Origin of Life (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, December 21, 2009, 02:07 (5248 days ago) @ xeno6696


> You see, the problem is that the converse position can be drawn with the same data... it wouldn't prove anything. If it turns out that life is common on any planet like ours--that's all it really means.-I accept that. That life appears at all is due to the fact that this is the perfect universe for life like ours, one hundred or more precise parameters required. 
> 
> You've talked about a probability limit. I'm going to get a little aggressive here:
> 
> 1. What is the number of this limit, and what reasons/systemic justification do you have for positing this number?-As a non-mathematician, I know of Borel's 10^ minus 50, and Dembski who tripled it to 10^ minus 150. I have no systematic justification. I don'tknow how to establish one except, I know the universe is 10^18 seconds old. I know that there are roughly 10^80 particles. 
> 
> 2. What are you comparing against? Meaning, if you have a probability limit, you have to have a system of measurement for it (or probability cannot be used).-Somehow mathematically I would think it can be calculated that, knowing methane, CO2, N2O, and other simple molecles exist naturally, what are the odds they could get together against time to a meaningful amino acid, and then from there to RNA and then DNA, each with a meaningful code inserted, again all against the time alloted, 700-800 million years (the time for earth formation to recognized life on earth). 
> 
> 3. What are your assumptions taken in support of 1 and 2?-I have faith, not assumptions. How did Dembski calculate the odds for the E. Coli flagellum? I don't know. Are his assumptions correct? I have no way of knowing. I know you don't trust Dembski, but were his assumptions correct as he calculated odds for the proper mix of amino acids?
 
> 
> 4. Why do you think the assumptions are reasonable? -I am way beyond my depth here.- 
> 
> 5. How confident can we be of this limit? (This part may shake out as we grapple with all of this.)-Those limits I quoted make superficial sense to me. At 10^18th seconds, any negative odds beyond that should be impressive for my point of view.-Shapiro in Origins calculated that simple life with only four amino acids and ten enzymes assembled by chance: "the odds of getting it right would be 1 in 10^150." Please read Shapiro. I swear to you he is an atheist. 
>
> 6. This question ties in heavily with 1 and 2. You have brought up Bayesian ideas somewhat recently--anytime there's a contingent probability. Considering that many contingent probabilities are misleading either due to current ignorance, why do you rule out discrete probabilities? An illustration here might help:
> 
> If you cut the skin of a healthy human adult, their blood will clot.
> If you insert a sperm cell into an egg, you will have a stem cell. 
> 
> How do you separate deterministic from the contingent in biological systems?-In biologic systems things are only determinisitc when the correct molecular crew cooperate together to produce the result. The blood clotting cascade has over 17 steps with a feed-back loop at each spot. I feel you have asked the question from the wrong perspective. Each step in setting up the cascade is contingent upon some process: chance or directed. I choose directed.-Lobsters have two steps: they have no heart, no blood vessels, and no blood pressure. "To each according to his need". Ken Miller loves to use the lobster in his arguments, that minor step-wise progression lowered the odds for chance. But to get to humans, at the same time a complex human circulatory system is developed in parallel with the clotting mechanism. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of changes going on simultaneously, not insignificantly an electricity-run pumping heart with four chambers. . In my view Miller is dumb, dumb, dumb.