Amino acid probability

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Gman you are absolutely wrong.

The argument you quoted is based on a simple calculation requiring no expertise in chemistry.

There are 20 amino acids being consided in this example.
The proposed length of the amino acid chain is 100.

Therefore the chances of randomly generating a specific amino acid sequence is 20 to the 100th power.

The answer is 1.26 * 10^130
Exactly what was quoted.

What this means is that they are stating that somehow abiogenisis boils down to the chance occurrence of a single 100 amino acid length sequence.

How do they know?

Also you mischaracterize the two posibilities for life.
1. Chance assembly of life from chemicals
2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems

Its not chance assembly, its as follows.
1. Assembly of life from chemicals
2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems

Within in #1 there are two posibilities.
1. The chance formation of life.
2. Chemical processes under certain conditions will likely lead to life.

The problem is we don't know which if any of these solutions are correct.
And we don't know what their probabilities are because of the lack of information.

You can calculate all the probabilities as your "Chemist" friend has done, but in reality as we gain more knowledge such calculations tend to be only a starting point as certain posibilities are naturally removed.

For example if I were to calculate the the probability of landing in certain position in a gym after launching off a skate ramp, I could do as follows.

Do as you professor did and calculate the number of square inches in the gym and calculate all posible positions. This is a good starting point but...

Quickly we realize that there is a maximum range which can be reached by the ramp.
Also we realize that the isn't much allowance for lateral velocity when being launched from a ramp.
The original calculation would have given us billions of possible solutions.
But in reality we can predict with some accuracy where the skater will land.

It doesn't take a chemist to calculate all possible combinations, whether real or imagined.
There are too many assumptions in this sort of calculation.
1. All solutions are equally likely.
2. There is only one valid combination.

This is not a combination lock.

[Gman]

Gman you are absolutely wrong.

The argument you quoted is based on a simple calculation requiring no expertise in chemistry.

There are 20 amino acids being consided in this example.
The proposed length of the amino acid chain is 100.

Therefore the chances of randomly generating a specific amino acid sequence is 20 to the 100th power.

The answer is 1.26 * 10^130
Exactly what was quoted.

What this means is that they are stating that somehow abiogenisis boils down to the chance occurrence of a single 100 amino acid length sequence.

How do they know?

Like I've said before... If you find their probabilities vague, you will need to follow up with them if you what to know more how they came to their conclusions. These quotes came from their book "The Mystery of Life's Origin." Simply mocking them is unprofessional IMO..

Also you mischaracterize the two posibilities for life.
1. Chance assembly of life from chemicals
2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems

Its not chance assembly, its as follows.
1. Assembly of life from chemicals
2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems

Within in #1 there are two posibilities.
1. The chance formation of life.
2. Chemical processes under certain conditions will likely lead to life.

Bgood, you are absolutely wrong... You are simply trying to dodge a bullet here and spread a lie that chance has nothing with abiogenesis..

The problem is we don't know which if any of these solutions are correct.
And we don't know what their probabilities are because of the lack of information.

This is EXACTLY my point... You say that since we don't have a correct solution or not enough information to their probabilities, it is absurd to say that chance has anything to do with it... That my friend is complete BUNK!!! This type of baloney makes me sick... Again if you take ID out of the equation here then all you have is probabilities, random chance, or accidental variations!!!

You can calculate all the probabilities as your "Chemist" friend has done, but in reality as we gain more knowledge such calculations tend to be only a starting point as certain posibilities are naturally removed.

Ok, so now you are reducing possibilities (because you know they go against your little theory)... But you still have them. Don't deny this simple FACT!!!

For example if I were to calculate the the probability of landing in certain position in a gym after launching off a skate ramp, I could do as follows.

Do as you professor did and calculate the number of square inches in the gym and calculate all posible positions. This is a good starting point but...

Quickly we realize that there is a maximum range which can be reached by the ramp.
Also we realize that the isn't much allowance for lateral velocity when being launched from a ramp.
The original calculation would have given us billions of possible solutions.
But in reality we can predict with some accuracy where the skater will land.

It doesn't take a chemist to calculate all possible combinations, whether real or imagined.
There are too many assumptions in this sort of calculation.
1. All solutions are equally likely.
2. There is only one valid combination.

This is not a combination lock.

Try this experiment..

1. Catch a fish.
2. Buy a blender.
3. Put the fish in the blender and grind it until it turns into soup.
4. When finished, pour the contents out and see if it will recreate itself back into a fish..

I'll even give you your god of natural selection and a taser gun to shock it back to life...

ROFL...

[godslanguage]

For example if I were to calculate the the probability of landing in certain position in a gym after launching off a skate ramp, I could do as follows.

Granted, you would like to calculate the probability of something landing at a certain position, how about landing a certain number of times in that exact position?

I'm sure you can do better then this type of question bgood. How about this one, given a 1000 piece puzzle what is the likelihood that throwing/ dropping down the pieces randomly will build the complete puzzle, that means the right pieces in the right spots and the right format. How bout completing the puzzle 10 times over.

Do as you professor did and calculate the number of square inches in the gym and calculate all posible positions. This is a good starting point but...

Quickly we realize that there is a maximum range which can be reached by the ramp.
Also we realize that the isn't much allowance for lateral velocity when being launched from a ramp.
The original calculation would have given us billions of possible solutions.
But in reality we can predict with some accuracy where the skater will land.

Bgood, calculating all these probabilities would have me to suggest you have an "intelligently" developed formula for probabilities based on intelligently given information to allow you to make any predictions, whether they are based on reasonable evidence or are lacking, or else the chances of you actually landing multiple if not thousands of times in that same spot would be highly highly unlikely. What I'm getting at here is not the probability of an event occurring but using knowledge to have a gain in the first place.

Probability I'm assuming has correlation luck. Luck maybe based on variable differences on intelligent choices or decisions as well (just like you are using statistical data to assume the probability using probability formulas for one event to occur). Say for example, I create a program (instead of merely guessing) that takes in all the winning lottery numbers from the last 6 years. I calculate the probability of how many numbers are the most probable to occur given the previous data. The computers spits out lets say, 7 most probable or likely numbers to occur. So now I have now 7 numbers to work with, however I won't win the jackpot unless I have the 7 numbers in a particular left -> right order as well. Another factor to consider would be if the main lottery servers aren't playing games (switching the numbers around) and preventing me from taking home the jackpot. These machines could be considered the primary factor to begin with, because even if I have the set of probabilities of the past lottery winning numbers and the right order, there would still be no way of me winning, because it just wouldn't allow me too.

To get to my point,
If you are considering your statement that :

"2. Chemical processes under certain conditions will likely lead to life"

The you must beg the question why you have these chemical processes that lead to life in the first place. Just like the mail lottery server which is in charge of either allowing you or not allowing you to win, the same goes for chemical processes which will lead or allow life to follow.

[angel]

Angel, all you leave is a paper trail of lies, deceit, and chaos...

As you wish GMan. Luckly enough there is you who bring light and inspiration to everybody.

Again there are only TWO possibilities for the existence of life.. Is this a hard concept for you to understand?

1. Chance assembly of life from chemicals
2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems

I realize I would be better to be explicit on this point (even here where
it has nothing to do with what we are discussing)

I accept that there are two possibilities only when we are discussing the ULTIMATE
cause for life. That is precisely why ID and Dembski argument is meaningless.
I would remark that in fact there is only ONE possibility because I honestly cannot see why
I should be forbidden to ask who designed the designer.
In other words ID is not an explanation even if it were correct.

A completely different story is when we discuss the emerging of life on Earth.
In that case there are dozens of different scenarios to be consider.
I already listed few of them (something which GMan ignored probably
because he didn't know what to say.)

LOL.. This is complete (scientific) rubbish!!!

I did not expect you see the difference between the two arguments.
What I posted was not for you GMan.

I came to ask myself the reason for your behaviour. As an antropologic curiosity...
I wonder if you really don't see the difference in the argument you posted and the one
I sketched or you are simply pretending you don't for some reason I cannot imagine.

Your battle is with them..

If they are interested I am ready to discuss with them. I am sure that they will say something
not very different from what I posted ("the argument is just a rough estimate to show there is
much that we still don't understand").
I am sure that all the issue is caused by your wrong/partial interpretation
of what they wrote.

I you wish feel free to invite them to join the board.

Oh another ad hominem... What's the matter? Have you run out of something constructive to say?

That is getting very sad GMan.

That is not an ad hominem. It is taken literally from the same guidelines that you keep
referring me.

Very sad indeed.

About the essence of the issue I really don't know what to add. I think bGood already repeated everything that
has been said dozens of time. It is clear that either your English is worse than mine or you don't want to admit you were wrong.
In both cases I don't know what to add.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Gman I am not partial to any solution. The honest individual will admit whether they agree or not with either that there are two posibilities, which may not even be exclusive.

Life came about naturally.
Life came about because of an act of God.

And if life came about naturally, it is possible that it is a result of a series of chemical events which is yet to be discovered.
Or was a miraculous stroke of luck.

Now as I said I am not partial to any of these solutions. And since I have no preferences I think I can tell when an argument fails to provide the proof that it is alleged to contain. You may not believe me, but that is not my concern.

Now nothing in natural implies a lack of randomness, however it is not completely random as in your amusing fish in a blender example.
Keeping with the honest tone of things right? For once Gman please.


There is a bit of chaos in every system, take weather for example (a consequence of natural conditions).

We know that when a low pressure system develops over the south atlantic that it can lead to a huricane. There is a natural series of events which will lead to this.
The timing of these events and when they occur are "random" in the scientific sence. Meaning that the posibilities have a statistically measured posibility of occuring at any given moment, but there is no predictability for a single event. (In otherwords we know that over a period of time the values tend to fall into a pattern) However hurricanes do occur. And quite often given the randomness of their nature. And we can predict whether more or less hurricanes are likely to occur in a season given global conditions.

For example if I were to calculate the the probability of landing in certain position in a gym after launching off a skate ramp, I could do as follows.

Granted, you would like to calculate the probability of something landing at a certain position, how about landing a certain number of times in that exact position?

This is the same thing, you are arbitrarily setting the conditions and then calculating all the possibilities.
What information or data do you have that leads you to beleive that abiogenisis must be the result of a single event which had to occur multiple times?
What information or data is there that leads one to think that there must be only one pathway?

For those of Gmans ilk, the lack of information is not evidence in favor of abiogenisis either.

"2. Chemical processes under certain conditions will likely lead to life"

The you must beg the question why you have these chemical processes that lead to life in the first place.

Not necessarily, but I see your point.
The scientific issue here however is do the laws of nature which ultimately govern chemical interactions allow for a chain of chemical events which naturally leads to life?
Why the properties of the universe are set this way is a separate and more metaphysical issue.

P.S.
Now Gman before you respond, you can see this two ways.
I am vehemently defending my own position and beleifs OR I am dismantling an argument because it does not have intellectual merit.

I ask you please to consider this before comming out guns ablazing. =P
There is nothing wrong with asking questions. It's not like "The Mystery of Life's Origin" is the Bible.

[Gman]

I realize I would be better to be explicit on this point (even here where
it has nothing to do with what we are discussing)

I accept that there are two possibilities only when we are discussing the ULTIMATE
cause for life. That is precisely why ID and Dembski argument is meaningless.

We are discussing the ultimate cause for life… This has been my point from the beginning.. What are you talking about now?

Your topics change so much that I feel like I'm talking to my girlfriend or something.. Sorry...

I would remark that in fact there is only ONE possibility because I honestly cannot see why I should be forbidden to ask who designed the designer.
In other words ID is not an explanation even if it were correct.

Who ever told you that you should be forbidden to ask who designed the designer? I get this question asked all the time.. That's an old boring one.. Please read the following link…

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... d_god.html

A completely different story is when we discuss the emerging of life on Earth. In that case there are dozens of different scenarios to be consider.
I already listed few of them (something which GMan ignored probably
because he didn't know what to say.)

Oh really? Ok watch this then…

Quote Angel: “life could be proven to spontaneously emerge from non-life,
not by chance but because of the natural laws we still don't know .”

Again, you are simply dodging the bullet here... What you are really saying here is that since there is not enough information, it is absurd to say that chance has anything to do with it or that chance is a non-factor in the case for Darwinian evolution… This is a bold face lie.. Again, if there is no designer here then all you have is chance… Nothing more nothing less… This is a black or white issue…I agree with the owner of this website on this (Rich Deem).

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

Since you are talking about life spontaneously emerging from non-life without any designer it is in the chance category plain and simple...

Also natural laws fall into the chance category when you talk about the origin of life through naturalistic means.. That's why they are natural...

Quote Angel: life being produced by a chaotic designer

Again another ad hominem but this one is calling God chaotic… Nonetheless it will fall into the creator category..

Quote Angel: or by extraterrestial civilization

Creator category..

Quote Angel: or has always existed.

LOL.. Tell that to Darwin.. Chance category..

Quote Angel: or by flying spaghetti monster

Cute but nonetheless the creator category..

Quote Angel: Natural selection

Chance category..

I did not expect you see the difference between the two arguments.
What I posted was not for you GMan.

I came to ask myself the reason for your behaviour. As an antropologic curiosity...
I wonder if you really don't see the difference in the argument you posted and the one I sketched or you are simply pretending you don't for some reason I cannot imagine.

I can't seem to understand why you don't think that chance is not a factor in Darwinian evolution.. You just don't seem to want to accept it but you MUST..

If they are interested I am ready to discuss with them. I am sure that they will say something not very different from what I posted ("the argument is just a rough estimate to show there is much that we still don't understand").
I am sure that all the issue is caused by your wrong/partial interpretation
of what they wrote.

I you wish feel free to invite them to join the board.

Sure, maybe I will, but while I'm at it maybe you can email evolutionists Brandon Carter, John Barrow, and Frank Tipler and ask them how they determined the likelihood that other intelligent species exist in the universe is the probability of 10^24,000,000….

That is getting very sad GMan.

That is not an ad hominem. It is taken literally from the same guidelines that you keep
referring me.

Very sad indeed.

Well you better keep crying then because if you keep laughing at the case of ID with your LOL's and calling the creator lazy and unimaginative I would suggest that you put on some stronger armor.. I won't stand for this nonsense Angel.. I have been willing to be level with you and try to treat you with respect but if you keep persisting with these type of attacks it is going to get ugly…

About the essence of the issue I really don't know what to add. I think bGood already repeated everything that has been said dozens of time. It is clear that either your English is worse than mine or you don't want to admit you were wrong.
In both cases I don't know what to add.

Angel, I have lost count the number of times I have tried to correct you..

Spoken like a true evolutionist.. Trying to compare intellect are we? Well if you want to go that route then your spelling isn't exactly that great either.. Almost like you are speaking Italian or something.. I don't know..

Also you might want to read my quote about how Darwin compared men with women... I don't know why you like this guy's theory..

[Gman]

Now Bgood.. I will try to do this without any sarcasm..

Gman I am not partial to any solution. The honest individual will admit whether they agree or not with either that there are two posibilities, which may not even be exclusive.

Life came about naturally.
Life came about because of an act of God.

And if life came about naturally, it is possible that it is a result of a series of chemical events which is yet to be discovered.
Or was a miraculous stroke of luck.

Now as I said I am not partial to any of these solutions. And since I have no preferences I think I can tell when an argument fails to provide the proof that it is alleged to contain. You may not believe me, but that is not my concern.

Now nothing in natural implies a lack of randomness, however it is not completely random as in your amusing fish in a blender example.
Keeping with the honest tone of things right? For once Gman please.

Ok… Look.. Since you are saying that you are not partial to any solution, it gives the impression that you are above it all… It's like a higher than you approach.. A type of pride... It is not reasonable and is probably why we disagree on many things.. There is a lot of swaying that is going on here almost like a sea saw affect with your words here.. IMO.. Be truthful... Tell it like it is...

Also I might agree with you that it may not be completely random, but you can't say that random is therefore completely nixed out of the equation here then either... That is not being honest and sets up a smokescreen... It's an indeterminable probability therefore there is no probability.. Sorry that doesn't fly with me and flys into the face of Darwinian evolution..

There is a bit of chaos in every system, take weather for example (a consequence of natural conditions).

Yes there may be what you call chaos in every system of the universe… Planets colliding with other planets and lions killing their prey…But to me it is a beautiful thing because that is the way God designed it. The new turns old and must be recycled… There is death but then rebirth comes again… A flower dies in the autumn only to be reborn in the spring.. But it is there for a reason not just an accident.. It is there for our learning… When you understand this it will bring comfort to your soul… It is not as chaotic as you may think… Please be careful what you are saying here because it alludes to God IMO..

We know that when a low pressure system develops over the south atlantic that it can lead to a huricane. There is a natural series of events which will lead to this.
The timing of these events and when they occur are "random" in the scientific sence. Meaning that the posibilities have a statistically measured posibility of occuring at any given moment, but there is no predictability for a single event. (In otherwords we know that over a period of time the values tend to fall into a pattern) However hurricanes do occur. And quite often given the randomness of their nature. And we can predict whether more or less hurricanes are likely to occur in a season given global conditions.

You are being nebulous… Be more specific here…

P.S.
Now Gman before you respond, you can see this two ways.
I am vehemently defending my own position and beleifs OR I am dismantling an argument because it does not have intellectual merit.

I ask you please to consider this before comming out guns ablazing. =P
There is nothing wrong with asking questions. It's not like "The Mystery of Life's Origin" is the Bible.

Ok, fine Bgood.. I will level with you… At least you are starting to sound reasonable now.. I will tone it down a bit then…I am dismantling the argument because it does not have any intellectual merit… I don't see how random chances can explain the origin of life.. It's one of the reason's why I turned to Christianity… I really believe this… I really do…

I also believe we are ALL SPIRITUAL BEINGS… Even you Bgood… (even though I might not like to admit it). We are not accidents.. I refuse to look at people that way… There is a reason behind our existence… Most people on this earth understand this simple truth and don't have a problem with it...

We are spirits in the material world - Sting

[Byblos]

Sorry folks I haven't been around much lately but between new projects at work and my wife being sick, the last 2 weeks have been hellish.

For now I just want to state a couple of things that I'm not even sure were all discussed in this thread but they are relevant here nonetheless.

1) I somewhat agree with Angel on the probability (and the fine tuning of the universe) argument that it is rather meaningless, since the argument does not depend or rely on a frame of reference for comparison. We cannot argue the fine tuning of life as we know it unless we know precisely what life would have been like (if any) if the given parameters were slightly (or greatly) different. Would there be no life? Or would we have life but in a different form? We can't tell. The problem is that advocates of life by chance (or ordered chance, or random mutation + natural selection, or whatever else you want to call life without the benefit of a creator) has the same problem when using probabilities to advance such theories as the origin of life, which Darwinian Evolutionists most certainly advocate. I don't want to go too much into this probability argument as for me personally, the fine tuning argument is meaningless to me.

2) I am in total agreement with GMan that when you break things down to their minute detail, you basically have one of two possibilities for life on earth (or anywhere else in the universe for that matter). Either it came by chance (and again, by chance includes ordered chemical reactions, RM+NS, etc.) or it came from a creator. All other possibilities are subsets of these 2.

I've said this before (I think it was in the ERVs thread) that any discussion of this nature cannot possibly be carried out without first discussing the origin of life. Let's agree on that first then we can continue. And agreeing doesn't necessarily mean one must be convinced of the other's belief. It simply means to clarify one's position. Either you believe in a creator or you do not. Agnosticism is categorized under the 'no creator' column. GMan and I happen to believe that life did not come by chance. I.e. it was created. Angel, I know at some point you were asked this question and I believe your reply was that you were 'terrified' to discuss your belief either because it was too personal or you may have felt that you cannot discuss it publicly. It is up to you really but we've been dancing around this for far too long and I think it is time that everyone lay their cards on the table and state exactly what it is they believe with respect to God and the origin of life. GMan and I (and pretty much the majority on this site) make no apologies for what we believe nor do we make apologies for the fact that this is, first and foremost, a Christian site.

Byblos.

[Gman]

Thanks Byblos well said... I see your point... Also I'm sorry to hear about your wife...

I think its safe now to go on with what I wanted to say earlier...

Before everybody crucifies Dr. Hugh Ross, he too acknowledged that there was a problem with these two probabilities (the amino acid and the protein library probability) based on the scientific evidence...

Function by Chance

Quote from Origins of Life: "Though principally sound, these two probability analyses neglect an important factor that bears on the origin-of-life question: Some proteins with different amino acid sequences actually share the same structure and activity. Some amino acid positions in a protein can be freely varied with no effect on the protein's structure and function. Others can be varied to a limited extent, and some not at all. This means that some amino acid sequences are biologically indistinguishable. This phenomenon, referred to as functional equivalency, improves the likelihood that random chemical processes could stumble upon a biologically useful protein. But does it improve enough to allow natural-process origin-of-life explanations to work?

Currently, scientists are unable to determine the probability that a specific protein function emerged by random chemical events. They simply LACK a full understanding of the relationship among amino acid sequence, protein structure, and protein function. Yet in the absence of full knowledge, biophysicist Hubert Yockey has ventured to estimate this probability for the protein cytochrome C.

Involved in energy-harvesting pathways, cytochrome C contains about 110 amino acids and is found throughout the living realm. Biochemists have determined the cytochrome C amino acid sequence for numerous organisms. By aligning and comparing all known cytochrome C sequences, Yockey estimated the range of variability for each amino acid position.

With some understanding of functional equivalency, Yockey determined that the probability of random chemical events stumbling upon a functionally equivalent cytochrome C is roughly on the order of 10^75. (The number of protons and neutrons in the universe is only about 10^78.) According to Yockey, if one assumes a chemically pristine primordial soup (containing only biologically significant amino acids) composed of 10^44 amino acids (the largest conceivable soup possible), to have a 95 percent chance of producing a functional cytochrome C would take 10^23 years at one chance per second. With the universe's age being 14 billion years, less than one-trillionth of the time needed to produce a functional cytochrome C has transpired.

Yockey's analysis has one limitation. He may not have identified all possible cytochrome C amino acid sequences. Perhaps amino acid sequences not known to exist in nature could have yielded functional cytochrome C-like proteins. In other words, Yockey's analysis may not have fully sampled all "sequence space" for functional cytochrome C molecules. A study by biochemists from Stanford University addresses this concern. Based on mathematical modeling, these researchers determined that for a given protein structure, the amino acid sequences found in nature do indeed encompass all those that are theoretically allowed. Yockey's analysis appears comprehensive."

In closing....

"For naturalistic origin-of-life accounts, this fact is a significant, if not insurmountable, hurdle. While biochemists do NOT yet fully understand the relationship between amino acid sequence and function, preliminary estimates demonstrate that the universe possesses insufficient time and material to produce even the simplest information-containing molecules. As work proceeds toward developing a better understanding of the determinants of protein structure, these types of probability calculations will become more robust in addressing the origin-of-life question. For now, understanding the boundaries of life through the formation of cell membranes provides another opportunity for the models to face off."

You see even Hugh Ross can be reasonable... And there you have it, I'm done with what I wanted to say...

[angel]

I somewhat agree with Angel on the probability (and the fine tuning of the universe)
argument that it is rather meaningless, since the argument does not depend or rely on
a frame of reference for comparison. We cannot argue the fine tuning of life as we know
it unless we know precisely what life would have been like (if any) if the given parameters
were slightly (or greatly) different. Would there be no life? Or would we have life but
in a different form? We can't tell. The problem is that advocates of life by chance
(or ordered chance, or random mutation + natural selection, or whatever else you want to
call life without the benefit of a creator) has the same problem when using probabilities
to advance such theories as the origin of life, which Darwinian Evolutionists most certainly
advocate. I don't want to go too much into this probability argument as for me personally,
the fine tuning argument is meaningless to me.

Thank you Byblos. I was beginning to feel disappointed.

I agree also on the second part about evolutionists using probabilities.
The only thing showed by these arguments is that probably (regardless is you believe in evolution or designer)
there is too much we still don't know about abiogenesis to say anything relevant.

I don't think that from a strict scientific sense the current theories about abiogenesis are
more than toy models. The same apply to design, IMO.

If we agree on that I am ready to proceed discussing about the other points.

Angel, I know at some point you were asked this question and I believe your reply
was that you were 'terrified' to discuss your belief either because it was
too personal or you may have felt that you cannot discuss it publicly.

I am ready to publically declare my beliefs, if we all agree that this is a matter of
faith, not science. There is no discussion about it except the ones strictly necessary to make it
transparent and clear.
I am ready to do that (possibly on anopther thread since this one is reserved to
the probability of peptides assemblying.)

What I were terrified of was to be dragged into a discussion about scientific
evidences supporting faith. In my view there is no reason in faith to be discussed.

I personally find GMan upsetting (my fault of course) so I will keep interaction with him minimal.
That is a condition to keep me on the civil side. Sorry.

[angel]

I am in total agreement with GMan that when you break things down to their minute detail,
you basically have one of two possibilities for life on earth (or anywhere else in
the universe for that matter). Either it came by chance (and again, by chance includes
ordered chemical reactions, RM+NS, etc.) or it came from a creator. All other possibilities
are subsets of these 2.

My opinions on that might be summarized as follows:

The whole issue can be reduced to what you mean by chance. If you mean, as it seems, to be
explained by a naturalistic (ie not by a designer) model, then of course we agree.
Of course nobody can disagree on a claim such as
"you just have two possibilities: either life was designed or it was not."

For example I would not call "natural selection" to be "chance". Of course I would
call random mutations as "chance".
But if we agree on what you exactly mean by chance, I think we can agree on it.

I just want to stress that GMan did not break down in ANY detail the emergence of life
so you may understand that I had some problem with agreeing with it a priori.

[angel]

Who ever told you that you should be forbidden to ask who designed the designer?

Any IDn supporter I asked at ARN, for example.
That is motivated by the fact that ID does not study the designer.

GMan you called me liar three times in two posts or so.
While I am not interested in what you think of me, you will understand that
this will prevent me from keep discussing with you untiln you grow up and
learn how to behave in a civil forum.

In this thread YOU wanted to discuss amino acid probability and
as soon as you realize (because I hope you realized that in the end) that your arguments were
untenable due to overwhelming counterevidences, you started dodging towards abiogenesis.

I am more than ready to discuss abiogenesis with anybody on board. Not with you though.
Not until you admit that the original probability argument is nothing that a rough sketch
with no real positive content. It only proves that we still don't know much about the issue. And it has nothing to do with chemistry.

BTW your menaces

Well you better keep crying then because if you keep laughing at the case of ID with your LOL's
and calling the creator lazy and unimaginative I would suggest that you put on some stronger armor..
I won't stand for this nonsense Angel.. I have been willing to be level with you and try to treat
you with respect but if you keep persisting with these type of attacks it is going to get ugly…

are absolutely ridicolous. Stop crying and grow up.

PS Yes your English is worse than mine...as I suspected.
I wrote

It is clear that either your English is worse than mine or you don't want to admit you were wrong.

you reply

Well if you want to go that route then your spelling isn't exactly that great either..

WHERE THE HELL I EVER claimed my English to be good.
I am perfectly aware my English is far from perfect.
This does not prevert your conprehension to be worse than mine!

Take care.

[Byblos]

I somewhat agree with Angel on the probability (and the fine tuning of the universe)
argument that it is rather meaningless, since the argument does not depend or rely on
a frame of reference for comparison. We cannot argue the fine tuning of life as we know
it unless we know precisely what life would have been like (if any) if the given parameters
were slightly (or greatly) different. Would there be no life? Or would we have life but
in a different form? We can't tell. The problem is that advocates of life by chance
(or ordered chance, or random mutation + natural selection, or whatever else you want to
call life without the benefit of a creator) has the same problem when using probabilities
to advance such theories as the origin of life, which Darwinian Evolutionists most certainly
advocate. I don't want to go too much into this probability argument as for me personally,
the fine tuning argument is meaningless to me.

Thank you Byblos. I was beginning to feel disappointed.

My aim is to please but disappointments are unfortunately inevitable .

I agree also on the second part about evolutionists using probabilities.
The only thing showed by these arguments is that probably (regardless is you believe in evolution or designer)
there is too much we still don't know about abiogenesis to say anything relevant.

I don't think that from a strict scientific sense the current theories about abiogenesis are
more than toy models. The same apply to design, IMO.

If we agree on that I am ready to proceed discussing about the other points.

I'm with you so far.

Angel, I know at some point you were asked this question and I believe your reply
was that you were 'terrified' to discuss your belief either because it was
too personal or you may have felt that you cannot discuss it publicly.

I am ready to publically declare my beliefs, if we all agree that this is a matter of
faith, not science. There is no discussion about it except the ones strictly necessary to make it
transparent and clear.
I am ready to do that (possibly on anopther thread since this one is reserved to
the probability of peptides assemblying.)

What I were terrified of was to be dragged into a discussion about scientific
evidences supporting faith. In my view there is no reason in faith to be discussed.

Here's where I have difficulty agreeing with you Angel, simply because you want to declare a matter of faith only that which is not scientific (which again I have no problem with) but then you consider issues such as ERVs, common ancestry and inter-special evolution as a cold-hard, scientifically proven fact. If you're ready to concede that those points are also a matter of faith and restrict the discussion to the provable and the observable then I am also ready to concede that the origin of life and the need for a creator is a matter of faith as well.

I personally find GMan upsetting (my fault of course) so I will keep interaction with him minimal.
That is a condition to keep me on the civil side. Sorry.

I think we all need to assess our styles of debate and adjust accordingly. Let's keep the discussion civil (otherwise I will have no choice but to wield the moderator ax and start chopping ).

[Byblos]

I am in total agreement with GMan that when you break things down to their minute detail,
you basically have one of two possibilities for life on earth (or anywhere else in
the universe for that matter). Either it came by chance (and again, by chance includes
ordered chemical reactions, RM+NS, etc.) or it came from a creator. All other possibilities
are subsets of these 2.

My opinions on that might be summarized as follows:

The whole issue can be reduced to what you mean by chance. If you mean, as it seems, to be
explained by a naturalistic (ie not by a designer) model, then of course we agree.
Of course nobody can disagree on a claim such as
"you just have two possibilities: either life was designed or it was not."

For example I would not call "natural selection" to be "chance". Of course I would
call random mutations as "chance".
But if we agree on what you exactly mean by chance, I think we can agree on it.

I just want to stress that GMan did not break down in ANY detail the emergence of life
so you may understand that I had some problem with agreeing with it a priori.

Aargh! I had prepared a post then lost it. Anyway, I just wanted to say we should just all stop the I said/he said/she said routine and stick to what is relevant. In my view, abiogenesis (and the whole creator thing) is definitely relevant. I don't see how we can continue the discussion without first agreeing on some common grounds with respect to abiogenesis.

As for Gman's probability argument, he is simply putting forth an argument made by others who are infinitely smarter than I am (and he'd probably agree with me that they are smarter than him too). The fact that you have a PHD in mathematics certainly entitles you to disagree with them and to state why. I for one am not in a position to argue the issue in greater detail. While I did take some pretty advanced courses in math, engineering, and computer science, I do not feel I'm equipped to offer detailed analyses of scenarios, analogies and such. That does not preclude me, however, from rendering an opinion as to whether or not something makes sense. In any case, if you have any beef with the way the argument is presented, I think Gman had posted enough info for you to take up the matter with the originators and not with him (ad hominem attacks on both sides notwithstanding).

With that said, Angel please feel free to discuss your beliefs any which way you wish.

Byblos.

[Gman]

As for Gman's probability argument, he is simply putting forth an argument made by others who are infinitely smarter than I am (and he'd probably agree with me that they are smarter than him too).

Well maybe a bit smarter than me... Ok John have it your way... They are smarter..

Any IDn supporter I asked at ARN, for example.
That is motivated by the fact that ID does not study the designer.

Whenever you study science you study the designer...

GMan you called me liar three times in two posts or so.
While I am not interested in what you think of me, you will understand that
this will prevent me from keep discussing with you untiln you grow up and
learn how to behave in a civil forum.

are absolutely ridicolous. Stop crying and grow up.

PS Yes your English is worse than mine...as I suspected.
I wrote

Likewise... Again, I'm willing to be open as long as you grow up and learn how to behave in a civil manner as well... Enough said about this...

WHERE THE HELL I EVER claimed my English to be good.
I am perfectly aware my English is far from perfect.
This does not prevert your conprehension to be worse than mine!

Oh, I really want to say something back at this.. I really do... But since I'm a gentleman I won't share it..

In this thread YOU wanted to discuss amino acid probability and
as soon as you realize (because I hope you realized that in the end) that your arguments were
untenable due to overwhelming counterevidences, you started dodging towards abiogenesis.

Angel, I was hinting at abiogenesis from the beginning with my link to it in my very first post. Even you stated in your second post that these were nonsensical numbers that abiogenesis is too odd to occur.. Also the whole acid probability was in jeopardy from the get go (I believe that calculation was created in 1992). Even Hugh Ross alluded to this in the second paragraph of my first statement.. He stated "This probability (the amino acid probability) still falls short of the real objective. Proteins in the cell typically consist of several hundred amino acids..." What I really wanted to stress here was that the probabilities for life are insurmountable. And the more we understand the origin-of-life question the more these types of probability calculations will become greater... But nonetheless they still are probabilities without the case for a creator.. And that is what we are left with...

I am more than ready to discuss abiogenesis with anybody on board. Not with you though.
Not until you admit that the original probability argument is nothing that a rough sketch
with no real positive content. It only proves that we still don't know much about the issue. And it has nothing to do with chemistry.

Both views (ID and DE) can't really explain abiogenesis... As I've stated before many times they are both theories.. Again that first original probability is bunk because the more we know about amino acids and functional equivalency the more absurd or greater that probability becomes.. Also it very much has to do with chemistry. As quoted, even Yockey determined that the probability of random chemical events stumbling upon a functionally equivalent cytochrome C is roughly on the order of 10^75....

Later...