26 Apr 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadWild guess? More like common sense.
So, not a probability calculation at all. Just a wild guess.
[b]You are asking us to believe that a hugely complex system like a cell could somehow manage to fabricate itself from random components that just happened to be lying around in some pre organic 'soup'.
No, I have asked you to believe no such thing.[/b]
26 Apr 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThe formation of clouds and the subsequent falling of rain is rather well understood.
Sure is! Especially since no one put the rock there and it rained from magical clouds...
You feel that clouds are in fact magical and an intelligence needs to put them there?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by DeepThoughtNeither of your observations reduce the significance of the two statements. As if Nagel not being a Creationist has anything to do with weakening the import of his observation. It is all the more significant that Nagel is not an advocate of Intelligent design or Creationism. At least he honestly realizes the teleological problem of Evolution theory. And it is significant that he realizes the shortage of Evolutionary explanation for Mind.
I don't think either of those people are saying what you think they are. Prigogine's argument seems to be that a fully fledged cell cannot have come into existence by random chance, I don't think this is controversial. According the Wikipedia page he worked on self-organising systems, he seems to have been arguing against a crude version of abiogenesis ...[text shortened]... ees it as teleological rather than mechanistic, he is not saying that abiogenesis is impossible.
He points out the problem.
I, a Christian point out the problem.
Is there a difference in so far as this is concerned?
It would be interesting for you to now add to your contribution with a quotation indicating something of Nagel's explanation of how abiogenesis took place. So your next post, I will expect, will back up Nagel's confidence that abiogenesis has to be the answer for life's origin.
26 Apr 16
Originally posted by Great King RatWell understood with a sun in the sky. Do pray tell how evaporation occurs in a primordial soup with no sun present. That's only the first step of cloud formation by the way.
The formation of clouds and the subsequent falling of rain is rather well understood.
You feel that clouds are in fact magical and an intelligence needs to put them there?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 Apr 16
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt could be argued that the throw of die is not really random. A case could be made that force, angle, distance, air speed, surface flatness and texture, velocity of roll, etc. etc. do not constitute a "random" event.
Because it doesn't mean what you think it means.
The throw of a die can be considered random.
A chemical reaction is should not.
When it comes to probability in particular, the word 'random' has a very specific meaning that does not apply to the way it is often used with reference to evolution or the origin of life.
I avoid using it purely because I d ...[text shortened]... think it is the best word to describe the scenario.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
Now I do not intend to argue that because "reasonable scenario" as you wrote, I take to mean we are not going to argue about parameters to the Nth degree ad infinitum.
I know you can continue to object about something. I know your supply of objections to anything I propose is virtually exhaustless.
Assertion: Anyone who claims to have worked out an explicit probability for life occurring 'at random' or what they really mean 'without the aid of God', is talking nonsense.
Is anyone able to counter this assertion? ie can anyone give a reasonable scenario in which such a probability can be calculation and have useful meaning?
We can make this simple or very intricate. On the simpler side we could say that biological life is seen as a combination of proteins. Again, not trying to be exhaustive in definition. ( don't claim to be more than a layman on statistics or biology )
So biological life is a combination of proteins that have a symbiotic relationship in which they coexist. All members of the biosphere satisfy this simple description.
Up to here do you agree or disagree ?
Biological life we define concisely as a combination of proteins that have a symbiotic relationship. But not EVERY combination of proteins are effective to cause life to occur. Not all combinations are supportive to the emergence of biological life.
Up to here do you agree or disagree ?
The combinations that don't work will fail to support life.
The combinations that do work have to be selected to support life.
Given time and the occurrence rate of various combinations something reasonable can be speculated about the probability of hitting the right combination/s for life to exist. It is not nonsense to apply this kind of simple logic - Time + rate of combinations of proteins ... to ascertain something of the probability of hitting successful combinations for life.
The methodology may have some problems.
The methodology is not nonsense.
If you had written that "working out an explicit probability for life has its PROBLEMS " I would not object. I would add though that it has its PROBLEMS no matter which outcome you are attempting to show - God did it, it happened without God.
Your challenge was not that these kinds of analyses are problematic. Rather your challenge was that it is nonsensical (but apparently only when used to show evidence for God or non-randomness in the cell's formation.)
Originally posted by sonshipA very solid case, yes. Nevertheless, the word random would apply if you were doing probability calculations with regards to the throw of a die.
It could be argued that the throw of die is not really random. A case could be made that force, angle, distance, air speed, surface flatness and texture, velocity of roll, etc. etc. do not constitute a "random" event.
We can make this simple or very intricate. On the simpler side we could say that biological life is seen as a combination of proteins. Again, not trying to be exhaustive in definition. ( don't claim to be more than a layman on statistics or biology )
So biological life is a combination of proteins that have a symbiotic relationship in which they coexist. All members of the biosphere satisfy this simple description.
Up to here do you agree or disagree ?
I agree that life as we know it (and possibly excluding some virus' ) largely consists of proteins, or at a minimum has proteins.
Biological life we define concisely as a combination of proteins that have a symbiotic relationship. But not EVERY combination of proteins are effective to cause life to occur. Not all combinations are supportive to the emergence of biological life.
Up to here do you agree or disagree ?
Generally, yes. Life has molecules other than proteins, but thatch not a big issue.
The combinations that don't work will fail to support life.
The combinations that do work have to be selected to support life.
Given time and the occurrence rate of various combinations something reasonable can be speculated about the probability of hitting the right combination/s for life to exist.
Can it? What information would you use to even guess at either the occurrence rate or the possible configurations?
It is not nonsense to apply this kind of simple logic - Time + rate of combinations of proteins ... to ascertain something of the probability of hitting successful combinations for life.
It would not be nonsense if you actually had that information. You do not. Nor does anyone else.
It would also not be restricted to proteins (a specific class of molecule) but would have to include all possible precursors for life. Even better it should include all possible life including life not based on proteins.
Your challenge was not that these kinds of analyses are problematic. Rather your challenge was that it is nonsensical...
And the challenge remains. Your scenario requires information that is not currently available to anyone. Therefore anyone claiming to have used your scenario is either lying or mistaken - and their results are nonsensical.
(but apparently only when used to show evidence for God or non-randomness in the cell's formation.
Nothing I have said implies this. For you to suggest I have is dishonest of you. I have repeatedly stated that no such claim has been made and you have continued to repeat it without evidence.
What exactly about anything I have said makes that 'apparent' in my challenge?