Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Setanta,

Now you Show me the math.

@Leadfoot,

First, you show me the population of candidate molecules, the environment in which they are found, and the time span in which they are present. You're the one claiming that the probability is low, you're the one with a claim to defend, and, as is usual with your sort, you don't provide any parameters.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

BTW, the subject is abiogenesis, NOT Evolution which you seem confused about. The population is at ZERO for the initial starting point.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Yes? And? It seems you don't know how to Google...

Assuming you have 1 million of each nucleotide sequences the chance of them forming the string GAATTC approaches 1 quickly.

For the sake of argument let's ignore probability and just assume they form exactly 1 out of every 4 times then we get the following:

When 1 million G attach to a single A there will be 250,000 that are GA.
With 250,000 GA there will be 62,500 GAA.
With 62,500 GAA there will be 15,625 GAAT.
With 15,625 GAAT there will be 3906 GAATT
With 3906 GAATT there will be 976 GAATTC.

I only needed 1 million of each to guarantee there will be almost 1,000 of the sequence you implied was not likely.

Now imagine there are billions of each nucleotide.

I simplified it so hopefully you can understand it.

Here is another explanation. Pay particular attention to the "Coin tossing for Beginners" section.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

You really shouldn't rely on the Creationists to do your thinking for you. They tend to run into issues when we look at the actual math.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

What population is at zero? We know amino acids form all the time under different circumstances. You have already conceded that amino acids can form strings by your own mathematical argument.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

The self reproducing molecule would be the perfect Darwinian survival specie. It has no natural enemies, should be perfectly suited for surviving climate changes and has virtually no limit on natural resources or energy. In short, there is absolutely NO REASON FOR IT TO BE EXTINCT! The Earth should be over run with them.

The Earth is over run with its descendants, which is exactly what you would expect once reproduction, variation and selection took hold. Even in a chemical evolution model there would still be higher probabilities of chemical copies based on the availability of resources. Those molecules which could replicate more effectively based on limited resources would become the natural enemies in the environment. Remember, in any environment, the biological (or chemical) in habitants of the environment are also part of the environment; they even constitute the environment when the population (or chemical) densities get high.

Leadfoot wrote:

there is no reason this chemical/molecular 'life form' should not be emerging ALL THE TIME!

As I pointed out in my previous post, there are very good reasons not to expect the original replicative molecules to form all the time given that the conditions which form them certainly don't exist now and probably faded away on Earth fairly quickly. Then there's the additional fact that the descendants of the original replicators would be in competition for resources and already better at acquiring them. This is the nature of the evolutionary arms race, whether it be biological or chemical. It is called the Red Queen Principle and it has been recognized in evolutionary systems for decades.

Leadfoot wrote:

If you are correct and it emerged as early as 4 billion years ago, it has had plenty of time to 'evolve' many times over. But where is it? Also as you point out, no reason it wouldn't develop on Mars or other planets. No sign of it there either. On this basis, I'm ready to rule out the self reproducing molecule as the source of abiogenesis.

It sounds like you are sitting in an echo chamber trying to convince yourself that your own arguments are correct without even waiting for counterpoints. I don't think you're doing yourself any favors with that approach.

Leadfoot wrote:

So a question for the "ID deniers". If you can believe in chemical/molecular life forms, why would it be so hard for you to believe in a metaphysical life form evolving from quarks in the heart of some singularity where all the rules are different? I'm just say'n...

I am sure science would be open to any reasonably evidenced theories about life forms evolving from exotic origins, but that's not the puzzle we're trying to solve with the origins of life on Earth. Here on Earth we're trying to figure out how the organic compounds which we know were abundant at that time, came together to form the first replicative molecules, and how did those molecules work? And even if we assumed some exotic quark-being manipulated the first compounds to form the first replicative molecule, we would still want to know how it did it exactly. Did it stir the pond with nanoscopic tendrils and put the molecules together one by one, did it manipulate the atoms with magnetic waves from its amazing brain, and how did it create those magnetic waves in its brain? And how did the ID come to be? How did it first get started? What caused its first replicative quark-molecule? The questions we need to answer are never going to stop. Adding an ID to the mix just begs the question and leads down a never ending path which always returns to the original question.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

You're the one who is confused. You have done no math, you've just waved around some formulae and then declared that you've done the math, although you didn't plug any numbers into your formulae.. Your formulae are about nucleotides, which very clearly is not about abiogenesis. You're bobbing and weaving, but you are sticking to a subject for discussion.

You made this statement:

Quote:

Yes, there is a lot of ocean and time for improbable things to happen but there reaches a point where the laws of chance just don't explain it.

You've done no math, and now you're attempting to put the math burden on others.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I'm saying that the complexity of a molecule capable of both reproducing itself AND evolving (capable of passing along inherited traits) is no longer 'simple'.

A molecule which reproduces itself (makes copies) is passing along inherited traits, it's the same thing.

All it has to do to accomplish this is to form a chain which has open ended links which preferentially bond with particular molecules. Then if it's pulled apart by any force, the two strands will each form a copy again, and then those can be pulled apart by something and the cycle begins.

Variation shows up in the process as the bonding is a function of preferential bonds rather than absolute bonds (meaning that different things can link in, but some are more likely than others). So on and on it goes at chemical reaction speeds in oceans across the planet irradiated and electrified and bombed with organic space debris for millions of years. And all the while replicative molecules are favored because how could they not be, they are the only things replicating. And any variations which form which are better at replicating begin to accumulate. They begin to dominate the chemistry of their local environment to the point where they become their own environment, accumulating like sludge around deposits of minerals that cause them to replicate even faster.

The arms race begins, the Red Queen takes the stage and there's no turning back.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

If the molecule were formed by the known mechanisms of atomic bonding, I don't think it would be subject to the same mutation mechanisms that are required for evolution in cellular organisms.

You can't have mutation (which at its simplest form is just variation) without replication, because variation itself is a function of comparison to copies.

Most "normal" molecules don't replicate. We only know of a few which do and at this point they are all deeply entwined within the biological process. But any molecule which does replicate can definitely have variation. As a matter of fact we would expect it to, and the whole process of evolution whether chemical or biological would break down if it didn't. Replication is necessary to produce lots of one thing. Variation is necessary to produce lots of many things. And Selection is necessary to collapse the homogeneous cloud of "many things" into the selected few which exploit their environment most effectively (making more copies). The forces are very very simple. All the components are there. I still don't see why you think it makes more sense to introduce a magical ID than it is to recognize the inevitability of natural systems and resources to follow an evolutionary path.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Most "normal" molecules don't replicate. We only know of a few which do and at this point they are all deeply entwined within the biological process. But any molecule which does replicate can definitely have variation.

This is the crux of the biscuit. It's not most molecules that don't self replicate, none of them do. (Rust was a joke for what's his name) The deeply entwined ones you mentioned don't replicate themselves, they only supply the information needed to build a duplicate and even that requires the resources of the cell. I know of NO freestanding molecule that can replicate itself. The self replicating molecule is a very speculative theory at this point based on no empiracle evidence. I also think it would be strange that the reproductive process of those molecules would have to be completely alien to the DNA based life forms which are the only ones we know about.

But getting back to the chances of the DNA (or RNA if you prefer) genome occurring by accident, I calculated the chances of even a relatively short sequence (500 pairs) using the standard probability formula. I couldn't calculate the full 159,662 pairs of the simplest organism because it was beyond the limit of double precision math of my compiler program, even in scientific notation. But for 500 pairs the answer is:

1/ 2.3316 x 10 ^ -302

Humans can't comprehend numbers that big or little so here is something to compare it to.

This is less than 1 chance in the number of atoms in the entire UNIVERSE. Or less likely than winning the NY state lottery every week for your whole life.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

If we follow your math then we would have to reach the conclusion that no one has ever won the NY lottery. Yet we know there have been winners of the NY lottery because there are multiple players and multiple times that the lottery is played. It is the same with creating 500 pair sequences. There are multiple molecules with multiple attempts on multiple planets over multiple years. Your math assumes on all the planets in all the universe for all time there has only ever been one attempt to create a 500 pair sequence. That is utter nonsense that even you should recognize as nonsense.

1 Reply

@parados,

But then we have to examine the rest of your fallacious math argument. You assume that only one sequence result will result in a winner. We know that isn't true because DNA can have lots of slightly different coding and still create the same species and have rather large differences and still create life. Your argument is the same as saying no one can ever win a lottery other then the one in NY. You are peddling nonsense.

Now, let's examine your 500 pair example and assume it makes 11 proteins. Each of those proteins is developed by a specific string of pairs. But does it really matter where on the string that protein is produced? Your argument is that no one can win the lottery unless the one person playing picks the numbers in the exact sequence they are drawn when picking the winning numbers. Once again, we see you are peddling nonsense. Not only are there multiple ways to win the lottery of life but the order of a winner isn't set to only one sequence.

0 Replies

I really should stop talking to this joker, but it is entertaining. This thread is over a thousand pages long, and has been running for over a decade. LF here has shown up, and offers nothing new, we've heard all this old BS before. It this thread lasts for another ten years, i suspect we'll hear it all again several times.

0 Replies

The most telling piece of information in this thread is:

If there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

We do not know if there is a god or not...so we do not know if intelligent design exists.

But we can logically conclude that there is the possibility of a god...

...so we can logically conclude that there is the possibility of intelligent design.

All the rest is filler.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

BTW, the subject is abiogenesis, NOT Evolution which you seem confused about. The population is at ZERO for the initial starting point.

I thought i'd point out another example of your bob and weave game. The populations to which i referred was not a population of living organixms. This, in fact, is what i wrote:

Quote:

First, you show me the population of candidate molecules, the environment in which they are found, and the time span in which they are present. (emphasis added)

So what . . . are you alleging that the oceans of the world were sterile, or devoid of any molecules of anything, before life arose? Try to pay attention here, 'K?

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

...so we can logically conclude that there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Setanta wrote:

we've heard all this old BS before. If this thread lasts for another ten years, i suspect we'll hear it all again several times.

No, not for another ten years!!!

https://hague6185.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/technology-4against-emoticons-525x375.jpg

0 Replies

Ain't nobody lock'n you in, guys.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

This is the crux of the biscuit. It's not most molecules that don't self replicate, none of them do.

That's simply not accurate, or at least a bit disingenuous. DNA and RNA are replicative molecules, and the fact that there are no free-standing open-environment replicators these days is not surprising for reasons we've already discussed (the conditions necessary to allow them no longer exist and haven't for billions of years).

Again, if your requirement for proving Abiogenesis is to find an isolated open-environment replicative molecule, then it's never going to happen. And if we build one I suspect it would be unsatisfying to you because it would have been built manually.

I expect that the best science is ever going to do with abiogenesis is to come up with a detailed theory which describes a logical chemical process whereby a natural replicator of some form can arise in the environment. But all we'll ever have is a detailed theory, never any physical examples (unless we find something similar on other planets or moons).

The bottom line here is that just because you are incredulous as to the likelihood of such a thing happening isn't a compelling argument. People have been saying this for generations and they just keep being proven wrong time and time again so this just looks like the same thing all over again. Boring.

I for one, don't find it incredulous at all. Given what I know about these systems it seems not only likely but probably inevitable. Also, I find the whole idea of an ID deeply unsatisfying in any scientific way. It produces no valuable information, is un-testable, and demonstrated to be wrong so many times in the past that it's just a waste of everyone's time.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

The bottom line here is that just because you are incredulous as to the likelihood of such a thing happening isn't a compelling argument. People have been saying this for generations and they just keep being proven wrong time and time again so this just looks like the same thing all over again. Boring.

I for one, don't find it incredulous at all. Given what I know about these systems it seems not only likely but probably inevitable. Also, I find the whole idea of an ID deeply unsatisfying in any scientific way. It produces no valuable information, is un-testable, and demonstrated to be wrong so many times in the past that it's just a waste of everyone's time.

True, we have been through these before. No need to rehash.

Only question is what you meant by ID being demonstrated to be wrong. And in the same sentence as being un-testable no less!

If it's a waste of time, it looks like it might be the most viewed waste of time on this site :-)

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Only question is what you meant by ID being demonstrated to be wrong. And in the same sentence as being un-testable no less!

Yeh, that was a bit confusing wasn't it.

What I meant by "demonstrated wrong" is that so many times throughout history people have resorted to God or ID whenever they couldn't explain something, and then eventually we end up explaining them. And the ID hypothesis turned out to be wrong (or at least unnecessary).

As for un-testable, the pure idea of ID is un-testable because it's essentially an appeal to the supernatural which is outside of science anyway. What is testable however are the success rates of previous predictions of ID based on some lack of knowledge (and that's what I was referring to). Eventually those mysteries were explained with perfectly natural processes. In all of those cases the conclusion that ID was a necessity to explain the mystery, were all proven wrong. So here we are with more mysteries, things we don't yet understand. And there will always be things we don't understand. But I don't see any reason to expect that the outcome will be any different for these.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know