Ask Me Help Desk - Hypocritical Religion

The ball has to land somewhere, why not on that blade of grass?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

speechless, you have to realise that everytime you deal your game of bridge you get a hand that has very small small chance of ever happening.

If it wasnt you sitting there going "yeah but what are the ODDS of a human forming?" it would be a romulan sitting there going "yeah but what are the ODDS of a romulan forming" or a mouse sitting there going "squeak squeak I want some cheese".

The dice have to land somewhere. Why not here?

Or to state it another way - if one could roll back the clock 5 Billion years and run the earth experiment all over again, the chances that through evolutionary processes we would precisely end up where we are today -- with man and apes and insects and fish and trees and flowers etc etc -- is vanishingly small. Evolution states that man was not pre-destined, and I believe that is the most significant difference between the evolutionists and the creationists/ID-ers. That is why this conversation will go on forever with neither side succeeding at bashing the other into submission. Now, can we please go on to something else?? Please??

Yes, we are not special, we got here by dumb luck. People in general find that hard to accept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello its:

Speechdude now, remember? You'll have these people really confused :D

Quote:

We absolutely agree there. And, that's the problem. These numbers ARE astronomical! It's really, really hard to imagine what those big numbers mean. So, it's understandable that people would make up stuff (religion) to fill in their gaps in knowledge.

I know you're a fair guy, science mon, so don't stop with "religion" making stuff up. I think it's understandable why scientists also make stuff up to fill in their gaps of knowledge... and don't tell me they don't. I'm actually content with both sides leaving it at "we don't know" how man came to be for now, keep researching and discussing all you want, but leaving all options on the table when teaching our kids - since "we don't know."

Quote:

That is a pretty big number. But, if you can grasp the size and age of the Universe, then evolution becomes a piece of cake.

That's just it science mon, nobody can grasp it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

The ball has to land somewhere, why not on that blade of grass?

And round and round we go, lol. That is precisely what I said. I just it more likely I'd hit that blade of grass when aiming for it a lot easier than man would evolve from a simple organism that evolved from - nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Okay, once again, biochemistry is decidedly NOT chance. Assigning odds is meaningless. But let's play your game anyways.

I don't know why it is assumed that you need 500 amino acid chain. Modern abiogenetic theory supposes that the first proteins were something like 30-40 units long. These would then begin working together, and eventually form into simple organisms.
It can be supposed that the first living things would be similar to the Ghadiri group of self-replicating peptides, or a self replicating hexanucleotide.
Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle. An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator. These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.

These are not mutually exclusive. Both could have happened.

Lets' assume the Ghadiri group, these self-replicating proteins are 32 amino-acid long chains. Nothing like the 500 units long. This would, by the maths your source has proposed, Starman, have a 1 in 4.29 x 10^40 chance of forming randomly. This is hugely lower than the 1 in 10^600 that your source would have us believe.

Still, that's a HUGE number, and probably quite unlikely. Well let's look at the Ocean size of the Early Earth. This is commonly estimated to be about 10^24 liters. Let's say the concentration of amino acids in this ocean is 10^-6M (moderately dilute on the spectrum of values that it is expected to be). This means we have 10^50 starting chains. This means that we would have 10^31 proteins in under a year. Now, given a million years, there is a good chance that one of these proteins (that are still being made through more time) will be the self replicating one that we are looking for.

But of course, there is more. There are a huge number of other simple proteins that are self replicating that could have started life. We have to take these into account. These increase the odds even more.

As you can see, life is certainly feasible given the size and properties of the early Earth, even using the pessimistic numbers that I have used here.

I can add some scientifically peer reviewed sources for numbers and things, if you would like.

interesting

how do you get from "self replicating peptides" to dna or rna?

Is there a living model of and organism that reproduces solely by " replicating its proteins?"

How do self replicating peptides organize themselves into cells, into tissue, into organs, into complex organisms - how long would this take ?

When you think of the probabilities it only points to a "Designer."

Now think of Microsoft windows or any computer programs - from what I understand it is basically binary - only 2 variables. What are the chances of these codes just coming together to form a program, a program that can reproduce itself?
You have to have programers and coders that use their INTELLIGENCE to DESIGN a program - and even then it needs to to be tested to make sure it works right.

Grace and Peace

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebaines

Or to state it another way - if one could roll back the clock 5 Billion years and run the earth experiment all over again, the chances that through evolutionary processes we would precisely end up where we are today -- with man and apes and insects and fish and trees and flowers etc etc -- is vanishingly small.

Bingo.

Quote:

Evolution states that man was not pre-destined, and I believe that is the most significant difference between the evolutionists and the creationists/ID-ers. That is why this conversation will go on forever with neither side succeeding at bashing the other into submission. Now, can we please go on to something else?? Please??

Capuchin started it :D

I agree with you, it's a no-win argument and I'd rather not see either side bash the other into submission. I think we can peacefully coexist if those on both sides would stop insisting "I'm right and you're wrong" and this is the only thing that should be taught. Lay it out there and let people decide for themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And round and round we go, lol. That is precisely what I said. I just it more likely I'd hit that blade of grass when aiming for it a lot easier than man would evolve from a simple organism that evolved from - nothing.

So you'll admit that you got a 1 in a million chance just by dumb luck? And this happenes every time you swing your club?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

So you'll admit that you got a 1 in a million chance just by dumb luck? And this happenes every time you swing your club?

It ain't dumb luck when you mean to and work for it. That's my point.

okay. Now the same thing with your eyes closed. Just a completely blind swing, completely random direction, completely random wind. You still manage to perform the miraculous million to one every time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

okay. now the same thing with your eyes closed. just a completely blind swing, completely random direction, completely random wind. You still manage to perform the miraculous million to one every time.

Capuchin, I think we've taken this as far as we're going to get for now, and I'll give you the last word after I say this. You keep moving the goal posts here and that's why so many of these discussions never get anywhere. I've said nothing about "every time" and only one side of this is "completely blind," and it ain't the guy who's learned to play golf, honed his skills and aimed for the sweet spot.

I'm trying to equate it to the bridge game, because you seem adverse to cards.

Every time you flip a coin, something that only has a 1/2 chance to happen always happens. Every time you roll a die, something that only has a 1/6 chance to happen always happens.
Every time you deal a game of bridge, something that only has a 1 in 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000 chance of happening always happens.

Things you don't expect to happen can happen. Deal with it.

It's not a case of "we don't know" so teach both in schools. Creationism has a single 2000 year old book as evidence. Evolution has fossil records, observed evolution, and a whole host of other evidence. Creationism is a theory in search of evidence. Evolution is the logical explanation of the evidence. That's why it's accepted by science, that's why it's taught in schools. You're right that only one side of this is completely blind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

I'm trying to equate it to the bridge game, because you seem adverse to cards.

Every time you flip a coin, something that only has a 1/2 chance to happen always happens. Every time you roll a die, something that only has a 1/6 chance to happen always happens.
Every time you deal a game of bridge, something that only has a 1 in 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000 chance of happening always happens.

Things you don't expect to happen can happen. Deal with it.

It's not a case of "we don't know" so teach both in schools. Creationism has a single 2000 year old book as evidence. Evolution has fossil records, observed evolution, and a whole host of other evidence. Creationism is a theory in search of evidence. Evolution is the logical explanation of the evidence. That's why it's accepted by science, that's why it's taught in schools. You're right that only one side of this is completely blind.

Is that your last word on this?

Yes, if what you said was your last word, which seemingly it wasn't.

If you rely on science then how can you believe in love?

I don't believe in emotions, I feel them. Don't you?

My point exactly:)It's a feeling, not something you can touch or read or see.

Sure they are, show someone in a CAT scanner an image that makes them happy, their brain lights up in the happy area.

Emotions are scientifically observable and falsifiable. They have a cause and effect. The biological effects are also studyable. When feeling love your heartbeat raises, many other changes happen to the body. You can see emotions..

Be that as it may, science can't prove everything.

On a seperate note, I LOVE CAPUCHIN MONKEYS!!!<3