[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
That’s why for me it’s always elephants, no need for wings.
[/quote]
smiley face
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Makavali wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sexy, Senhora Berry, you do your cause a great disservice to use an example such as the one above. You told me you had an academic biology background, did you not?
I thought it was a pretty good analogy.
shrug
You make a post implying a knowledge of statistical improbabilities and yet cannot see the inherent problems with her scenario and how it relates to biology?
shrug[/quote]
improbable = imposible?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
BetaBerry wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
That’s why for me it’s always elephants, no need for wings.
smiley face[/quote]
smiles back
kidnaps dog
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Makavali wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Makavali wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sexy, Senhora Berry, you do your cause a great disservice to use an example such as the one above. You told me you had an academic biology background, did you not?
I thought it was a pretty good analogy.
shrug
You make a post implying a knowledge of statistical improbabilities and yet cannot see the inherent problems with her scenario and how it relates to biology?
shrug
improbable = imposible?
C’mon Mak, think this through. Tell me how a probability scenario that begins with a premise of 50/50 odds is analogous with the concept of macroevolution or worse yet the spontaneous origin of life which contains a statistical probability using a number that includes a rather large exponential.
In fact, the statistical probability of spontaneous life approaches a number that many mathematicians would label as “impossible”. A miracle! A miracle that demands faith! Yet, someone wants to use a ten penny 50/50 example to substantiate it?
This is child’s play, folks.
[/quote]
.>
It’s a largely simplified analogy, but it gets the point across.
Did you not read the above article? It’s certainly speculative, but a possible mechanism for formation of RNA from inorganic molecules+UV radiation seems a compelling argument in favor of the possibility of abiogenesis.
I haven’t bothered to read the whole thread. I’m not going to, unless I’m really, reaaaally bored like I was when I started reading this thing. Just wanted to throw something random out, that I’ve known about for a while:
Dr. Hubert Yockey is one of the most pre-eminent information theorists and physicists in existence today–he worked under Robert Oppenheimer with the Manhattan Project, is almost solely responsible for evolution of the widely popular modern field of bioinformatics, first published a book in 1958, and has published works going back earlier than that. He publishes largely in the well-refereed and highly respected Journal of Theoretical Biology and has since 1974.
He is not an I.D. proponent.
He posited in a 1981 study that the probability of a single protein of ~100 amino acids long (cytochrome c) evolving spontaneously is 2x10^-94th, a number about 1 billion times greater than the amount of atoms in the currently visible universe. He uses this protein because it is widely conserved and also highly resilient (lots of mutations can be made while maintaining biological function–increasing the chance of success).
The impossibility threshold is approximately 1x10^-50th, as posited by Borel (French statistician and not an I.D. proponent). Anything with worse odds than that can be regarded as impossible while anything with better odds than that can be considered to happen at least once in the age of the universe. Yockey draws probable concentrations of starting materials and environmental conditions from the scientific literature. It assumes that 39 amino acids are available and that both D and L stereo-isomers of the 20 modern amino acids will provide a biologically active protein (modern proteins exclusively use the L isomer. The D form is biologically inactive). It also assumes the pre-existence of a 3 letter template code and the machinery for translating that code into a protein (ie–a DNA or RNA string at least 300 bases long as well as separate translation molecules).
If one utilizes only L isomers, the chance of a 100 amino long protein evolving is roughly 2x10^-188th.
If one takes into account the chances of co-evolving translation machinery, as well as the chances of a 300 base pair long DNA/RNA chain evolving, the number drops to a practically incalculable level.
In addition, if one considers the environment, and the lack of time for highly efficient translation machinery to be refined through evolution, the accompanying machinery, if it exists, is going to be highly inefficient and slow compared to modern machinery, decreasing the chances of success.
This scenario also assumes that only 1 protein is needed for life to succeed, which is likely a drastic underestimation.
Just stirring the pot, just stiiiiiiiirrrrrring the pot… (as if it needed stirring) 
…repost just for Aragorn:
http://www.nytimes.com/.../14rna.html?hpw
Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life
By NICHOLAS WADE
An English chemist has found the hidden gateway to the RNA world, the chemical milieu from which the first forms of life are thought to have emerged on earth some 3.8 billion years ago.
He has solved a problem that for 20 years has thwarted researchers trying to understand the origin of life �¢?? how the building blocks of RNA, called nucleotides, could have spontaneously assembled themselves in the conditions of the primitive earth. The discovery, if correct, should set researchers on the right track to solving many other mysteries about the origin of life. It will also mean that for the first time a plausible explanation exists for how an information-carrying biological molecule could have emerged through natural processes from chemicals on the primitive earth.
DIAGRAM AT LINK
http://www.nytimes.com/...tml?ref=science
Reconstructing the Master Molecules of Life
By NICHOLAS WADE
The molecules at the beginning of life were probably made of RNA, a close chemical cousin of DNA. RNA can both act as an enzyme, to control chemical reactions, and record biological information in the sequence of bases along its backbone.
But how could the first RNA molecule have emerged from the organic chemicals thought to have been present on the primitive earth?
Chemists can plausibly show how each of the three components of an RNA nucleotide �¢?? a base, a sugar, and a phosphate group �¢?? could have formed spontaneously. But the base cannot attach to the sugar, known as ribose, because the energy of the reaction is unfavorable.
Researchers have been stuck at this roadblock for 20 years. Chemists at the University of Manchester, led by John D. Sutherland, have now provided a way around.
The diagram above shows, in blue, the reaction that doesn’t work and, in green, the new work-around.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…repost just for Aragorn:
http://www.nytimes.com/.../14rna.html?hpw
Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life
By NICHOLAS WADE
An English chemist has found the hidden gateway to the RNA world, the chemical milieu from which the first forms of life are thought to have emerged on earth some 3.8 billion years ago.
He has solved a problem that for 20 years has thwarted researchers trying to understand the origin of life �??�??�?�¢?? how the building blocks of RNA, called nucleotides, could have spontaneously assembled themselves in the conditions of the primitive earth. The discovery, if correct, should set researchers on the right track to solving many other mysteries about the origin of life. It will also mean that for the first time a plausible explanation exists for how an information-carrying biological molecule could have emerged through natural processes from chemicals on the primitive earth.
DIAGRAM AT LINK
http://www.nytimes.com/...tml?ref=science
Reconstructing the Master Molecules of Life
By NICHOLAS WADE
The molecules at the beginning of life were probably made of RNA, a close chemical cousin of DNA. RNA can both act as an enzyme, to control chemical reactions, and record biological information in the sequence of bases along its backbone.
But how could the first RNA molecule have emerged from the organic chemicals thought to have been present on the primitive earth?
Chemists can plausibly show how each of the three components of an RNA nucleotide �??�??�?�¢?? a base, a sugar, and a phosphate group �??�??�?�¢?? could have formed spontaneously. But the base cannot attach to the sugar, known as ribose, because the energy of the reaction is unfavorable.
Researchers have been stuck at this roadblock for 20 years. Chemists at the University of Manchester, led by John D. Sutherland, have now provided a way around.
The diagram above shows, in blue, the reaction that doesn’t work and, in green, the new work-around.
[/quote]
Yup, I saw it the first time. After I posted up I went back and read the page immediately prior to this one.
Remember, I’m not taking sides. I’ve said a number of times I view this debate as completely intractable and largely a waste of time from either side. I just like playing devils advocate and poking the proverbial tiger in the sides…a LOT! 
That said, I find Dr. Sutherland’s experiment highly interesting but unconvincing. Dr. Robert Shapiro (the dissenting voice in that article) is one of the world’s most pre-eminent chemists in this field. In addition, the length of the ribonucleotides is of very high importance (I’m understating). Further you still have not solved the biological activity problem–only certain sequences of certain lengths will be biologically active, and then you cannot say what that activity will be.
And even if created you still lack the tranlation machinery which is itself specialized, even if it isn’t refined.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:Yup, I saw it the first time. After I posted up I went back and read the page immediately prior to this one.
Remember, I’m not taking sides. I’ve said a number of times I view this debate as completely intractable and largely a waste of time from either side. I just like playing devils advocate and poking the proverbial tiger in the sides…a LOT!
That said, I find Dr. Sutherland’s experiment highly interesting but unconvincing. Dr. Robert Shapiro (the dissenting voice in that article) is one of the world’s most pre-eminent chemists in this field. In addition, the length of the ribonucleotides is of very high importance (I’m understating). Further you still have not solved the biological activity problem–only certain sequences of certain lengths will be biologically active, and then you cannot say what that activity will be.
And even if created you still lack the tranlation machinery which is itself specialized, even if it isn’t refined.[/quote]
…in time science finds the answer to most questions. The next 50 years are going to be very interesting…
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I haven’t bothered to read the whole thread. I’m not going to, unless I’m really, reaaaally bored like I was when I started reading this thing. Just wanted to throw something random out, that I’ve known about for a while:
Dr. Hubert Yockey is one of the most pre-eminent information theorists and physicists in existence today–he worked under Robert Oppenheimer with the Manhattan Project, is almost solely responsible for evolution of the widely popular modern field of bioinformatics, first published a book in 1958, and has published works going back earlier than that. He publishes largely in the well-refereed and highly respected Journal of Theoretical Biology and has since 1974.
He is not an I.D. proponent.
He posited in a 1981 study that the probability of a single protein of ~100 amino acids long (cytochrome c) evolving spontaneously is 2x10^-94th, a number about 1 billion times greater than the amount of atoms in the currently visible universe. He uses this protein because it is widely conserved and also highly resilient (lots of mutations can be made while maintaining biological function–increasing the chance of success).
The impossibility threshold is approximately 1x10^-50th, as posited by Borel (French statistician and not an I.D. proponent). Anything with worse odds than that can be regarded as impossible while anything with better odds than that can be considered to happen at least once in the age of the universe. Yockey draws probable concentrations of starting materials and environmental conditions from the scientific literature. It assumes that 39 amino acids are available and that both D and L stereo-isomers of the 20 modern amino acids will provide a biologically active protein (modern proteins exclusively use the L isomer. The D form is biologically inactive). It also assumes the pre-existence of a 3 letter template code and the machinery for translating that code into a protein (ie–a DNA or RNA string at least 300 bases long as well as separate translation molecules).
If one utilizes only L isomers, the chance of a 100 amino long protein evolving is roughly 2x10^-188th.
If one takes into account the chances of co-evolving translation machinery, as well as the chances of a 300 base pair long DNA/RNA chain evolving, the number drops to a practically incalculable level.
In addition, if one considers the environment, and the lack of time for highly efficient translation machinery to be refined through evolution, the accompanying machinery, if it exists, is going to be highly inefficient and slow compared to modern machinery, decreasing the chances of success.
This scenario also assumes that only 1 protein is needed for life to succeed, which is likely a drastic underestimation.
Just stirring the pot, just stiiiiiiiirrrrrring the pot… (as if it needed stirring) :D[/quote]
Speaking of stirred pots, I knew, toward the end of his life, Stan Miller, who decades ago sparked in a pot methane, oxygen and water and cyanide, and “spontaneously” produced amino acids, and peptides.
Perhaps Dr Yockey’s calculation presumes falsely something not contended, that cytochrome c coalesced from its individual atoms. That is not possible. But this is only another example of “irreducible complexity.”
There is a reconstructed history–paleobiology, if you will–specifically for cytochrome c. It is not inconceivable that the leap from Archae to prokaryotes occurred with just a few single step mutations.
That is, to me, the single biggest difference between I.D. and scientific methodology. I.D. says “God must have done it, nothing more to see here;” biology says “I don’t know, but let’s find out.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sneaky weasel wrote:
That is, to me, the single biggest difference between I.D. and scientific methodology. I.D. says “God must have done it, nothing more to see here;” biology says “I don’t know, but let’s find out.”
And creationist biology says, “God must have done it; but let’s find out more.”[/quote]
…goodmornin’, but a creationist is expected to tow the party line, isn’t he? In your religious-socialist world, you have to comply to the manifesto, or else. So what if that creationist biologist makes an actual discovery, and that discovery does not point at God, will he surpress his findings?