Origin of Life (Pt2) (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 02:39 (5240 days ago) @ David Turell


> >
> > An "Attempt" in this case isn't a conscious thing, if it is nature. It still relies on "the right things being in the right place." The argument from Dembski and others against this is that there isn't enough time for "chance" to work out a solution. I'm challenging their claim by showing that their resolution of time isn't fine enough, as 1 "try" per second isn't enough when you consider the speed at which a chemical reaction actually happens. And just like with dice, the more attempts you have, the more chances you have to get it "right" by brute force. In short, Dembski (and others) either willingly or unwittingly skew their attempts when talking about time. 
> 
> I'm going to stick my neck in again: Dembski does not use time. He calculates odds of choosing correct molecules to make life. -Then by omitting time, Dembski's probability means absolutely nothing. -Shroeder uses time. Shapiro has one time example, the other is an example of putting together a living organism, simpler than anything alive today, as odds of the molecules coming together, time not a requirement. Behe uses time in his discussion of malaria mutation resistence evolution, but the rest of his arguments are really philosophy of science. The Wistar Institute Symposium of 1967 was the first to raise the time issue, as the math participants studied the known mutation rates, and said the time was not available to allow for evolution. Of course they did not know what we know now: epigenetic methods, methylation, and recognized 'punctuated equilibrium', ways that speed up the process tremendously.
> 
> I suggest that Matt find the book "The Philosophic Scientists", 1985, by David Foster, Ph.D.. He follows up on Sir Arthur Eddington's proposal that'the stuff of the world is mind stuff', and uses statistics to show that the specificity of human hemoglobin is 10^650. and that the specificity of the T4 phage is 10^78,000. Human DNA specificity is correspondingly much, much larger. Foster does use time with the universe 10^18 seconds old. 
> -Be careful... too many books to read, lol. Which should I tackle first, Shapior or Foster?-> Further most chemcical reactions in organic chemistry require enzymes and most of them are huge in molecular weight (with enormous specificity) with sites that provide for the reactions on the enzyme molecule. 
> -This is true, but this goes back to what you called a good point of mine before: Everything we can study here is the result of 4.5M yrs of evolution. The chemistry needed to form life from nonlife is some odd combination of inorganic and organic... and lets be honest, the research in this field is damn near nonexistent. Perhaps because chemists think its a biological problem, and biologists think its a chemical one. Massimo Pigliucci--and evolutionary biologist--flat out stated that it isn't a question of concern for biology, to paraphrase "because evolution only works when describing life." -At any rate, my point is just to say that of what little there is to say about this topic, it's probably the most pressing and important question that surrounds mankind, and it spins its wheels in frustration. Instead of trying to work with what we *suppose* life had available to it 4.5Bn years ago, we need to actually do whatever it takes to "make it happen." The reason this is such a sticking point between us, is simply that there are more questions than answers at present, and the only statement of complete truth one can say about it is that there isn't enough to say. -Of this, I am certain; quantum computers will allow us to really start finding an answer to this problem. -
> Matt's approach is one way of going at things, but what I have described above is a lot more practical than studying the entire universe. One does not need that approach to to reach some solid conclusions, in my view.-What could be more practical than building a quantum computer capable of running these kinds of simulations? This is from the mind of a computer guy however, so take that as it is.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"