientific field went on and diversified, it became more and more evident that the problem of the origin of life is far from trivial. Various fundamental problems facing workers in this search gradually emerged, and new questions came into focus . . . Despite intensive research, most of these problems have remained unsolved."

So, again I ask: What do we know now about replicating the process that we didn't know following publication of the Miller-Urey experiment?

[arthwollipot]

And in 2003, President Bill Clinton announced that "it may be that our children understand the word Cancer to mean only a constellation of stars".

People say things like that about science all the time, Rodney. You can't blame science for the dumb things people say.

[arthwollipot]

So, again I ask: What do we know now about replicating the process that we didn't know following publication of the Miller-Urey experiment?Quite a lot, actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models).

[Wowbagger]

...I think you're failing to appreciate how optimistic the scientific community was in the 1950s about the Miller-Urey experiment leading to major scientific breakthroughs that have not occurred...Talking about optimism of the press does not answer my question. You stated life came about through some paranormal process. How does that add anything to the science being done? From my point of view, such an attitude only seems like a science-stopper. If you don't think the scientists should stop, why posit such a thing?


What do we know now about replicating the process that we didn't know following publication of the Miller-Urey experiment?That is a fair question to ask. Read the abiogenesis article Arthwollipot linked to, for starters. Basically, we know enough, that we can fill in huge chunks of models for how abiogenesis could have occured. There is still some debate as to which one is most correct (though, not all of them are mutually exclusive). But, those discussions are much more productive to the effort than dismissing the problem as "paranormal".

The bottom line is that we now know a lot more details about amino acids and related chemistry, than we had ever known before. Some of these details will be useful in the "final model". Perhaps others not so much. But, they all encompass new knowledge. That is the point of all this study.

[paximperium]

I'm not suggesting that scientists give up, but I think you're failing to appreciate how optimistic the scientific community was in the 1950s about the Miller-Urey experiment leading to major scientific breakthroughs that have not occurred.
So?


For example, in a May 17, 1953 editorial, the New York Times stated that Miller's synthesizing of amino acids "may lead a century or so hence to the creation of something chemically like beefsteak or white of egg." The Times editorial also waxed poetic that "t is not an impossibility that a few generations hence synthetic muscle will be created, which will not be alive but which can be stretched just as we stretch our living muscles, which will spring back when released and which will even twitch when poked." The editorial further noted that Miller "dwells on the possibility of improving his technique so that amino acids may be produced in factories." Others went further.
Yeah...how is this relevant to anything so far?
BTW: We have almost developed artificial muscle and we can artificially produce a whole host of amino acids and DNA in pretty good quantities nowadays.


As Noam Lahav notes at page 50 of his [i]Biogenesis: Theories of Life’s Origin book (Oxford University, New York, 1999):

"Soon after the Miller–Urey experiment, many scientists entertained the belief that the main obstacles in the problem of the origin of life would be overcome within the foreseeable future. But as the search in this young scientific field went on and diversified, it became more and more evident that the problem of the origin of life is far from trivial. Various fundamental problems facing workers in this search gradually emerged, and new questions came into focus . . . Despite intensive research, most of these problems have remained unsolved."
So?


So, again I ask: What do we know now about replicating the process that we didn't know following publication of the Miller-Urey experiment?
A lot. Very very much more.
(Pssst, you never asked this question so you shouldn't usually put "again" in your question when you never asked it.)

BTW: I'm still waiting. To quote some supposedly very smart fella: "So, again, I ask..."(you see I can use "again" in my question because I've actually asked it before...many many times before)

So. How does the complete and utter stupidity of scientists at this issue provide any evidence that some "paranormal" event caused it?

How did this "paranormal" mechanism do it?

Why haven't you answered these simple questions?
Are you dodging it?
I though you had the answers that those stupid atheist scientists and evolutionist didn't have?
Come on. Show us how much smarter Creationists and ID-iots really are.

[Rodney]

Quite a lot, actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models).
The article you cite simply lists a multitude of speculative hypotheses about the origin of life. None of them advances the ball at all.

[Rodney]

(Pssst, you never asked this question so you shouldn't usually put "again" in your question when you never asked it.)
See post #77 on this thread.

[Wowbagger]

The article you cite simply lists a multitude of speculative hypotheses about the origin of life. None of them advances the ball at all. These are not merely speculative hypotheses! They are testable hypotheses! Each one makes predictions we can test for, experimentally. The process of testing each one is what advances the ball!

These ideas, themselves, are an "advancement of the ball". None of them could have been derrived before Urey-Miller, (at least not in any significant detail). And, even in their current state, they allow us to understand bio-chemistry more effectively than before!

Like I said, the progress is in the nitty-gritty details most people don't really care to read about, which is one reason why they are often missed by general public.

[Dancing David]

Pretty clearly, it was a paranormal event -- otherwise, scientists would have figured out how to replicate it by now.

Applies to plate tectonics as well...

[paximperium]

See post #77 on this thread.

Oops, looks like you do get the right to use "again" after all. But that's irrelevant because I definitely reserve the right to use AGAIN. Why haven't you answered those simple questions yet? Your dodges of answering these questions are accounted for. It is showing your blatant dishonesty and your evasion of the question. Prove me wrong.

So why are you evading these questions?

Why won't you enlighten us?

So I ask AGAIN. To quote some supposedly very smart fella: "So, again, I ask..."(you see I can use "again" in my question because I've actually asked it before...many many times before)

So. How does the complete and utter stupidity of scientists at this issue provide any evidence that some "paranormal" event caused it?

How did this "paranormal" mechanism do it?


I though you had the answers that those stupid atheist scientists and evolutionist didn't have?
Come on. Show us how much smarter Creationists and ID-iots really are.

[paximperium]

The article you cite simply lists a multitude of speculative hypotheses about the origin of life. None of them advances the ball at all.

I will be very very very generous. Let's assume you're right: Scientists are stupid. Abiogenesis hasn't advanced once bit. We're stumped and retarded. There is no way for scientists to ever figure out the origin of life.

SO WHAT?
Tell us. SO WHAT? We can't figure it out therefore...? Therefore what anyway?

What do you have to offer? What does your Creation/ID Science has to offer? Tell us. Tell us how your "science" explains how it occurred.

[arthwollipot]

The article you cite simply lists a multitude of speculative hypotheses about the origin of life. None of them advances the ball at all.Hey everyone! Rodney didn't check the references!

[Silentknight]

I was going to repeat the challenge for Rodney to explain precisely how the paranormal mechanism for design works and how we can test for it, but you can ask that question until you're blue in the face and never get a coherent response. The answer is usually along the lines of, "Oh, it's a desigining mind, see?" but there's still the tiny little matter of actual evidence. I was also going to say that in order for the analogy in the design argument to hold up, we must have some logical basis to induce that a "mind" can will "order" into existence. Have we ever seen any kind of mind that can create order just by thinking about it?

Oh well, :rule10 the trolls. I'll direct my questions towards the scientific side of things.

First, how could the recently conceived PAH-world hypothesis be experimentally tested?

Second, which specific pieces of the puzzle are still missing from the continuum of amino acids to living molecules?

[Rodney]

I will be very very very generous. Let's assume you're right: Scientists are stupid.
You keep saying that, but it's the opposite of what I believe.

Abiogenesis hasn't advanced once bit.
That, on the other hand, is what I do believe (at least since the time of the Miller-Urey experiment).

We're stumped and retarded.
Stumped, but not retarded.

There is no way for scientists to ever figure out the origin of life.
It's sure looking that way.

SO WHAT?
Tell us. SO WHAT? We can't figure it out therefore...? Therefore what anyway?

What do you have to offer? What does your Creation/ID Science has to offer? Tell us. Tell us how your "science" explains how it occurred.
It doesn't explain it specifically, because that's probably beyond our knowing. But what would it take to convince you that the origin of life was a paranormal occurrence? Is there anything, or will you believe on your deathbed that "we just haven't figured it out yet"?

[RecoveringYuppy]

It doesn't explain it specifically, because that's probably beyond our knowing. But what would it take to convince you that the origin of life was a paranormal occurrence? Is there anything, or will you believe on your deathbed that "we just haven't figured it out yet"?

Why should we believe it requires a paranormal explanation when the simplest stupidest, literally brainless, creatures can turn non life in to life and do it octillions of times a day?

There are millions of plants that can convert non living materials in to living. Some of them start with completely basic materials. And each one does it with slightly different set of chemicals.

So since we already know there are a lot of different chemical reactions capable of converting non life in to life, why should we believe the first one required a paranormal occurence?

[Rodney]

Why should we believe it requires a paranormal explanation when the simplest stupidest, literally brainless, creatures can turn non life in to life and do it octillions of times a day?

There are millions of plants that can convert non living materials in to living. Some of them start with completely basic materials. And each one does it with slightly different set of chemicals.

So since we already know there are a lot of different chemical reactions capable of converting non life in to life, why should we believe the first one required a paranormal occurence?
Uh, maybe because the best scientific minds can't figure out how life originated?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Well, since new things are figured out every day, that's hardly a rational reason.

[paximperium]

It doesn't explain it specifically, because that's probably beyond our knowing.
How does that support your paranormal argument?


But what would it take to convince you that the origin of life was a paranormal occurrence? Is there anything, or will you believe on your deathbed that "we just haven't figured it out yet"?
Sure. Show me that no natural event could possibly cause it and that the best explanation is supernatural. So far you haven't done that.

All you've done is dishonesty claim credit for...nothing actually, you've claim credit for a void in knowledge or human stupidity. It basically boils down to "Man stupid therefore God did it." Apparently God can only exist in the gaps of human ignorance. Hope you're proud of it.

Our stupidity does not automatically make your unjustified made up claim true. Maybe super zombie aliens created life? What about magic inter-dimensional pixies? That is plausible as your claim.

Again. So how does the complete and utter stupidity of scientists make your paranormal claim true or even plausible?

Here is an honest question for you:
If we discover a natural way to reproduce life or find 100% evidence that natural causes led to life, will you stop believing in God?

[paximperium]

Uh, maybe because the best scientific minds can't figure out how life originated?
Again I ask. So what?

[thaiboxerken]

Again I ask. So what?

So it must've been Gawd.

[Wowbagger]

Well, since new things are figured out every day, that's hardly a rational reason.
But not always by accident! Evolution and abiogenesis are used as frameworks for developing testable hypotheses, so we can learn more stuff at a more efficient rate. The "framework" of "paranormal", on the other hand, is of no help, what-so-ever.

[Rodney]

How does that support your paranormal argument?

Sure. Show me that no natural event could possibly cause it and that the best explanation is supernatural. So far you haven't done that.
It comes down to probabilities. The odds of life coming into existence by chance are off the charts.

All you've done is dishonesty claim credit for...nothing actually, you've claim credit for a void in knowledge or human stupidity. It basically boils down to "Man stupid therefore God did it." Apparently God can only exist in the gaps of human ignorance. Hope you're proud of it.
It's not so much a matter of pride as it is logic. Your position would have made much more sense in 1953 than it does now. Then, it appeared we were getting close to solving the mystery of how life came into existence. Now, 55 years later, despite monumental progress in other areas, we're back to square one with regard to that issue.

Our stupidity does not automatically make your unjustified made up claim true. Maybe super zombie aliens created life? What about magic inter-dimensional pixies? That is plausible as your claim.

Again. So how does the complete and utter stupidity of scientists make your paranormal claim true or even plausible?
What is this obsession you have with the "utter stupidity of scientists"? It's precisely because scientists are smart that should make you ask why they've run into a brick wall on the most fundamental issue of them all.

Here is an honest question for you:
If we discover a natural way to reproduce life or find 100% evidence that natural causes led to life, will you stop believing in God?
Let me know when that happens, and I'll consider it.

[paximperium]

It comes down to probabilities. The odds of life coming into existence by chance are off the charts.
Making things up does not make your claim correct. Please stop using "probability" when you don't understand what it means.

BTW if you decide to quote the made-up Creationists statistical improbabilities; a hint, their numbers are known to be garbage and make such absurd assumptions as to show their inherent biases.

Would you care to play what are the chances some magic man popped into existence with no reason, no mechanism and no evidence? My probability of a natural cause for life is infinitely better than yours because we actually evidence...you have a storybook.


It's not so much a matter of pride as it is logic. Your position would have made much more sense in 1953 than it does now. Then, it appeared we were getting close to solving the mystery of how life came into existence. Now, 55 years later, despite monumental progress in other areas, we're back to square one with regard to that issue.
What is this "we" crap? According to YOU, 1953, before genetics or modern molecular biology, was apparently the "pinnacle" of life sciences? The experiment proved certain things...so? Guess what so did the double helix of DNA a few years later and a multitude of other studies.

Your ignorance on this issue is not evidence against the progress of abiogenesis.


What is this obsession you have with the "utter stupidity of scientists"? It's precisely because scientists are smart that should make you ask why they've run into a brick well on the most fundamental issue of them all.
No. You're claiming an answer that scientists can't or haven't answered yet.
So what is that answer?
Tell us. How did life come about?
What is the mechanism?
Scientists hit brickwall...so what? How does it make your claims more valid?

Oh yeah, "magic" is not an answer.
You do realize that your retarded , "Paranormal did it!!!" is as valid as an 8year old saying "Blue magic bunnies did it!!!" don't you? It's about PROBABILITY.

Let me know when that happens, and I'll consider it.
Another dishonest dodge. Can't even be honest enough to answer this simple question. Oh, well. You'll get the chance to move the goalpost all you want.

[RecoveringYuppy]

It comes down to probabilities. The odds of life coming into existence by chance are off the charts.

Well, I guess I know how pointless it is to continue at this point but I'll try anyway.

Why don't these odds stop life from coming in to existence today? Life comes in to existence constantly. Why don't "the odds" stop reproduction from happening today?

Assuming you have an answer for that then answer: Since you don't know how life came in to existence the first time, how in the world can you calculate odds for it?

[Wowbagger]

It comes down to probabilities. The odds of life coming into existence by chance are off the charts. That is a very common misconception. A lot of creationist proponents like to claim this. But, they are not understanding the whole point of these sciences.

Abiogeneisis does NOT depend on chance! Neither does the Theory of Evolution. Evolution describes a natural algorithm of NON-random selection of a variety of available genomes in the "pool".

Abiogenesis theories describe chemical reactions and such that could almost inevitably come about, in a natural manner, in a variety of environmental conditions. No "chance" is really necessary. That is what the science seems to be demonstrating.

So, it does NOT, in fact, come down to chance. If you think about it: Thinking otherwise would not be very useful to science, would it? Who wants the results of their experiments to be "chance", when they can have something more empirically predictable?

[arthwollipot]

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html)

[Rodney]

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html)
I corresponded with Ian Musgrave in 2005 about this article. Specifically, I quoted him as follows:

"However, there is another side to these probability estimates, and it hinges on the fact that most of us don't have a feeling for statistics. When someone tells us that some event has a one in a million chance of occuring, many of us expect that one million trials must be undergone before the said event turns up, but this is wrong.

"Here is a experiment you can do yourself: take a coin, flip it four times, write down the results, and then do it again. How many times would you think you had to repeat this procedure (trial) before you get 4 heads in a row?

"Now the probability of 4 heads in a row is is (1/2)^4 or 1 chance in 16: do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 10^40) gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did). Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early."

I replied:

"Actually, no, barring a staggeringly unlikely occurrence or an unusual definition of 'surprisingly early.' While, when the probability of success is 1 in 16, you may indeed 'flip HHHH on your very first trial', there is virtually no chance of success at odds of 1 in 4.29 x 10^40 even after 4.29 octillion (4.29 x 10^27) trials. Rather, to get to just a 0.1% chance of success, more than 42.9 undecillion (or sexillion, 4.29 x 10^37) trials would be necessary.

"I also find your discussion of coin tossing and probability misleading in that it fosters the notion that the number of trials needed for success will almost always be less than what most people would expect. While it is true that, on average, an event that has a one in a million chance of occurring will occur before one million trials have taken place, it is also true that there is about a 37% chance that the event will not have occurred after one million trials and about a 14% chance that the event will not have occurred even after two million trials. Your seven experiments where you got only 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials (average of 7.4 trials) before HHHH turned up is rather atypical in that the average number of trials for similar experiments would be 10.7 and there would typically be at least one of seven experiments where more than 16 trials would be required to get HHHH. Try doing the seven experiments again and see if this does not occur.

"In conclusion, I suggest that, in the interest of a more balanced presentation, you either delete the text that I quoted or significantly modify it."

Dr. Musgrave responded four weeks later:

"Sheesh! I found your email buried in a pile of other guff. I'm in a rush getting ready for semester start, so I will get back to you later. Sorry about the delay."

The delay continues to this day.

[arthwollipot]

Dr. Musgrave responded four weeks later:

"Sheesh! I found your email buried in a pile of other guff. I'm in a rush getting ready for semester start, so I will get back to you later. Sorry about the delay."

The delay continues to this day.So did you ever send him an email to remind him of the discussion? Academics can be very busy around the start of the semester. He probably just forgot.

[paximperium]

I corresponded with Ian Musgrave in 2005 about this article. Specifically, I quoted him as follows:

"However, there is another side to these probability estimates, and it hinges on the fact that most of us don't have a feeling for statistics. When someone tells us that some event has a one in a million chance of occuring, many of us expect that one million trials must be undergone before the said event turns up, but this is wrong.

"Here is a experiment you can do yourself: take a coin, flip it four times, write down the results, and then do it again. How many times would you think you had to repeat this procedure (trial) before you get 4 heads in a row?

"Now the probability of 4 heads in a row is is (1/2)^4 or 1 chance in 16: do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 10^40) gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did). Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early."

I replied:

"Actually, no, barring a staggeringly unlikely occurrence(made up) or an unusual definition of 'surprisingly early.'(semantic argument) While, when the probability of success is 1 in 16, you may indeed 'flip HHHH on your very first trial', there is virtually no chance of success at odds of 1 in 4.29 x 10^40 even after 4.29 octillion (4.29 x 10^27) trials. Rather, to get to just a 0.1% chance of success, more than 42.9 undecillion (or sexillion, 4.29 x 10^37) trials would be necessary.(Unsurprisingly Rodney didn't even read Musgraves post)

"I also find your discussion of coin tossing and probability misleading in that it fosters the notion that the number of trials needed for success will almost always be less than what most people would expect. While it is true that, on average, an event that has a one in a million chance of occurring will occur before one million trials have taken place, it is also true that there is about a 37% chance that the event will not have occurred after one million trials and about a 14% chance that the event will not have occurred even after two million trials. Your seven experiments where you got only 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials (average of 7.4 trials) before HHHH turned up is rather atypical in that the average number of trials for similar experiments would be 10.7 and there would typically be at least one of seven experiments where more than 16 trials would be required to get HHHH. Try doing the seven experiments again and see if this does not occur. (Attempting to pass of Juvenile math off as statistics to sound intelligent)

"In conclusion, I suggest that, in the interest of a more balanced presentation, you either delete the text that I quoted or significantly modify it." (Why?)

Dr. Musgrave responded four weeks later:

"Sheesh! I found your email buried in a pile of other guff. I'm in a rush getting ready for semester start, so I will get back to you later. Sorry about the delay."

The delay continues to this day.
Thanks. It shows you don't know a thing about statistics and your rather weak attempt at discrediting that article because Musgrave forgot about you wasn't really that even much of an attempt. Your statement just shows a juvenile understanding of basic math, not even statistics.

So. How many trials at life did the Earth have? Billions? Trillions? A Googelplex?

[paximperium]

Of course now Rodney will attempt to start arguing about irrelevant statistics to veer off this discussion again about the "random chance" and other such BS while ignoring the multiple posts that have told him that Abiogenesis and Evolution is not random.

I'll be super duper generous. Let say the chances of life coming through random chance is infinitely small. So what?

How does that make your "magic did it" as an explanation more plausible?

[Rodney]

Thanks. It shows you don't know a thing about statistics and your rather weak attempt at discrediting that article because Musgrave forgot about you wasn't really that even much of an attempt. Your statement just shows a juvenile understanding of basic math, not even statistics.
Try running my exchange with Dr. Musgrave by an unbiased statistics professor and see what (s)he says.

So. How many trials at life did the Earth have? Billions? Trillions? A Googelplex?
I don't know, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. What Dr. Musgrave is claiming is, at best, highly misleading.

[Rodney]

So did you ever send him an email to remind him of the discussion? Academics can be very busy around the start of the semester. He probably just forgot.
Perhaps, but I don't feel any need to keep e-mailing him. I tried that with Bob Park of the U. of Maryland regarding his opinion on lie detector tests, and he never responded.

[Rodney]

I'll be super duper generous. Let say the chances of life coming through random chance is infinitely small. So what?

How does that make your "magic did it" as an explanation more plausible?
If the chance of life coming into existence through random chance is infinitely small, what is the alternative to magic, the paranormal, God, or whatever else you care to call it?

[Wowbagger]

Rodney,
The point is that the abiogenesis scientists themselves do not think abiogenesis is all about chance. Why are you trying to say it is?

That would be like someone telling a bunch of dentists that their practice is all about rolling dice on a table. And when some of them respond "erm, no it's not", would you still try to disagree with them?

[RecoveringYuppy]

If the chance of life coming into existence through random chance is infinitely small, what is the alternative to magic, the paranormal, God, or whatever else you care to call it?

If only completely idiotic morons with infinitely small intelligence ask about the possibility of life coming from random chance, what should they be called?

[Wowbagger]

Another way to think about this: The Urey-Miller experiment, and other such experiments, can be repeated reliably, in any and all labs around the world. If the theories and the sciences all relied on random chance, you would see the opposite: Only a random sample would succeed.

If only completely idiotic morons with infinitely small intelligence ask about the possibility of life coming from random chance, what should they be called?Come on, now, insulting anyone won't accomplish anything. Are your arguments so utterly weak, that you must resort to such remarks?!

[UnrepentantSinner]

Perhaps, but I don't feel any need to keep e-mailing him. I tried that with Bob Park of the U. of Maryland regarding his opinion on lie detector tests, and he never responded.

I often will drop a discussion when it becomes clear that the person I'm dealing with is:

- In over their head and has yet to realize it.

- Unable or unwilling to provide evidence for their assertions and instead just keeps repeating them.

- So intransigently entrenched into their position that no amount of facts or evidence will change it.

Just because someone stops replying it doesn't mean you've stumped them. It usually means they've decided you're not worth their time to deal with.

[arthwollipot]

Perhaps, but I don't feel any need to keep e-mailing him. I tried that with Bob Park of the U. of Maryland regarding his opinion on lie detector tests, and he never responded.What US said.

[plumjam]

I was going to repeat the challenge for Rodney to explain precisely how the paranormal mechanism for design works and how we can test for it, but you can ask that question until you're blue in the face and never get a coherent response. The answer is usually along the lines of, "Oh, it's a desigining mind, see?" but there's still the tiny little matter of actual evidence. I was also going to say that in order for the analogy in the design argument to hold up, we must have some logical basis to induce that a "mind" can will "order" into existence. Have we ever seen any kind of mind that can create order just by thinking about it?

:D
How was it possible for you to write the above [reasonably ordered and meaningful sentences] if, as you suggest, we have not yet seen any kind of mind that can create order just by thinking about it?

[articulett]

:D
How was it possible for you to write the above [reasonably ordered and meaningful sentences] if, as you suggest, we have not yet seen any kind of mind that can create order just by thinking about it?

How is it possible to you except the most inane evidence for the supposed Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima... and yet the most compelling evidence accepted by the smartest minds regarding evolution rouses your skepticism? That's a mystery that confounds me.

[Pixel42]

As has been pointed out, the creationists' statistics about the probability of abiogenesis are garbage. Even if it was true, though, that the origin of life was an event with the tiniest of probabilities, I would simply point to the size and age of the universe. Given trillions upon trillions of planets and 14 billlion years, even the unlikeliest of events is pretty much bound to have occurred somewhere. Calculating the probability of abiogenesis is only useful for estimating how widespread life is in the universe.

[paximperium]

Try running my exchange with Dr. Musgrave by an unbiased statistics professor and see what (s)he says.
Why? Can't you defend your own little arguments?


I don't know, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. What Dr. Musgrave is claiming is, at best, highly misleading.
No it isn't. Dr. Musgrave's claim about the incompetance and dishonesty of Creationists "statistics" is perfectly valid.

Your little email exchange does not support your little attempt at discrediting it.

[paximperium]

Perhaps, but I don't feel any need to keep e-mailing him. I tried that with Bob Park of the U. of Maryland regarding his opinion on lie detector tests, and he never responded.
So no. So are you lazy?

[paximperium]

If the chance of life coming into existence through random chance is infinitely small, what is the alternative to magic, the paranormal, God, or whatever else you care to call it?
Transdimensional Explorers from planet Xenon. That is as likely as your paranormal or god claim.

Decreasing the probability that Abiogenesis occured via natural events does not make just YOUR claims more likely, it makes ALL other non-sensical, zero evidence claims more probable as well.

Your claim of god, magic, paranormal is as likely as:
Satan, Blue bunnies, Cthulhu, trandimensional travellers, Napoleon, Bob the Builder...hey, I claim that I created the cosmos. I did it. In fact, I created god from smegma. Prove me wrong :rolleyes:

[applecorped]

In fact, I created god from smegma. Prove me wrong :rolleyes:

Evidence?;)

[paximperium]

Evidence?;)

I can produce...this evidence...

[Wowbagger]

:D
How was it possible for you to write the above [reasonably ordered and meaningful sentences] if, as you suggest, we have not yet seen any kind of mind that can create order just by thinking about it? Plumjam, See this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125866

The "order" of life, and its genetic components, actually has a lot more in common with the natural order found in snowflakes, than it does the language we write with.

I'd be curious to read your response to it.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Come on, now, insulting anyone won't accomplish anything. Are your arguments so utterly weak, that you must resort to such remarks?!
Sorry it offended you. It seemed hypothetically worded enough to me. You can read the arguments I made and questions I asked and respond to them as devil's advocate if you like. Rodney doesn't seem interested in addressing all the refutations and questions people are making.

Creationist statistics are so thoroughly and long refuted that persisting in them is moronic. How is that?

[drkitten]

Try running my exchange with Dr. Musgrave by an unbiased statistics professor and see what (s)he says.

Easy enough, since I've got one just down the hall.

He says, freely translated, that you're an idiot.

More accurately, he says that you're fundamentally misunderstanding the point of Dr. Musgrave's argument; an event can have an arbitrarily low probability and still happen (which was the central point). An event with a probabilty of 10^-40 could happen on the very next trial, albeit with low probability.

You started out with writing "barring a staggeringly unlikely occurance." In this context, that's exactly what Musgrave is pointing out -- that you can't bar such occurrances.

I'd add my own editorializing to what he said, but there seems little point.

[Rodney]

Easy enough, since I've got one just down the hall.

He says, freely translated, that you're an idiot.

More accurately, he says that you're fundamentally misunderstanding the point of Dr. Musgrave's argument; an event can have an arbitrarily low probability and still happen (which was the central point). An event with a probabilty of 10^-40 could happen on the very next trial, albeit with low probability.

You started out with writing "barring a staggeringly unlikely occurance." In this context, that's exactly what Musgrave is pointing out -- that you can't bar such occurrances.

I'd add my own editorializing to what he said, but there seems little point.
Is your professor friend going to post his analysis here? If, as I strongly suspect, he will not, ask him if Dr. Musgrave's successive experiments where he claims that he got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up produced typical or atypical results.

[Wowbagger]

In New York City, a 1-in-a-million chance event happens to about 8 people, every day.

Something can have a low chance of occurence, but given enough trials, could happen almost inevitably, and even quite often.

[paximperium]

Is your professor friend going to post his analysis here? If, as I strongly suspect, he will not, ask him if Dr. Musgrave's successive experiments where he claims that he got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up produced typical or atypical results.
Why am I not surprised?
You don't get it do you? You don't get what Musgrave was even trying to say? The results are completely plausible and typical. In fact the chance of him generating his HHHH number on the 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st and 1st occurrence in series happens all the time. It's called the lottery, its called an asteroid strike, its called a beneficial mutation.

In fact, this could go the other way around as well. The chance that HHHH occurs only after the 100th try is also entirely plausible.

The chance of anything occurring is just that. A chance. A 1/16 chance has as much a chance of occurring in the first try as much as the fifty billionth try. And if you do it a quadrillion times, this minimal chance of something occurring becomes very very very common.

You continue to not have a clue. You fail even at high school level statistics.

[Perpetual Student]

This is an interesting thread. Thanks to all. The Urey-Miller experiment was done when I was a teenager.(Yes, I'm old) At that ime, it had a profound affect on my thinking about nature and the universe. Ultimately, I ended up focusing on mathematics, but I have never lost my fascination with the areas of biology, evolution and the origin of life. It is interesting to learn that an updated analysis reveals more amino acids and other interesting molecules than were discovered at the time.
IOne question: believe that opinions about the make up of the early earth have changed since then. Does anyone know if there have been revisions of the experiment or the interpretation to account for this?

[Perpetual Student]

This is an interesting thread. Thanks to all. The Urey-Miller experiment was done when I was a teenager.(Yes, I'm old) At that ime, it had a profound affect on my thinking about nature and the universe. Ultimately, I ended up focusing on mathematics, but I have never lost my fascination with the areas of biology, evolution and the origin of life. It is interesting to learn that an updated analysis reveals more amino acids and other interesting molecules than were discovered at the time.
IOne question: believe that opinions about the make up of the early earth have changed since then. Does anyone know if there have been revisions of the experiment or the interpretation to account for this?

Sorry for the oversight: I meant to say that there have been revisions of opinions about the make up of the atmosphere of the early earth.

[Perpetual Student]

Pretty clearly, it was a paranormal event -- otherwise, scientists would have figured out how to replicate it by now.

Perhaps you have already done so, and I missed it. If so, sorry.
Would you please define the term "paranormal." Since that is the essential concept in your argument, a definition would appear to be appropriate.

[Madalch]

Rather, to get to just a 0.1% chance of success, more than 42.9 undecillion (or sexillion, 4.29 x 10^37) trials would be necessary.

That's about the chance (give or take an order of magnitude- I'll recheck my calculations when I'm less tired) that a given atom of uranium-238 will decay to thorium in a given second.

So I suppose you consider uranium to be completely unradioactive, since there's no chance an atom of it will ever decay?

[drkitten]

Is your professor friend going to post his analysis here? If, as I strongly suspect, he will not, ask him if Dr. Musgrave's successive experiments where he claims that he got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up produced typical or atypical results.

Oh, they're probably atypical. That's Dr. Musgrave's point. Atypical results happen.... and quite often.

The fact that you don't recognize the fundamental point is part of the reason that Dr. Musgrave is blowing you off, I suspect.

And, no, my tame expert has better things to do than educate you in the fundamentals of statistics. Frankly, I see no need to insult him by even asking him to.

(Has anyone else noticed Rodney's characteristic goalpost shifting?)

ETA : actually, the mean of the results that he got (52/7) is quite typical. The distribution about the mean --- well, I will be happy to let you know whether or not that's typical when you tell me what you consider to be the appropriate test to run (and get it right).

[Madalch]

That's about the chance (give or take an order of magnitude- I'll recheck my calculations when I'm less tired) that a given atom of uranium-238 will decay to thorium in a given second.

So I suppose you consider uranium to be completely unradioactive, since there's no chance an atom of it will ever decay?

Well, may calculations were completely wrong, but the chance of a uranium atom decaying to thorium in a given second is one in 2 x 10^17.

Clearly mathematically impossible, right?

[Rodney]

ETA : actually, the mean of the results that he got (52/7) is quite typical. The distribution about the mean --- well, I will be happy to let you know whether or not that's typical when you tell me what you consider to be the appropriate test to run (and get it right).
The results are completely atypical -- particularly, the last three experiments where Dr. Musgrave states that he used a total of only nine trials to get HHHH three times. Use whatever statistical test you want -- the probability of that is very low. Typically, if seven similar experiments were done, in at least one of those experiments 30/40 trials would be required to obtain HHHH. Thus, a typical range of the number of trials needed to obtain HHHH in seven experiments would be more like 1-35/40, not 1-16. The way Dr. Musgrave presents his findings, the average person would likely think that, if the odds of something happening are 1 in 16, it's bound to happen by the 16th trial. Very misleading.

[paximperium]

The results are completely atypical -- particularly, the last three experiments where Dr. Musgrave states that he used a total of only nine trials to get HHHH three times. Use whatever statistical test you want -- the probability of that is very low. Typically, if seven similar experiments were done, in at least one of those experiments 30/40 trials would be required to obtain HHHH. Thus, a typical range of the number of trials needed to obtain HHHH in seven experiments would be more like 1-35/40, not 1-16. The way Dr. Musgrave presents his findings, the average person would likely think that, if the odds of something happening are 1 in 16, it's bound to happen by the 16th trial. Very misleading.
Rodney, a little suggestion. Stop. You don't understand basic probability or even basic math. Your continued attempts is looking increasingly pathetic.

The probability of something occurring is scattered around a mean. 1/16 chance of occurring is a mean. This means there will be random outside chances. There is a chance that the attempt for HHHH occurring on the first trial just as there is chance HHHH will occur only after five thousand tries.

You are making yourself look not only ignorant but dogmatic and downright dishonest. You are attacking YOUR ignorance and YOUR misread of what Musgrave wrote. It doesn't make sense because YOU don't understand what Musgrave was trying to say. YOU are attacking YOUR own misunderstanding.

If this is your only argument left to harp on, then go ahead but it continues to just show you have no idea what you are talking about and no idea what you are attacking.

[drkitten]

The results are completely atypical -- particularly, the last three experiments where



... you cherry pick data out of the middle of a pile in order to lie about it?

That's a statistical no-no. Analyze all of the data or none of it -- those are your choices.



The way Dr. Musgrave presents his findings, the average person would likely think that, if the odds of something happening are 1 in 16, it's bound to happen by the 16th trial.

Not at all. All he says is that success can be achieved surprisingly early, which is true. He says nothing at all about how late success can be achieved.

Unsurprisingly (hee hee), you're reading something into his writing that isn't there in order to grind your own axe.

So we've got you dead to rights on cherry-picking from data and misrepresentation:

Very misleading.

The only thing that is misleading is the pack of lies you are telling about him.

[Rodney]

... you cherry pick data out of the middle of a pile in order to lie about it?

That's a statistical no-no. Analyze all of the data or none of it -- those are your choices.

Not at all. All he says is that success can be achieved surprisingly early, which is true. He says nothing at all about how late success can be achieved.

Unsurprisingly (hee hee), you're reading something into his writing that isn't there in order to grind your own axe.

So we've got you dead to rights on cherry-picking from data and misrepresentation:

The only thing that is misleading is the pack of lies you are telling about him.
Please feel free to document this "pack of lies." Now, about Dr. Musgrave. According to http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000002.html --
"Ian Musgrave is a biomedical researcher and University lecturer from Australia. His current area of research is into a protein so obscure that only four other people actually belive it exists. He is also researching Alzheimer’s disease, for reasons he can’t currently remember. In a career that has spanned 25 years, Ian has counted kangaroo poo in western Queensland, dug up beet root in the Darling Downs, lost an entire herd of cattle in an experimental tropical grass paddock, and measured the hight of sand dunes on Frazer Island. It is generally felt that he can do the least harm studying obscure proteins away from normal people. When not researching obscure proteins or obsessively tracking down long out-of-date publications on peppered moths, Ian is an amateur astronomer, bushwalker and aficionado of folk music, often combining all 3 three activities at folk music camps in the bush." Sounds like an interesting guy who may or may not know anything about statistics.

Now, as far as cherry-picking data: If you consider Dr. Musgrave's seven experiments as a whole, the odds of each of them producing HHHH in 16 or fewer trials is less than 5%. So, his results are clearly atypical. Why not inform his readers of that? Let me put it another way: If, as would be typical of seven such experiments, one or more had resulted in 30-40 trials before HHHH was obtained, do you think that Dr. Musgrave would have reported the results in his talkorigins article?

[paximperium]

Please feel free to document this "pack of lies." Now, about Dr. Musgrave. According to http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000002.html --
"Ian Musgrave is a biomedical researcher and University lecturer from Australia. His current area of research is into a protein so obscure that only four other people actually belive it exists. He is also researching Alzheimer’s disease, for reasons he can’t currently remember. In a career that has spanned 25 years, Ian has counted kangaroo poo in western Queensland, dug up beet root in the Darling Downs, lost an entire herd of cattle in an experimental tropical grass paddock, and measured the hight of sand dunes on Frazer Island. It is generally felt that he can do the least harm studying obscure proteins away from normal people. When not researching obscure proteins or obsessively tracking down long out-of-date publications on peppered moths, Ian is an amateur astronomer, bushwalker and aficionado of folk music, often combining all 3 three activities at folk music camps in the bush." Sounds like an interesting guy who may or may not know anything about statistics.
Sounds like a cool guy. Your attempt at a very pathetic ad hominem is noted. Unable to defend your arguments, you resort to insinuations.


Now, as far as cherry-picking data: If you consider Dr. Musgrave's seven experiments as a whole, the odds of each of them producing HHHH in 16 or fewer trials is less than 5%. So, those results are clearly atypical. Why not inform his readers of that?
What is the relevance to the point he was making? Hmmmmm...?


Let me put it another way: If, as would be typical of seven such experiments, one or more had resulted in 30-40 trials before HHHH was obtained, do you think that Dr. Musgrave would have reported the results in his talkorigins article?
Yes.

[arthwollipot]

Sounds like a list of activities that require the use of statistics. Counting kangaroo poo: statistics. Digging up beetroot: unless it was for purposes of food production, statistics. Losing cattle: well, it depends on why the cattle were in the experimental paddock in the first place - it's quite possible that statistics were used somehow in that research.

Actually, come to think of it, pretty much all science requires a good grasp of the principles of statistics. I can't think of a branch of science where a lack of statistical knowledge would not be a major hindrance.

So yeah, I think I'd trust pretty much any working scientist's ability with statistics before I trusted my own.

[plumjam]

Now, as far as cherry-picking data: If you consider Dr. Musgrave's seven experiments as a whole, the odds of each of them producing HHHH in 16 or fewer trials is less than 5%. So, his results are clearly atypical. Why not inform his readers of that? Let me put it another way: If, as would be typical of seven such experiments, one or more had resulted in 30-40 trials before HHHH was obtained, do you think that Dr. Musgrave would have reported the results in his talkorigins article?

Yes, it's clearly misleading.
But when addressing the use of a misleading rationale or approach in support of the prevailing (their) worldview the 'skeptics' put their 'skepticism' on hold. So Musgrave gets a pass.
My own 'skepticism' makes me doubt whether he even did these coin toss experiments at all. Sounds like he may have plucked those numbers out of the air in order to support his overall point. Is there any independent confirmation that these 'experiments' took place?

[Rodney]

Sounds like a cool guy. Your attempt at a very pathetic ad hominem is noted. Unable to defend your arguments, you resort to insinuations.

Hardly an ad hominem -- Dr. Musgrave's pandas' thumb newsy bio gives no hint that he has ever done any statistical research.

What is the relevance to the point he was making? Hmmmmm...?
The relevance is that often more than 16 trials are needed to obtain HHHH, but the statistically uninformed reader wouldn't know that from Dr. Musgrave's discussion. Wouldn't you find it misleading if a creationist posted the results of seven similar experiments in which he claimed that, in each of his experiments, 16 or more trials were required before HHHH turned up?

[Perpetual Student]

Previous question:
"Would you please define the term "paranormal." Since that is the essential concept in your argument, a definition would appear to be appropriate."
What is a paranormal event? How about providing a little explanation -- if you have one!

[arthwollipot]

Hardly an ad hominem -- Dr. Musgrave's pandas' thumb newsy bio gives no hint that he has ever done any statistical research.I absolutely disagree. What is "counting kangaroo poo" if not statistical research?

[Pixel42]

If you consider Dr. Musgrave's seven experiments as a whole, the odds of each of them producing HHHH in 16 or fewer trials is less than 5%. So, his results are clearly atypical. Why not inform his readers of that?
He did. In fact that was precisely the point he was making: that a single simple experiment produced atypical results.

Let me put it another way: If, as would be typical of seven such experiments, one or more had resulted in 30-40 trials before HHHH was obtained, do you think that Dr. Musgrave would have reported the results in his talkorigins article?
Of course. Atypical results in the opposite direction would have illustrated the point he was making just as well as the atypical results he actually happened to obtain.

My degree is in Mathematics and I can assure you that the article makes perfect sense. The fact that you still do not understand the relatively simple (albeit counter-intuitive) point it is making suggests that you are actively resisting understanding it, because it contradicts what you have chosen to believe.

ETA: Tell you what, instead of arguing this back and forth why not simply try the experiment for yourself? Do the same number of trials Dr. Musgrave did and see if your results are "typical" or if you, too, obtain atypical results.

[paximperium]

Hardly an ad hominem -- Dr. Musgrave's pandas' thumb newsy bio gives no hint that he has ever done any statistical research.
So? He actually knows what he is writing about. I see absolutely no issue with what he has written. Would you like me to post MY credentials?

I have a MSc in Clinical Research and have more than enough experience with statistics and have 20 papers under my name. Pixel42, with a degree with mathematics also agree with me. So do you have anything to attack on that article or are you going to continue to throw red herring and insinuations around?


The relevance is that often more than 16 trials are needed to obtain HHHH, but the statistically uninformed reader wouldn't know that from Dr. Musgrave's discussion. Wouldn't you find it misleading if a creationist posted the results of seven similar experiments in which he claimed that, in each of his experiments, 16 or more trials were required before HHHH turned up?
No, because his examples were relevant to his point and not in any way misleading.

Be very very very clear.
What is YOUR understanding of Musgrave's point?
What do YOU consider midleading about it?

You have never once shown even a basic understanding of statistics, so I'm very doubtful you really know what you are attacking.

[paximperium]

Yes, it's clearly misleading.
But when addressing the use of a misleading rationale or approach in support of the prevailing (their) worldview the 'skeptics' put their 'skepticism' on hold. So Musgrave gets a pass.
My own 'skepticism' makes me doubt whether he even did these coin toss experiments at all. Sounds like he may have plucked those numbers out of the air in order to support his overall point. Is there any independent confirmation that these 'experiments' took place?
Hiya Plum. So you wanna play? You wanna try to pretend to not be a bias little Creationist that you are? Wanna pretend to actually understand statistics?

Alright let's play:

Be very very very clear.
What is YOUR understanding of Musgrave's point?
What do YOU consider midleading about it?
What is wrong with the statistics that was presented?

[Dancing David]

It comes down to probabilities. The odds of life coming into existence by chance are off the charts.


.

Comsidering you give no numbers that is hystericaly funny, so let us return to thangamabobs and dohickeys shall we? I bet I have been down this road before.

How much time is a million years?

In a puddle two chemicals we shall call thingsmabobs float around, there is a one in a million chance that when they bumb into each other they will make a dohickey. So we say that in this puddle they will bump into each other once a year, and then let a milltion years pass. There is a very good chance that they will make a do-hickey right?

So what if they bump into each other once a day, then we have .0000001 x365 x 1000000, or 365, right?
And so on if they bump into each other once an hour it is 365 x 24=8760
If they bump into each other once a minute it is 60 x 8760=525600.

Right Rodeney? more later, break is over....

[Wowbagger]

It might also be worth mentioning something else: Rodney, and many Creationist folks, assume there could have been only one path for life to emerge. But, that does not necessarily have to be the case. There could be many, perhaps thousands, perhaps millions, of different ways life could have emerged. Each one would work differently in the details, and the specifics of their chemistry. But, the essential characteristics we define life by, would be there: Some form of metabolism, some method of replication, various behaviors such as parasitism and altruism, etc.

The more possible ways there could be for life to emerge, the less important is the probability of each particular one occuring. As long as at least one of them actually does.

[Rodney]

Previous question:
"Would you please define the term "paranormal." Since that is the essential concept in your argument, a definition would appear to be appropriate."
What is a paranormal event? How about providing a little explanation -- if you have one!
A paranormal event is one that cannot be explained by the current scientific paradigm.

[JJM]

A paranormal event is one that cannot be explained by the current scientific paradigm.You gotta do better than that. The history of science gives us a long timeline of the inexplicable being explained.

[Perpetual Student]

A paranormal event is one that cannot be explained by the current scientific paradigm.

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

First: Since the chaotic nature of weather cannot be explained other than in very general terms, are weather and other chaotic behaviors paranormal events?

Second: Was the human circulatory system a paranormal event before William Harvey's discoveries?

[shadron]

Please feel free to document this "pack of lies."

Do it yourself, Rodney. Take three honest dice (dice are easier to use than coins); consider a 1, 2, or 3 to be T, 4, 5, or 6 to be H. Throw the dice. Count how many times it takes to get an HHH. Write it down. Repeat 10 times. That shouldn't take you more than 10 minutes or so. Your ten trials should have values ranging from 1 upwards, potentially to very high numbers. I'll bet you never make it to 16 before your get your HHH, not once in ten tries. I'll bet your mean (total number of throws in ten trials / 10) will be between 4 and 8. These realizations are generally arrived at within the first three classes of an college introductory statistics course.

Hint: this is exactly equivalent to rolling one die, and seeing how may throws it takes to roll a 6 (or a 5 or a 4, ... or a 1). Or better, rolling two dice and seeing how long it takes to roll the same value on both.

My results are: 7, 3, 2, 10, 2, 5, 3, 9, 3, 4, for a mean of 4.8, a bit low but not unusually so, as the standard deviation is 2.9.

If you disagree with this method of simulating your problem, please suggest a substitute.

Share your data with us when you are through. It will be a great way for us to guage your honesty.

[paximperium]

A paranormal event is one that cannot be explained by the current scientific paradigm.
So everything was once upon a time paranormal including lasers, cars, airplanes, biology, evolution and well...just about everything...I'm surprised you haven't fallen down to worship your magic picture box yet.

I also noticed your dodging of some simple questions to back up your insinuations against Musgrave.
Be very very very clear.
What is YOUR understanding of Musgrave's point?
What do YOU consider midleading about it?
What is wrong with the statistics that was presented?

[Rodney]

Do it yourself, Rodney. Take three honest dice (dice are easier to use than coins); consider a 1, 2, or 3 to be T, 4, 5, or 6 to be H. Throw the dice. Count how many times it takes to get an HHH.
Uh, shadron, we're talking about getting HHHH, not HHH.

[paximperium]

Do it yourself, Rodney. Take three honest dice (dice are easier to use than coins); consider a 1, 2, or 3 to be T, 4, 5, or 6 to be H. Throw the dice. Count how many times it takes to get an HHH. Write it down. Repeat 10 times. That shouldn't take you more than 10 minutes or so. Your ten trials should have values ranging from 1 upwards, potentially to very high numbers. I'll bet you never make it to 16 before your get your HHH, not once in ten tries. I'll bet your mean (total number of throws in ten trials / 10) will be between 4 and 8. These realizations are generally arrived at within the first three classes of an college introductory statistics course.

Hint: this is exactly equivalent to rolling one die, and seeing how may throws it takes to roll a 6 (or a 5 or a 4, ... or a 1). Or better, rolling two dice and seeing how long it takes to roll the same value on both.

My results are: 7, 3, 2, 10, 2, 5, 3, 9, 3, 4, for a mean of 4.8, a bit low but not unusually so, as the standard deviation is 2.9.

If you disagree with this method of simulating your problem, please suggest a substitute.

Share your data with us when you are through. It will be a great way for us to guage your honesty.
Shadron,
I wouldn't bother with Rodney. He not only doesn't understand, he has zero interest in understanding. He wallows in and is very proud of his ignorance.
Uh, shadron, we're talking about getting HHHH, not HHH.
Uh Rodney, Shadron is actually trying to teach you basic statistics. We can all see, you not only do not understand, you have no interest in learning at all.

Oh yeah, still waiting:
Be very very very clear.
What is YOUR understanding of Musgrave's point?
What do YOU consider midleading about it?
What is wrong with the statistics that was presented?

[Dancing David]

A paranormal event is one that cannot be explained by the current scientific paradigm.


Okay, so prior to the postulation, explanation and confirmation of any particles in particle physics, they are paranormal?

Great Rodney, you have reduced your word to meaningless.

"Well your honor, prior to the finding of the fingerprint identifying the killer, we assumed it was the paranormal!"

[Dancing David]

So Rodney, do you know the difference between order and random?

I doubt it!

Four head in a row (.5)4=.0625 or 1/16. Right?

So that means that if you throw a coin four times in sixteen trials, there is a good chance that at least one sequence will come up HHHH, right?

But what is the difference between random, probability and distribution?

Do you know?

If the set HHHH came up only 1/16 out of 1,000 runs that would most likely mean what? That the number of runs was getting high enough to get an even distribution of probable outcomes.

But it would be foolish to say that "I made sixteen runs of 16 trials and the series HHHH came up one time, this coin is not fair" or "I made sixteen runs of 16 trials and the series HHHH came up 31 times, the coin is not fair"

Why would this be a foolish statement?

Because your sample size of distribution in both experiments is only 256 sets of four coins tosses. Or 1024 single tosses. This is not a large enough sample to determine if the distribution of heads and tails is fair.

Now if you have 10,000 runs of 16 trials, then you can say that your confidence in the sample distribution is a little higher. You would expect that the distribution of HHHH or ANY specific order would be closer to 10,000. That goes for HTHT as well.

But you want to know the real check of the fairness of the coin?

You have 10,000 runs of 16 trials of 4 tosses, right?

So the aggregate is 64,000 single coin tosses, if the coin is fair the number of H and the number of T should be approaching 32,000, but it could still be off by a few thousand either way, and still be a fair coin.

You would really want to toss the coin like 250,000 times to see if it is fair.


So your statements about probability are the depths of uninformed assertions.

For the combination HHHH to appear exactly once in each trial of sixteen tosses would imply ORDER not RANDOM.

[Rodney]

Shadron,
I wouldn't bother with Rodney. He not only doesn't understand, he has zero interest in understanding. He wallows in and is very proud of his ignorance.

Uh Rodney, Shadron is actually trying to teach you basic statistics. We can all see, you not only do not understand, you have no interest in learning at all.
You're certainly correct that I don't understand the logic of switching the issue at hand from obtaining four consecutive heads (HHHH) to obtaining only three consecutive heads (HHH). Perhaps you or Shadron can enlighten me as to how obtaining HHH is relevant to what Dr. Musgrave says he did, which was obtaining HHHH.

Oh yeah, still waiting:
Be very very very clear.
What is YOUR understanding of Musgrave's point?
What do YOU consider midleading about it?
What is wrong with the statistics that was presented?
Dr Musgrave stated: "Do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 10^40) gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did)."

The first major problem is that Dr. Musgrave either does not understand or does not want to inform the reader that the "series" he refers to is not limited to the range 1-16, but extends from 1 to infinity. Sure, it's possible in an unusual case to do seven experiments and never exceed 16 trials, but it's also possible in an unusual case to do seven experiments and never fall below 16 trials. If the point Dr. Musgrave is trying to make is that statistics are variable, fine, but inform the reader that the results he claims to have obtained are not at all representative. The way he presents his argument leads to confusion among the statistically challenged; specifically, it leads to the belief that, through some sort of mathematical magic, the number of trials will be less than what common sense would dictate.

The second major problem is Dr. Musgrave's contention that "Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early." What does this mean -- that no matter how staggering the odds, you can always fall back on blind luck to save a speculative hypothesis? Again, a very misleading notion to communicate to the statistically challenged.

The third major problem is that there is a colossal difference between flipping HHHH on the first trial and flipping HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (with a few more Hs, even) on the first trial. And what, exactly, is "surprisingly early"? By the 10^37 trial? Why not let the reader know that his HHHH example is many orders of magnitude different than the 4.29 x 10^40 issue that he is attempting to address?

[Perpetual Student]

What we have here is typical creationist double-think. On the one hand, a campaign of great scrutiny is launched on any possible incomplete aspect of current theory and such open areas are magnified and presented as "proof" that the the theory is wrong. Then, on the other hand, a phrase like "paranormal event" is used as the alternative explanation without even the slightest analysis or serious definition. They are shameless!

[shadron]

Uh, shadron, we're talking about getting HHHH, not HHH.

OK, Rodney, I made a mistake. Do you think you can handle the extrapolation, or do you need guidance?

Sure, it's possible in an unusual case to do seven experiments and never exceed 16 trials, but it's also possible in an unusual case to do seven experiments and never fall below 16 trials.

Have you tried it, Rod? What are the respective probabilities? It would appear that the former case is better than 70%, while he latter is on the order of .00001%. Look, I'll do it right here, online, using a pair of 8-sided dice, courtesy of my son's AD&D gaming:

3, 2, 5, 1, 2, 11, 2
19, 6, 1, 6, 5, 2, 5
3, 1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 6
3, 5, 8, 27, 6, 1, 4
13, 1, 9, 12, 2, 5, 2
1, 7, 11, 8, 10, 12, 6
1, 1, 1, 12, 9, 12, 4

computed probability in 7 trials, all under 16: 72%
computed probability in 7 trials, all over 16: 0% I may have well rated the chance of an experiment with all seven trials over 16 much too high at .00001%, but only 100,000 experiments or so would settle the matter experimentally.

[plumjam]

The second major problem is Dr. Musgrave's contention that "Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early." What does this mean -- that no matter how staggering the odds, you can always fall back on blind luck to save a speculative hypothesis? Again, a very misleading notion to communicate to the statistically challenged.



bolding mine
This is a very good point. It is the only defence that Naturalists have in a whole range of topics, and it displays what I'd call an irrational faith-position which attributes a quasi-miraculous creative power to what is essentially just Time + Luck.
It's advantage (for them) is that it is essentially irrefutable. For even the most extraordinarily improbable events it is always possible to argue Time + Luck did it... this because, no matter how unlikely, it is always possible.
Although irrefutable, it is just not a reasonable position to take.
For example, it is always possible that I could win (buying a single ticket each week) the national lottery every week for the next 20 years. If this actually happened and someone were to attribute it to pure Time + Luck how rational would we think that person was?
By far the more rational position to take would be that there is something else going on.. probably involving intelligent design in the form of fraud.
Yet on a whole range of topics Naturalists do exactly that - believe irrationally in the irrefutable Time + Luck hypothesis.

[Pixel42]

The third major problem is that there is a colossal difference between flipping HHHH on the first trial and flipping HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (with a few more Hs, even) on the first trial.
So?

A universe containing trillions of planets had existed for 9 billion years when life began on earth. So if that life was indeed the first to arise, it was hardly on the first trial.

[paximperium]

You're certainly correct that I don't understand the logic of switching the issue at hand from obtaining four consecutive heads (HHHH) to obtaining only three consecutive heads (HHH). Perhaps you or Shadron can enlighten me as to how obtaining HHH is relevant to what Dr. Musgrave says he did, which was obtaining HHHH.
Look below. Looking forward to your dodge and attempt throw another red herring again.


Dr Musgrave stated: "Do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 10^40) gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did)."
Sounds right.


The first major problem is that Dr. Musgrave either does not understand or does not want to inform the reader that the "series" he refers to is not limited to the range 1-16, but extends from 1 to infinity.
EXACTLY. Still don't get it huh?
Hint: So what is the range of attempts that life had at coming into existance?


Sure, it's possible in an unusual case to do seven experiments and never exceed 16 trials, but it's also possible in an unusual case to do seven experiments and never fall below 16 trials. If the point Dr. Musgrave is trying to make is that statistics are variable, fine, but inform the reader that the results he claims to have obtained are not at all representative. Why should he? Is wasn't his point.


The way he presents his argument leads to confusion among the statistically challenged; specifically, it leads to the belief that, through some sort of mathematical magic, the number of trials will be less than what common sense would dictate.
EXACTLY, because it has nothing to do with common sense as Musgrave stated in his first sentence and which you ignored.


The second major problem is Dr. Musgrave's contention that "Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early." What does this mean -- that no matter how staggering the odds, you can always fall back on blind luck to save a speculative hypothesis? Again, a very misleading notion to communicate to the statistically challenged.
Nope. As noted with your original claim which you have purposefully ran away from and completely redirected into this retarded ad hominem against Musgrave and something you do not understand:
It comes down to probabilities. The odds of life coming into existence by chance are off the charts.

His statement and article clearly has destroyed your sad attempt at using this "off the charts" claim that life cannot come into existance.
You still haven't gotten his point at all have you? Try again.


The third major problem is that there is a colossal difference between flipping HHHH on the first trial and flipping HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (with a few more Hs, even) on the first trial. And what, exactly, is "surprisingly early"? By the 10^37 trial? Why not let the reader know that his HHHH example is many orders of magnitude different than the 4.29 x 10^40 issue that he is attempting to address?
So?
Why don't YOU and your Creationist liars tell everyone what the order of magnitude difference is at the attempt that life had the chance to start? Ooops, you don't have that number? So how do you know it is "off the charts"?

My psychic powers are amazing isn't it?:
Of course now Rodney will attempt to start arguing about irrelevant statistics to veer off this discussion again about the "random chance" and other such BS while ignoring the multiple posts that have told him that Abiogenesis and Evolution is not random.

True "paranormal" powers at work.

[paximperium]

bolding mine
This is a very good point. It is the only defence that Naturalists have in a whole range of topics, and it displays what I'd call an irrational faith-position which attributes a quasi-miraculous creative power to what is essentially just Time + Luck.
Since abiogenesis and evolution does not rely on luck, your entire statement is false.


It's advantage (for them) is that it is essentially irrefutable. For even the most extraordinarily improbable events it is always possible to argue Time + Luck did it... this because, no matter how unlikely, it is always possible.
Although irrefutable, it is just not a reasonable position to take.
Your statement is false. It is easily refutable. Show us any other method or evidence that life can come into being. Abiogenesis continues to be studied and refined. No one considers it set in stone except for liars like yourself.


For example, it is always possible that I could win (buying a single ticket each week) the national lottery every week for the next 20 years. If this actually happened and someone were to attribute it to pure Time + Luck how rational would we think that person was?
Does that person have a few million years to try? No? Then your analogy is false.


By far the more rational position to take would be that there is something else going on.. probably involving intelligent design in the form of fraud.
Yet on a whole range of topics Naturalists do exactly that - believe irrationally in the irrefutable Time + Luck hypothesis.
Since you have been told repeatedly that abiogenesis and evolution is not random, your continued attempts at attacking evolution and abiogenesis as nothing more than purposeful slander.

Your continued falsehoods continue to reflect the type of person you are. Keep it up.

[Naughtyhippo]

Was an actual probality of life occuring through, ah, 'non-paranormal' means mentioned at all through this thread? Did I just miss it? Otherwise, Rodney's arguement boils down to 'Things with really low probabilities just don't happen'. I'm guessing he's not one of your natural gamblers then.

Am I the only one detecting a whiff of 'It's just too much of a co-incidence that the earth's environment provides exactly the correct requirements for life to carry on'?

[Naughtyhippo]

By far the more rational position to take would be that there is something else going on.. probably involving intelligent design in the form of fraud.


FRAUD???????

Plumjam, I believe you may be truly evil. I congratulate you.

[Dancing David]

You're certainly correct that I don't understand the logic of switching the issue at hand from obtaining four consecutive heads (HHHH) to obtaining only three consecutive heads (HHH). Perhaps you or Shadron can enlighten me as to how obtaining HHH is relevant to what Dr. Musgrave says he did, which was obtaining HHHH.


Dr Musgrave stated: "Do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 10^40) gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did)."

And guess what Rodeny, he is right and you are ignoring the facts.

try it yourself, sit down witha coin, do some trials on different days, see what happens.

You don't know what random is do you?


The first major problem is that Dr. Musgrave either does not understand or does not want to inform the reader that the "series" he refers to is not limited to the range 1-16, but extends from 1 to infinity.

Move the goal post, you are still ignorant, in that you are uninformed.

Sure, it's possible in an unusual case to do seven experiments and never exceed 16 trials, but it's also possible in an unusual case to do seven experiments and never fall below 16 trials.

More ignorance, why dont you run a thousand trials and tell us the distribution?

If the point Dr. Musgrave is trying to make is that statistics are variable, fine, but inform the reader that the results he claims to have obtained are not at all representative.

You don't know what that means , do you?

The way he presents his argument leads to confusion among the statistically challenged; specifically, it leads to the belief that, through some sort of mathematical magic, the number of trials will be less than what common sense would dictate.

Oh great, common sense, the same thing that feuls racism. Wonderful!



The second major problem is Dr. Musgrave's contention that "Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early." What does this mean -- that no matter how staggering the odds, you can always fall back on blind luck to save a speculative hypothesis? Again, a very misleading notion to communicate to the statistically challenged.



The third major problem is that there is a colossal difference between flipping HHHH on the first trial and flipping HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (with a few more Hs, even) on the first trial. And what, exactly, is "surprisingly early"? By the 10^37 trial? Why not let the reader know that his HHHH example is many orders of magnitude different than the 4.29 x 10^40 issue that he is attempting to address?

You are still clueless.

[Wowbagger]

It is the only defence that Naturalists have in a whole range of topics, and it displays what I'd call an irrational faith-position which attributes a quasi-miraculous creative power to what is essentially just Time + Luck. How could that be the only defence, when it is not even being used as a defence?

Those who think "Time + Luck" is any excuses should read up on Sharpshooter's Fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

If I were to shoot an arrow at a blank wall, and then paint a bullseye around where the arrow landed, would I have the right to exclaim "What are the chances I would hit that bullseye?!!"

Creationists are just like that.

Just because the arrow landed on the wall in a particular spot, does not mean it could never have landed anywhere else, if the conditions were a bit different.

Just because life, as we know it, ended up working in a particular way, does NOT mean it could never have worked any other way, if the conditions were different.

[Naughtyhippo]

How could that be the only defence, when it is not even being used as a defence?

Those who think "Time + Luck" is any excuses should read up on Sharpshooter's Fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

If I were to shoot an arrow at a blank wall, and then paint a bullseye around where the arrow landed, would I have the right to exclaim "What are the chances I would hit that bullseye?!!"

Creationists are just like that.

Just because the arrow landed on the wall in a particular spot, does not mean it could never have landed anywhere else, if the conditions were a bit different.

Just because life, as we know it, ended up working in a particular way, does NOT mean it could never have worked any other way, if the conditions were different.

There! That's part of what I was trying to say.





Thanks, Wowbagger

[Wowbagger]

On a side note, I do recall a time, when I first joined this Forum, that I actually defended the "Time + Luck" idea. But, I have learned a lot since then! I no longer accept it as a valid argument. (And, if anyone manages to dig up that ancient post, please refer them to this one.)

The empirical nature of abiogenesis work provides all arguments one would need, to defend it as good science, and as a generator of plausible explanations for the emergence of life.

The superfluous, unhelpful nature of I.D. is all one needs to refute it as a "science". We do NOT assume "there is something else going on", that is supernatural in nature. We require evidence that such a thing could make an empricially detectable (and independently verifiable) impact on early life.

[Wowbagger]

Of course, it almost goes without saying, that the idea of an Intelligent Designer is, itself, irrefutable. It does not matter where the arrow lands on the wall (see post #187). Creationists could always claim "that's where the Designer wanted it to land", and we would never be able to confirm nor deny that statement.

In the meantime, the Urey-Miller experiment demonstrates the actual application of science, in resolving these issues. How come you never see I.D. doing that?!

Yes, "Time + Luck" is irrefutable. That is why you don't see it applied to the Urey-Miller experiment, nor any other abiogenesis effort!

[Rodney]

OK, Rodney, I made a mistake. Do you think you can handle the extrapolation, or do you need guidance?

Have you tried it, Rod? What are the respective probabilities? It would appear that the former case is better than 70%, while he latter is on the order of .00001%. Look, I'll do it right here, online, using a pair of 8-sided dice, courtesy of my son's AD&D gaming:

3, 2, 5, 1, 2, 11, 2
19, 6, 1, 6, 5, 2, 5
3, 1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 6
3, 5, 8, 27, 6, 1, 4
13, 1, 9, 12, 2, 5, 2
1, 7, 11, 8, 10, 12, 6
1, 1, 1, 12, 9, 12, 4

computed probability in 7 trials, all under 16: 72%
computed probability in 7 trials, all over 16: 0% I may have well rated the chance of an experiment with all seven trials over 16 much too high at .00001%, but only 100,000 experiments or so would settle the matter experimentally.
I'm not sure how you arrived at your results, but they're incorrect. First, the relevant question is "16 or fewer trials to obtain four consecutive heads in seven consecutive experiments in which a coin is flipped four times per trial." Second, to obtain the answer, there is no need to run trials either by using dice or flipping coins. Rather, all you need to do is calculate the probability of not obtaining four consecutive heads (HHHH) in any trial, which is 15/16 (.9375), then raise that value to the 16th power. That gives the probability of not obtaining HHHH in 16 or fewer trials, which works out to be .356. However, since the issue here is obtaining HHHH in 16 or fewer trials, that .356 value must be subtracted from 1, which gives a probability of .644. That .644 value must then be raised to the 7th power, to give the probability of obtaining HHHH in 16 or fewer trials in seven consecutive experiments. Raising .644 to the 7th power gives .046 (4.6%).

Now, it is true that the probability of needing at least 16 trials to obtain four consecutive heads in seven consecutive experiments is even slimmer than that. Specifically, it's .356 to the 7th power, which works out to be only 0.1%. Either way, my point is that throwing out to statistically-challenged readers non-representative results is misleading and leads to a misunderstanding of probabilities.

[paximperium]

I'm not sure how you arrived at your results, but they're incorrect. First, the relevant question is "16 or fewer trials to obtain four consecutive heads in seven consecutive experiments in which a coin is flipped four times per trial." Second, to obtain the answer, there is no need to run trials either by using dice or flipping coins. Rather, all you need to do is calculate the probability of not obtaining four consecutive heads (HHHH) in any trial, which is 15/16 (.9375), then raise that value to the 16th power. That gives the probability of not obtaining HHHH in 16 or fewer trials, which works out to be .356. However, since the issue here is obtaining HHHH in 16 or fewer trials, that .356 value must be subtracted from 1, which gives a probability of .644. That .644 value must then be raised to the 7th power, to give the probability of obtaining HHHH in 16 or fewer trials in seven consecutive experiments. Raising .644 to the 7th power gives .046 (4.6%).
No.


Now, it is true that the probability of needing at least 16 trials to obtain four consecutive heads in seven consecutive experiments is even slimmer than that. Specifically, it's .356 to the 7th power, which works out to be only 0.1%. Either way, my point is that throwing out to statistically-challenged readers non-representative results is misleading and leads to a misunderstanding of probabilities.
Okay.

Besides making you look foolish because you don't understand statistics, how does your entire meandering posts that does nothing but make you look ignorant, invalidates Musgrave's article showing Creationist statistics to be false and dishonest.

How does it even support your original claim?
It comes down to probabilities. The odds of life coming into existence by chance are off the charts.

People will notice that Rodney continues on the simple standard Creationist tactic of attempting to poke holes(rather pathetically and using their own ignorance as "evidence") at someone else's argument instead of actually providing evidence to support his own claim.

[Ivor the Engineer]

The solution to the problem is provided by the geometric distribution:

P(X = k) = p.(1-p)^(k-1)

where:

p is the probability of success, and
X is the number of trials until one success.

The cumulative distribution function (cdf) is:

P(X <= k) = 1 - (1-p)^k

Solving for k:

k = log(P(X <= k)) / log(1-p)

For p = (1/2)^4 = 1/16 and P(X <= k) = 0.5:

k = 10.74

I.e. About 50% of the time 11 or more trials will be required to obtain 4 heads. The cdf for some other values of k:

k|P(X <= k)
1|0.0625
2|0.121
3|0.176
4|0.228
5|0.276
6|0.321
7|0.363
8|0.403
9|0.441
10|0.476
11|0.508

[DanishDynamite]

This is interesting info and new to me. Anyone hear of this before?

"Re-analysis published in October 2008 of material from the experiments showed 22 amino acids rather than 5 were created in one apparatus. This was an apparatus thought to simulate an eruption of a volcano, with lightning. These new results provide stronger evidence that organic molecules can be synthesized from inorganic reactants."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
The only proof that exists in science is proof that some idea is wrong. The cornerstone of any scientific theory is that it is falisfiable. Any scientific theory can be thrown in the bin by a single (reproduced) experiment which shows that it is wrong. The surviving theories are those which have never been shown to be wrong, not even once.

Just wanted to clear that up.

[Rodney]

No.
Yes.

Okay.

Besides making you look foolish because you don't understand statistics
Tell you what: If the above answer is really "no", I will concede that you know more about statistics than I do. If the above answer is really "yes", will you concede that I know more about statistics than you do?

how does your entire meandering posts that does nothing but make you look ignorant, invalidates Musgrave's article showing Creationist statistics to be false and dishonest.

How does it even support your original claim?

People will notice that Rodney continues on the simple standard Creationist tactic of attempting to poke holes(rather pathetically and using their own ignorance as "evidence") at someone else's argument instead of actually providing evidence to support his own claim.
My only claim is that the probability discussion in Dr. Musgrave's talkorigins article is highly misleading.

[Pixel42]

Tell you what: If the above answer is really "no", I will concede that you know more about statistics than I do.
The point you keep missing is that you are the only one talking about how to calculate probabilities. Musgrave is talking about how little those calculated probabilities tell you about what will happen when you actually toss a few coins. The only way to find that out is to toss the coins.

My only claim is that the probability discussion in Dr. Musgrave's talkorigins article is highly misleading.
Your claim is false. Musgrave's article is not misleading at all, quite the contrary. You are simply failing to grasp the point he is making.

[Tubbythin]

Just because life, as we know it, ended up working in a particular way, does NOT mean it could never have worked any other way, if the conditions were different.

Precisely. There seems to be an assumption here that things would have to work one way and one way only. Ie all tails.
If we threw a coin 8 times and got tails all the times we'd probably say "Ooh that's interesting and somewhat unlikely." But we'd probably say the same if we got any of the following:
HHHHHHHH
TTTTHHHH
HHHHTTTT
HTHTHTHT
THTHTHTH
TTHHTTHH
HHTTHHTT
TTHHHHTT
HHTTTTHH.

Now the odds of getting something interesting are 10 times bigger than the odds of all tails. But they're all still interesting.

[Silentknight]

:D
How was it possible for you to write the above [reasonably ordered and meaningful sentences] if, as you suggest, we have not yet seen any kind of mind that can create order just by thinking about it?

You kind of proved my point. I didn't just stare at the screen and will the words to form. The process of typing a post requires a brain, nerves, muscles, and fingers to type, a computer with a working internet connection, and knowledge of language skills such as spelling, grammar, meaning, etc. It took a live physical being of a toolmaking species, using tools other members of this species created from existing materials, in order to create my post. We do not have any examples at all of a disembodied mind that is able to will materials into existence and then will them into an orderly arrangement. That's not what it means to "design" something, and it's not something any word we have could possibly relate to.

In order for the argument from design to work, God needs to grow a brain, as well as nerves, muscles, hands and the organ systems needed to support them. He'd need other gods to have taught him the knowledge of how to make and use tools, and he'd need existing raw materials to make them out of. He'd also need to have a reason for his actions. In my case, I post here to learn, to laugh, and to practice my writing skills. Is God the same way? He could be, who knows?


@Rodney, there's a very basic flaw in your probability arguments. We're not just talking about a single guy flipping coins. We're talking about a whole damn ocean full of coins all flipping and re-flipping in unison. There is also more than one workable combination. You might be looking for a string of heads, but a string of tails or a pattern of one head and nine tails might also work. Furthermore, whenever a combination is successful, additional combinations are built off of that existing combination, so the process does not happen from scratch each time. For example, once you got a string of one head and nine tails, more combinations would continue on from that point. You will never get a modern life form, including a bacteria, from scratch, but that's not how the probabilities work.


BTW does anyone happen to have a link to the experiment where it was demonstrated that high heat and pressure actually caused peptide chains to form more readily? I think that might be relevant to this topic.

[Tubbythin]

For example, it is always possible that I could win (buying a single ticket each week) the national lottery every week for the next 20 years. If this actually happened and someone were to attribute it to pure Time + Luck how rational would we think that person was?
By far the more rational position to take would be that there is something else going on.. probably involving intelligent design in the form of fraud.
Yet on a whole range of topics Naturalists do exactly that - believe irrationally in the irrefutable Time + Luck hypothesis.

No. By far the more rational position to take is that your analogy is terrible.

[plumjam]

You kind of proved my point. I didn't just stare at the screen and will the words to form. The process of typing a post requires a brain, nerves, muscles, and fingers to type, a computer with a working internet connection, and knowledge of language skills such as spelling, grammar, meaning, etc. It took a live physical being of a toolmaking species, using tools other members of this species created from existing materials, in order to create my post. We do not have any examples at all of a disembodied mind that is able to will materials into existence and then will them into an orderly arrangement. That's not what it means to "design" something, and it's not something any word we have could possibly relate to.

In order for the argument from design to work, God needs to grow a brain, as well as nerves, muscles, hands and the organ systems needed to support them. He'd need other gods to have taught him the knowledge of how to make and use tools, and he'd need existing raw materials to make them out of. He'd also need to have a reason for his actions. In my case, I post here to learn, to laugh, and to practice my writing skills. Is God the same way? He could be, who knows?
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.

You try to get around this by introducing the concept of a mind which is disembodied.
What forms of evidence would you find acceptable for the existence of a disembodied mind? Given that it's disembodied it could only be inferred from the apparent organisation of 'embodied' stuff.
Look around you. The whole universe is an enormously complex and beautiful organisation of embodied stuff. It is organised (designed, if you prefer, which you won't) by invisible physical laws whose existence (as with minds which are not our own) we have to infer from their organising effects on embodied stuff.
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?

[Tubbythin]

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?

They're only fine tuned if you assume a purpose. Otherwise they are what they are.

[CapelDodger]

I absolutely disagree. What is "counting kangaroo poo" if not statistical research?

Obsessive Compulsion Disorder is one alternative.

[CapelDodger]

They're only fine tuned if you assume a purpose. Otherwise they are what they are.

And here we are because they are that way. It's no great revelation that the universe we exist in is not inimical to our existence.

[Rodney]

The point you keep missing is that you are the only one talking about how to calculate probabilities.
No, several other people here are also talking about how to calculate probabilities, and paximperium keeps saying that I don't understand statistics. So, is my calculation of 4.6% for the probability of obtaining HHHH in 16 or fewer trials in each of seven consecutive experiments right or wrong?

Musgrave is talking about how little those calculated probabilities tell you about what will happen when you actually toss a few coins. The only way to find that out is to toss the coins.
On the contrary, unless you believe in the ability to paranormally influence coin tosses ;), there is no need to toss any coins, you can just do a few calculations. Not that I'm completely against tossing coins, but if you are attempting to obtain a particular result and are doing the tossing by yourself, you may toss the coin in a manner that tends to give you more heads (or tails) than if you have no bias.

Your claim is false. Musgrave's article is not misleading at all, quite the contrary. You are simply failing to grasp the point he is making.
I grasp it, but disagree with it.

[CapelDodger]

It might also be worth mentioning something else: Rodney, and many Creationist folks, assume there could have been only one path for life to emerge. But, that does not necessarily have to be the case. There could be many, perhaps thousands, perhaps millions, of different ways life could have emerged. Each one would work differently in the details, and the specifics of their chemistry. But, the essential characteristics we define life by, would be there: Some form of metabolism, some method of replication, various behaviors such as parasitism and altruism, etc.

The more possible ways there could be for life to emerge, the less important is the probability of each particular one occuring. As long as at least one of them actually does.

Our existence proves the potential. In no way does it suggest intent. We just happen to be here now, looking around and trying to make objective sense of it all.

Creationists settle for the subjective satisfaction that they represent the culmination of a designed cosmos. I can understand the attraction, but it doesn't work for me. I aspire to be better than that.

[RecoveringYuppy]

@plumjam,

All those things you list as evidence of a disembodied mind are things our emdodied minds are only begining to understand, never mind creating ex nihilo. The appearance of the universe is that it existed without minds like ours just fine for 99.96666667% of it's existence. Those mindless forces did things beyond our wildest capabilities for eons before we ever even noticed they were going on, let alone trying to think about how they happened.

The idea that there has to be a mind even remotely similar to ours behind all this is simply hubris.

[CapelDodger]

@plumjam,

All those things you list as evidence of a disembodied mind are things our emdodied minds are only begining to understand, never mind creating ex nihilo. The appearance of the universe is that it existed without minds like ours just fine for 99.96666667% of it's existence. Those mindless forces did things beyond our wildest capabilities for eons before we ever even noticed they were going on, let alone trying to think about how they happened.

The idea that there has to be a mind even remotely similar to ours behind all this is simply hubris.

Apart from suggesting "self-indulgence" in place of "hubris" I'm with you 100% :).

[Pixel42]

No, several other people here are also talking about how to calculate probabilities, and paximperium keeps saying that I don't understand statistics. So, is my calculation of 4.6% for the probability of obtaining HHHH in 16 or fewer trials in each of seven consecutive experiments right or wrong?
It is correct, but it tells you nothing about what will actually happen when you toss some actual coins. That is the point you keep missing.

On the contrary, unless you believe in the ability to paranormally influence coin tosses ;), there is no need to toss any coins, you can just do a few calculations.
OK then, prove it. Do your calculations for, say 4 coin tosses, and predict the sequence of heads and tails you are going to get. Then toss a coin four times and see if you get that exact sequence.

See the problem? No amount of calculation can predict what is going to happen. Whatever sequence you actually get, the chances of that sequence happening were only 1 in 16. And yet it happened.

I grasp it, but disagree with it.
It is clear from your reply that you have still not even begun to grasp it.

[paximperium]

Tell you what: If the above answer is really "no", I will concede that you know more about statistics than I do. If the above answer is really "yes", will you concede that I know more about statistics than you do?
So this was your original challenge and now it's magically morphed into nit-picky statistical garbage?:
No, several other people here are also talking about how to calculate probabilities, and paximperium keeps saying that I don't understand statistics. So, is my calculation of 4.6% for the probability of obtaining HHHH in 16 or fewer trials in each of seven consecutive experiments right or wrong?
Why am I not surprised? Backtracking all the way.
As I already mentioned, you're arguing against something you have no understanding of at all.
You are wrong because your calculations has no relevance to Musgrave's point. Throwing up irrelevant numbers to score points do not make you automatically right.


I grasp it, but disagree with it.
No you do not. You have never once stated it and clearly do not get it.


My only claim is that the probability discussion in Dr. Musgrave's talkorigins article is highly misleading.
You know what? I'll be super duper generous.
Let's assume, his article is completely false. So?
How does that support your original claim?
It comes down to probabilities. The odds of life coming into existence by chance are off the charts.

This is the reason no one takes Creationists seriously. We have a classic Creationist who doesn't understand statistics, arguing statistics and refuse to own up to the fact that he doesn't get it. This is the same when these fellas argue biology, geology, cosmology and just about every branch of science that they disagree with. Very sad indeed.

[Wowbagger]

Plumjam, please answer this question: How can "time + luck" be the only defense used by naturalists, if it is NOT even a defense they ever use?!

See post #187, where I asked this earlier, and read up on the Sharpshooter's Fallacy:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4162437#post4162437

[Ivor the Engineer]

What assumptions and methods are used to estimate the probability of life coming into existence?

[Dancing David]

No, several other people here are also talking about how to calculate probabilities, and paximperium keeps saying that I don't understand statistics. So, is my calculation of 4.6% for the probability of obtaining HHHH in 16 or fewer trials in each of seven consecutive experiments right or wrong?

Right intuitivley, wrong in actuality.
That is commonly a way of looking at the math of the situation, however you have to remember that each toss is seperate. It is .5 for each toss. Because you toss HH does not mean that the probability of the third toss being H is (.5)3=.125, it is still .5.

The best way to think about it is this way, if you did an experiement where you tossed the coin in sets of two tosses and then when you tossed HH it then triggered a third toss and recorded the results. If you did 1,000 of these triggered trials (out of an undetermined number of total tosses), then out of these 1,000 triggered trials you would have roughly 1/2 or 500 where the third toss was an H.

The figure of 1/8 or .125 says that if you toss the coin 1,000,000 trails in sets of three, then the distribution of HHH will approach 125,000, this is also true for HTH, THH and the eight permutations. The distribution only has meaning in large aggregate sets, in the experiment about the best test of the fairness of the coin is in the distribution of heads and tails in the total of 3,000,000 tosses.



On the contrary, unless you believe in the ability to paranormally influence coin tosses ;), there is no need to toss any coins, you can just do a few calculations. Not that I'm completely against tossing coins, but if you are attempting to obtain a particular result and are doing the tossing by yourself, you may toss the coin in a manner that tends to give you more heads (or tails) than if you have no bias.

For that to work, you have to have knowledge of the way the coin is placed in your hand prior to the toss, IE is it face up or face down. Then there is a chance to control the toss, and it can be learned with some practice, especially with a larger coin, it is harder with the smaller ones. (And some practice means like days and days, the pricinciple is not that hard, it just takes practice.) At one time I could do this with a fifty cent piece about 75% of the time.

Bouncing on the floor or table instead of an in-air catch helps to randomise and remove this variable of deliberate control as well.

Yet if you are blinded to the alignment of the coin prior to the toss, you can't control the outcomes at all.



I grasp it, but disagree with it.

I see you still fail to misundestand random, distribution and probability.

You keep suggesting that there is order in random events.

There is no magic distribution in random events, it is only in the sampling of large numbers of random events that the distribution approackes that predicted by probability.

[Ivor the Engineer]

The horrible truth is that there is no way to objectively determine if a coin is fair or not by looking at the number or sequence of heads or tails it produced in N tosses, since every possible sequence of heads and tails in N tosses is equally likely.

If God existed this would not be the case, since long runs of heads, tails or obvious patterns thereof would be immoral and therefore ought not to occur (unless the Devil was influencing the outcome).

[Rodney]

For that to work, you have to have knowledge of the way the coin is placed in your hand prior to the toss, IE is it face up or face down. Then there is a chance to control the toss, and it can be learned with some practice, especially with a larger coin, it is harder with the smaller ones.(And some practice means like days and days, the principle is not that hard, it just takes practice.) At one time I could do this with a fifty cent piece about 75% of the time.
Based on your experience, do you think that, if someone is hoping to obtain a particular result, he could influence the outcome without being consciously aware of that influence?

[Rodney]

The horrible truth is that there is no way to objectively determine if a coin is fair or not by looking at the number or sequence of heads or tails it produced in N tosses, since every possible sequence of heads and tails in N tosses is equally likely.
If a coin is thrown 1000 times and it comes up heads 900 times, would you agree or disagree that is overwhelming evidence of something unusual occurring?

[Perpetual Student]

If a coin is thrown 1000 times and it comes up heads 900 times, would you agree or disagree that is overwhelming evidence of something unusual occurring?

It would certainly be worth investigating the coin for bias; however, consider that if a coin were tossed a few trillion times, it would be likely that there would be many stretches of 1000 with 900 or more heads.

[Ivor the Engineer]

If a coin is thrown 1000 times and it comes up heads 900 times, would you agree or disagree that is overwhelming evidence of something unusual occurring?

How long has and will the coin be tossed for? I.e. are the 1000 tosses in your question just a slice from the result of a trillion tosses, which has resulted in half-a-trillion-and-one heads coming up so far?

Is your argument that random processes are only random if they do not trigger the pattern recognition systems in our brains?

ETA: What's the probability that Perpetual Student and I would both use the word trillion!? I initially was going to use the word billion, but changed it to trillion. Spooky.:)

[Ivor the Engineer]

The problem with a test against the null hypothesis is that it gives you the probability of the result given the null hypothesis is true. But that isn't the question we want an answer to; we want to know the probability of the null hypothesis given the result.

Real (wo)men use Bayes rule:

P(H0|R) = P(R|H0).P(H0)/P(R)

But this involves finding P(H0) - the probability of the null hypothesis (which in our case is "the coin is fair"), which most of us get from assessing the physical appearance of the coin and the honesty of the person doing the tossing.

[Rodney]

It would certainly be worth investigating the coin for bias; however, consider that if a coin were tossed a few trillion times, it would be likely that there would be many stretches of 1000 with 900 or more heads.
Respectfully, your comment and Ivor's illustrate the problem of grasping astronomically high odds. The odds of obtaining 900 heads in 1000 tosses of a fair coin are, according to my math (feel free to do your own), one in 1.68 x 10^161. So the odds of obtaining even one run of 900 heads in a few trillion (10^12) coin tosses are effectively zero.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Respectfully, your comment and Ivor's illustrate the problem of grasping astronomically high odds. The odds of obtaining 900 heads in 1000 tosses of a fair coin are, according to my math (feel free to do your own), one in 1.68 x 10^161. So the odds of obtaining even one run of 900 heads in a few trillion (10^12) coin tosses are effectively zero.

What are the odds of obtaining L heads and M tails, where L+M = 900, in any order you like?

[paximperium]

Respectfully, your comment and Ivor's illustrate the problem of grasping astronomically high odds. The odds of obtaining 900 heads in 1000 tosses of a fair coin are, according to my math (feel free to do your own), one in 1.68 x 10^161. So the odds of obtaining even one run of 900 heads in a few trillion (10^12) coin tosses are effectively zero.
Really? How about 1.68x10*10000000000000000000000000 tries? I can make up numbers myself.

What you still don't(or won't) get is that no matter what retarded absurd numbers you or your Creationists wannabee statisticians decide to pull out of your rear ends to claim the odds that abiogenesis could never occur; you guys never mention the number of tries that the cosmos gets? I wonder why?

So Rodney, come on answer this simple question. I was being really generous:

You know what? I'll be super duper generous.
Let's assume, his article is completely false. So?
How does that support your original claim?
It comes down to probabilities. The odds of life coming into existence by chance are off the charts.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Rodney,

The odds you have just calculated are for the following experiment:

I have a coin. I am 100% certain it is fair. What is the probability I will obtain 900 heads in the next 1000 tosses?

But the answer everyone on the planet wants (but cannot have) is:

I have a coin. I am not certain if it is fair. I just tossed it 1000 times and got 900 heads. What is the probability it is a fair coin?

Can you see the difference?

[Perpetual Student]

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.

[Ixion]

Respectfully, your comment and Ivor's illustrate the problem of grasping astronomically high odds. The odds of obtaining 900 heads in 1000 tosses of a fair coin are, according to my math (feel free to do your own), one in 1.68 x 10^161. So the odds of obtaining even one run of 900 heads in a few trillion (10^12) coin tosses are effectively zero.

Wrong. They are NOT zero, and that is the point of Dr. Musgrave's article. No matter how statistically improbable something may be, improbable and atypical events do happen, with regularity. I have to agree with the others here that it is evident that you, Rodney, are having a difficult time grasping the subject at hand. It doesn't matter that 900 heads in a row is unlikely, just that it can happen. Furthermore, the universe has more chances than 2^161 for life to occur without need for a paranormal explanation.

[Rodney]

Really? How about 1.68x10*10000000000000000000000000 tries? I can make up numbers myself.
I calculated mine.

What you still don't(or won't) get is that no matter what retarded absurd numbers you or your Creationists wannabee statisticians decide to pull out of your rear ends to claim the odds that abiogenesis could never occur; you guys never mention the number of tries that the cosmos gets? I wonder why?
If Dr. Musgrave thought his evidence for the number of tries was convincing, why trot out a probability analysis?

So Rodney, come on answer this simple question. I was being really generous:
Is generosity your primary virtue? ;)

[Rodney]

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.
But your mistake and Ivor's is typical of abiogenesis believers. You figure that, given a few billion years, anything can happen. However, if you do the math, you discover that's not true.

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.
Yes, but the universe -- let alone the earth -- isn't anywhere near old enough for that figure to have any meaning.

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.
The problem is that, to my knowledge, no abiogenesis believer has ever done this.

Obviously it happened, so the opportunities overcame the odds against it. Paranormal explanations are not needed.
How do you know that the odds were overcome by non-paranormal means?

[Rodney]

Furthermore, the universe has more chances than 2^161 for life to occur without need for a paranormal explanation.
Evidence?

[paximperium]

If Dr. Musgrave thought his evidence for the number of tries was convincing, why trot out a probability analysis?
Another irrelevant red herring. Covering up your ignorance with more irrelevance.
You still don't get it. I actually suspect you don't want to get it.


Is generosity your primary virtue? ;)
No. It is honesty.
So that's a no on answering questions on YOUR claim? I'm not surprised.

[paximperium]

Evidence?
Oh rough made up numbers:
Oh lets use a super conservative 1 planet per star, with a very small 1billion stars per galaxy with a visible 10billion(believed to be up to 40billion) galaxies over a super conservative time span of only 1billion years of life and an even more conservative 100 potential tries at life per year.
(1x10*9)planet/stars X (1x10*10)Galaxies X(1x10*9)years x(100) tries.

Oh...the known universe had at least 1x10*30 tries at life. Yeah...still way to small. You win. :rolleyes:

Oh wait, what if life had 10tries per second? or 1000? Perhaps even more?

Stop playing Rodney. Your Creationist numbers are worthless because there is no known way to calculate all those unknown variables and even the smallest probabilities you can make up, are invariably BS.

[paximperium]

You figure that, given a few billion years, anything can happen. Why not?
Given a few billion years, there would be a couple of billion lottery winners and several thousand people who are hit by meteors while skydiving after being hit by lightning.


However, if you do the math, you discover that's not true. Nope. Coming from someone who doesn't understand what he is talking about, your statement is false.


Yes, but the universe -- let alone the earth -- isn't anywhere near old enough for that figure to have any meaning.Really? Why?


The problem is that, to my knowledge, no abiogenesis believer has ever done this. Why should we? Those numbers are useless since many of the variables are unknown making any such exercise worthless.

Actually statisticians HAVE looked at your Creationists numbers and invariably by changing some of the arbitrary values that Creationist like to assume, their factors can change by billions.


How do you know that the odds were overcome by non-paranormal means? What odds? You have never once backed up your claims of "off the charts" odds now have you?

[Dancing David]

Based on your experience, do you think that, if someone is hoping to obtain a particular result, he could influence the outcome without being consciously aware of that influence?

Not really, but then I don't use terms like 'the unconscious mind' either.

[Dancing David]

If a coin is thrown 1000 times and it comes up heads 900 times, would you agree or disagree that is overwhelming evidence of something unusual occurring?


That depends on the flipper and what kind of catch there is, run another 1,000 and see if the same thing happens. I think that some school in Michigan made a flipper that always landed heads, everytime.

[Dancing David]

Respectfully, your comment and Ivor's illustrate the problem of grasping astronomically high odds. The odds of obtaining 900 heads in 1000 tosses of a fair coin are, according to my math (feel free to do your own), one in 1.68 x 10^161. So the odds of obtaining even one run of 900 heads in a few trillion (10^12) coin tosses are effectively zero.


Um, again you are talking about random as though there was order.

Do you understand distribution?

If I do the flip tow heads in a row test, where each time I run the set I flip the coin twice and if it is HH I flip it a third time:
What is the distribution of H vs. T in that set of trials. the ones with the tird flip?

By you logic only 1/8 of the third tosses will be H :consider that 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 huhe number of them but they will occur.
1st toss 50%, 2nd 50%, 3rd 50%,..., 1000th 50%, not
1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ..., (.5)1000

Do you understand that yet?

[Wowbagger]

But your mistake and Ivor's is typical of abiogenesis believers. You figure that, given a few billion years, anything can happen. However, if you do the math, you discover that's not true. Did you read my post about Sharpshooter's fallacy?

A few billion years is MORE THAN enough time for SOME TYPE of life-like entities to emerge, even in different conditions, given the fact that there are also billions of chemical combinations being "tried" all over the Universe.

It is likely that there are different forms of life all over the Universe, that could have emerged all by themselves, in that amount of time. Each one different in the specific details of their chemistry, but share emergent behaviors of "life" in common.

(Why, such behaviors could even emerge in something as simple as "Conway's Game of Life": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conways_Game_of_Life , let alone the much more varied chemicals of the Universe.)

What you don't seem to get is that "abiogenesis believers" do not really rely on absurd probabilities. They can build all-natural models of how life came about, just by developing reliable tests such as that Urey-Miller thing.

No amount of arguing about coin flipping is going to refute the Urey-Miller thing.

Can you tell us how the claim of "paranormal" is better than that?

[Dancing David]

Oooops Rodeny you mentioned abiogenesis:

You have ignored this before, I assume you will ignore it again, remember doohickeys, thingamabobs and georgie porgie?

So if you recall when we last left, there were two molecules in a puddle, both of these molecules are thingamabobs. They bump together in this puddle once a year and there is a 1/1,000,000 chance they will combine to make doohickey. How long is a billion years?

Long enough that there will be 1,000 doohickey creations on average, or more depending on the frequency of bumping, which is related to the size of the puddle or the number of thingamabobs in the puddle.

So what happens if the presence of doohickey makes the chances of making doohickey out of two thingamabobs in collision 1/1000 instead of 1/1,000,000, then in a billion years you will get 1,000,000,000/1000=1,000,000 or on average a million doohickey creation events. Right Rodney, this is where it is no longer about luck, but about huge numbers of molecules and huge amounts of time.

Now we make it more interesting, lets us say that the precursors for thingamabob, doohickey, georgie porgie and potrezebie are commonly found in our puddle.

We have out thingamabobs, that make doohickey at 1/1,000,000 except in the presence of prior doohickey then the odds are 1/1000, and say that the same is true for when two doohickeys collide, they can mage a georgie porgie at 1/1,000,000 except in the presence of prior georgie porgie in which case it falls to 1/1,000.

Now we set the time interval and we sit back and watch, after some interval there is the creation of doohickey and suddenly there is more doohickey than before, remember there are a million doohickey creation events in a billion years after the creation of a single doohickey. Well guess what, the same is true for georgie porgie, you have one creation of georgie porgie and suddenly there is a lot more georgie porgie. And that is just with the molecules bumping together (only two of them) once a year. Now we also have georgie porgie bouncing around and two of them bump and they make potrezebie again 1/1,000,000 chance, but it changes the doohickey creation to 1/10 and georgie porgie creation to 1/100. What happens then?

Do you see where this is going?

It is a process of catalyzation and one where I have chosen absurdly poor odds of anything happening.

What happen when there are more that tow molecules in the puddle and they are colliding with each other more than once a year?

[Silentknight]

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.
Yes, a mind that needs a body to survive and operate, needs the tools that other people created from existing materials, and needs the information and education necessary to communicate effectively. This is why the analogy of a "designing mind" falls apart. If I'd just thought of the argument but lacked the physical means to type it up and post it, you never would have been able to read it, and it would have been meaningless to you. Again, I did not gaze at the screen and make the words appear for you to read purely with the power of my mind. If I had the power do that, do you have any idea how many people's heads would have already exploded thanks to me? (No, not you, relax.)
You try to get around this by introducing the concept of a mind which is disembodied.
What forms of evidence would you find acceptable for the existence of a disembodied mind? Given that it's disembodied it could only be inferred from the apparent organisation of 'embodied' stuff.
Look around you. The whole universe is an enormously complex and beautiful organisation of embodied stuff. It is organised (designed, if you prefer, which you won't) by invisible physical laws whose existence (as with minds which are not our own) we have to infer from their organising effects on embodied stuff.
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?
How about something we could talk to? I wouldn't mind hosting an interview if that's what it takes. With any given manufactured product, I can call up the manufacturer or ask for a tour of the factory where these things are built. People aren't exactly born with serial numbers stamped on their rear ends.

The universe got along just fine without humans for billions of years, and if humans were to turn out to be another evolutionary dead end and go extinct today, the universe would keep on chugging without us tomorrow. An asteroid could smash us, a disease could wipe us out, or we could do something stupid like start a nuclear war, and the physical forces responsible for the universe being the way it is still would not have eyes to bat or tears to shed.

[rocketdodger]

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.

No.

Any way you define "order," there is no correlation between the "order" of thoughts and the "order" of the neural impulses underlying those thoughts. In fact the most visible order of the brain is the waves that propagate across the cortex during deep non-REM sleep.

[rocketdodger]

The probability of an event that has already occured is 1.

Hence there is no valid logical or mathematical argument that can be made in favor of intelligent design or creationism.

Furthermore there is no valid logical or mathematical argument that can be made against sufficiently vague intelligent design or creationism.

[Ivor the Engineer]

The probability of an event that has already occured is 1.

<snip>

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).

[Tubbythin]

Yes, but the universe -- let alone the earth -- isn't anywhere near old enough for that figure to have any meaning.


That depends entirely on the rate the "coin tosses" are done. Unless YOU back up YOUR argument with some numbers (other than some final probability you pulled out the sky) then YOUR argument is meaningless.

[Naughtyhippo]

# You figure that, given a few billion years, anything can happen. However, if you do the math, you discover that's not true.


Why do you say that a very low, NON-ZERO probability means that the probability is zero? They are not the same.

ETA: I appear to have missed some posts before replying.

[Dancing David]

Here is something interesting Rodney, I went to random.org and asked it to generate 64 number 0 or 1 in four columns.
1 1 1 1
0 1 1 0
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 0 1
1 1 1 0
1 1 0 0
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 1
0 1 1 1
1 1 1 0
1 1 1 0
1 0 0 0
1 1 1 1

Now please note that the sequence 0000 did not appaer at all, so no HHHH, but the sequence TTTT did appear 3 times.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Now please note that the sequence 0000 did not appaer at all, so no HHHH, but the sequence TTTT did appear 3 times.

Is there some universal law which states '0' represents heads and '1' tails I've not been made aware of?:)

[Dancing David]

Here is another one of three tosses:
1 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 1
0 0 0
0 1 1
0 0 1
1 0 1
0 0 1
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 0
0 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 1
0 1 0
1 1 0
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 1
0 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 1
0 0 1
1 0 0


You will note that HHH appears 2 times
that TTT appears once
but another sequence THT appears 4 times

So what is goiong on here Rodeny, each of the eight sequences should appear 3 times by your logic.

[Dancing David]

Is there some universal law which states '0' represents heads and '1' tails I've not been made aware of?:)

Nope just a choice which I didn't randomize, which I should have. There is even a discussion of what makes a head on the coin flipper at random.org, which isa different page than the one I used "the representation of state power".

[paximperium]

Is there some universal law which states '0' represents heads and '1' tails I've not been made aware of?:)
The "Rodney Universal Law of Intellectual Dishonesty".

[plumjam]

Here is something interesting Rodney, I went to random.org and asked it to generate 64 number 0 or 1 in four columns.
1 1 1 1
0 1 1 0
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 0 1
1 1 1 0
1 1 0 0
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 1
0 1 1 1
1 1 1 0
1 1 1 0
1 0 0 0
1 1 1 1

Now please note that the sequence 0000 did not appaer at all, so no HHHH, but the sequence TTTT did appear 3 times.

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.

[paximperium]

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.
So?

[Ivor the Engineer]

So?

So 100 people read the bible and conclude 'goddidit' is just as good evidence as 100 people repeating the Miller-Urey experiment and reproducing their result.

[Ixion]

Oh rough made up numbers:
Oh lets use a super conservative 1 planet per star, with a very small 1billion stars per galaxy with a visible 10billion(believed to be up to 40billion) galaxies over a super conservative time span of only 1billion years of life and an even more conservative 100 potential tries at life per year.
(1x10*9)planet/stars X (1x10*10)Galaxies X(1x10*9)years x(100) tries.

Oh...the known universe had at least 1x10*30 tries at life. Yeah...still way to small. You win. :rolleyes:

Oh wait, what if life had 10tries per second? or 1000? Perhaps even more?

Stop playing Rodney. Your Creationist numbers are worthless because there is no known way to calculate all those unknown variables and even the smallest probabilities you can make up, are invariably BS.

Even if you wanted to get a little more nitpicky, you could use the 10^80 atoms in the universe interacting with each other. If each atom only interacts with another atom one time per second, then the chance that the two interact to potentially form a "living" molecule would jump to about 10^95. Still way off from 10^161, but we are all just picking numbers anyways. :D

Rodney, it doesn't even have to come close to 10^161 in order to work. Only 1 chance is needed. As long as the number is greater than zero (which it always will be), then abiogenesis can occur.