Abiogenesis and Probabilities

[DrNoGods]

I'm creating a new thread here to continue debate on a post made by EarthScience guy on another thread (Science and Religion > Artificial life: can it be created?, post 17). This post challenged probability calculations in an old Talkorigins article that I had linked in that thread:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Are the arguments (on creationist views) and probabilities presented reasonable in the Talkorigins article? If not, why not?

[Noose001]

[Replying to Tcg in post #120]
Again,
i. The time the birth was happening was refered to as 'present'

And

ii. I can only refer to my birth in the present

So, only present is real.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #120]
Again,
i. The time the birth was happening was refered to as 'present'

And

ii. I can only refer to my birth in the present

So, only present is real.

This of course doesn't answer my question.


Tcg

[Noose001]

[Replying to Tcg in post #122]
I think it does. Let me know if anything is to be clarified.

If the past can only find meaning in the present, then the present is real and not the past.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #122]
I think it does.

It doesn't. It doesn't even attempt to.


Tcg

[Noose001]

[Replying to Tcg in post #122]
I think it does.

It doesn't. It doesn't even attempt to.


Tcg

Then i can't help. All in all, abiogenesis fails on the time front and all other fronts.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #122]
I think it does.

It doesn't. It doesn't even attempt to.


Tcg

Then i can't help. All in all, abiogenesis fails on the time front and all other fronts.

You've only attempted to claim that abiogenesis fails on the "time front." You have of course failed to support this claim. You haven't even attempted to address "all other fronts."


Tcg

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #107]

'Kimura... say that deleterious mutations are ten times more likely to be definitely harmful than neutral. I am not sure what Bradskii says. So that means that either every generation 164 deleterious mutations were added to the genetic load...'

So there's 164. Not 3 million. You are throwing figures around like confetti without any idea of what they mean.

Let me ask you a simple question: Why are you trying to use science to deny something that you believe is not scientific?

Ok, I will slow things down for you.

You said that you and your wife are 0.1% different. I did not bother to look anything up to see if that was correct or not I took you at your word. There are 3.5E9 gamete 0.001 x 3.5E9 = 3.5E6. 90% of 3.5E9 is around 3 million.

I was simply asking if this is what you intended to say.


Now the 164 deleterious mutations come from the published substitutions per nucleotide site per year which were 1.3E-9 substitutions per site per year. So, 3.5E9 x 1.3E-9 = 4.55 so their progeny would receive 9.1 neutral mutations per year. A human-like species with a 20 year generation time, each progeny would receive over 182 new mutations. 90% of 182 is 164.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #107]

2.The environment has to be 'physiological'. X-rays, H2O e.t.c are not the kind of environment where biomolecules and Biochemical process would proceed. Molecules would be generated and then destroyed. Even within cells, generation of biomolecules is greatly timed and controlled, otherwise they become harmful.

I don't know that X-rays are generated anywhere in the human body, but a human body averages about 60% H2O by weight and it is an ideal medium for biological activity. Molecules are not created and then destroyed by H2O, or by being in H2O ... they thrive in it.

https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/wate ... er_objects

3.Time is never a justification for abiogenesis or evolution. I believe in 'Presentism', which means the past and future are not real, only the present is. So abiogenesis never happened

Who has ever said that time is a justification for abiogenesis or evolution? Evolution certainly involves time ... often very long stretches of it ... but time is not the justification for it. The justification is the fossil record, its analysis, and genetics work over the last 4-5 decades along with other observational support among living organisms today.

The past is real in that it did, in fact, happen, and when it happened it was indeed the present. But your idea of "Presentism" says nothing about abiogenesis or evolution, so you cannot conclude "So abiogenesis never happened." It may very well have happened and we just have not yet elucidated the precise mechanism. Time isn't a factor. But abiogenesis certainly isn't negated by an unsupported claim that the past and future don't exist (for the same reasons as Tcg's comments on your birth, which did in fact happen in the past or you wouldn't be posting messages on this forum).

[Noose001]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #107]

2.The environment has to be 'physiological'. X-rays, H2O e.t.c are not the kind of environment where biomolecules and Biochemical process would proceed. Molecules would be generated and then destroyed. Even within cells, generation of biomolecules is greatly timed and controlled, otherwise they become harmful.

i. Osmosis (movement of water molecules) destroys cells. You need to find out why.
ii. All simulated biochemical processes in the lab are done in a physiological saline and not water. You need to find out why.
iii. The biomolecules accumulation inside a cell are still hazardous to life. That's why biochemical processes are timely and purposeful. The claim that they arise from randomness and chance is unthinkable.

3.Time is never a justification for abiogenesis or evolution. I believe in 'Presentism', which means the past and future are not real, only the present is. So abiogenesis never happened

Who has ever said that time is a justification for abiogenesis or evolution? Evolution certainly involves time ... often very long stretches of it ... but time is not the justification for it. The justification is the fossil record, its analysis, and genetics work over the last 4-5 decades along with other observational support among living organisms today.

The past is real in that it did, in fact, happen, and when it happened it was indeed the present. But your idea of "Presentism" says nothing about abiogenesis or evolution, so you cannot conclude "So abiogenesis never happened." It may very well have happened and we just have not yet elucidated the precise mechanism. Time isn't a factor. But abiogenesis certainly isn't negated by an unsupported claim that the past and future don't exist (for the same reasons as Tcg's comments on your birth, which did in fact happen in the past or you wouldn't be posting messages on this forum).[/quote]

All reality happens in time, so it depends with your view of time. 'Present'/'now' is an experience of the mind. You need to explain how abiogenisis happenened in the presence of a mind.

[Noose001]

Probabilities are reasoned out and not just numbers being thrown out. A million monkeys enclosed with a million typewriters will have zero chance of producing a shakespear. A billion monkeys and a billion type writer will still have zero chance.

When a mathematecian says improbable or inlikekely, they mean zero chance.