Why Are Darwinists Scared to Read Signature in the Cell?

[buffalo]

The biggest failure of the ID side is generally at step D- they will claim “the odds of these forming is soooooo low, so something unnatural must have occurred” however, they do not even attempt to prove that life would not have manifested had the compound in question had not arisen.

That would be upping the odds even more.

 

[ricmat]

Are the articles online? To predict the odds of the chemical compounds necessary to form life occurring in nature, you would have to-
A. Discover the rate at which similar compounds were forming
B. Discover the various types of compounds that were forming
C. Discern the frequencies of these various compounds
D. Determine which compounds were suitable for life.
E. Fun and exciting calculations ensue.

The biggest failure of the ID side is generally at step D- they will claim “the odds of these forming is soooooo low, so something unnatural must have occurred” however, they do not even attempt to prove that life would not have manifested had the compound in question had not arisen.

I have no idea if the articles are on line. They are listed in the back of the book in the end notes.

Read the book, then come back and tell us what you found that is scientifically wrong.

 

[buffalo]

I have no idea if the articles are on line. They are listed in the back of the book in the end notes.

Read the book, then come back and tell us what you found that is scientifically wrong.

You saw the “strong”:nope: reply to the article I posted.

 

[AlbertBall]

I’ve also enjoyed listening in on a discussion with so many people who claim to know as much about evolutionary biology and climatology as any scientist in their respective fields. It is about time that someone put those arrogant scientists in their place. Just because they have spent their careers reading all the technical journals on a subject doesn’t mean that those of us who have read a book written for a popular audience don’t have an opinion too. It’s all just opinion, right? Those liberal moral relativists have really missed the boat. It’s is much more convenient to be intellectual relativists. Dumb people are just as smart as smart people! The intelligencia must be put in the service of the state or religious dogma or whatever brand of totalitarianism we want. Who are these scientists to deny what we believe so faithfully to be true? Don’t give up. If we really really really believe hard enough that evolutionary theory is false, then it just must be false. Those scientists need to start consulting the Bible when doing their taxonomies. They should start by dividing animals into two groups–clean and unclean–and go from there.

Regards,
Thumper

Very good post

 

[tjm190]

That would be upping the odds even more.

False- it makes the entire odds based argument invalid.
Think- the claim is that it is unlikely things would have turned out the way they are. I agree- but that doesn’t mean life wouldn’t exist had things not occurred differently.

 

[buffalo]

False- it makes the entire odds based argument invalid.
Think- the claim is that it is unlikely things would have turned out the way they are. I agree- but that doesn’t mean life wouldn’t exist had things not occurred differently.

Do you have an idea of what this life would be like?

 

[tjm190]

Do you have an idea of what this life would be like?

Nope.

 

[buffalo]

Nope.

You aren’t going down the multi-verse road are you?

 

[tjm190]

You aren’t going down the multi-verse road are you?

No, I’m saying the argument put forth by IDers is invalid-
The argument is that some things that are crucial to life as we know it are very unlikely to have arisen on their own correct?

 

[buffalo]

No, I’m saying the argument put forth by IDers is invalid-
The argument is that some things that are crucial to life as we know it are very unlikely to have arisen on their own correct?

Correct - the more you need the higher the odds. It is pretty clear now that the simplest life is complex.

 

[tjm190]

Correct - the more you need the higher the odds. It is pretty clear now that the simplest life is complex.

So the odds of life forming exactly the way it did are pretty slim.

 

[chessmane4e5]

So the odds of life forming exactly the way it did are pretty slim.

I was reading this article apologeticspress.org/articles/2575 and what struck me was the following:

Borel’s law of probability states that the occurrence of any event, where the chances are beyond one in one followed by 50 zeroes, is an event that we can state with certainty never will happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place (1962, chapters 1 & 3; see also 1965, p. 62).

With this in mind, it is interesting to note from the scientific literature some of the probability estimates regarding the formation of life by purely mechanistic processes. For example, Dr. Morowitz himself estimated that the probability for the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is one chance in 1x10^340,000,000 [that is one chance out of 1 followed by 340 million zeroes] (1968, p. 99). The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there are supposed to be only approximately 10^80 elementary particles (electrons and protons) in the whole Universe (Sagan, 1997, 22:967).

The late Carl Sagan estimated that the chance of life evolving on any given single planet, like the Earth, is one chance in 1x10^2,000,000,000 [that is one chance out of 1 followed by 2 billion zeroes] (1973, p. 46). This figure is so large that it would take 6,000 books of 300 pages each just to write the number! A number this large is so infinitely beyond one followed by 50 zeroes (Borel’s upper limit for such an event to occur) that it is simply mind-boggling. There is, then according to Borel’s law of probability, absolutely no chance that life could have “evolved spontaneously” on the Earth.

Consider, further, these facts (after Morris and Parker, 1987, pp. 269-273). If we assume the Universe to be 5 billion light years in radius, and assume that it is crammed with tiny particles the size of electrons, it has been estimated that conceivably 10^130 particles could exist in the Universe. Every structure, every process, every system, every “event” in the Universe must consist of these particles, in various combinations and interchanges. If, to be extremely generous, we assume that each particle can take part in 10^20 (that is a hundred billion billion) events each second, and then allow 10^20 seconds of cosmic history (this would correspond to 3,000 billion years or 100-200 times the current maximum estimate of the age of the Universe), then the greatest conceivable number of separate events that could take place in all of space and time would be:

10^130 x 10^20 x 10^20 = 10^170 events

Almost impossible is another way to say it.

 

[tjm190]

I was reading this article apologeticspress.org/articles/2575 and what struck me was the following:

Almost impossible is another way to say it.

Source on Carl Sagan’s supposed statement? He played a pivotal role in forming the drake equation, which assumed a 100% chance of life occurring when all the ‘parts’ and ‘conditions’ are set.

Again, waiting on a calculation that predicts the odds of life arising, rather than just the odds of life arising the exact way it did here.

 

[ricmat]

False- it makes the entire odds based argument invalid.
Think- the claim is that it is unlikely things would have turned out the way they are. I agree- but that doesn’t mean life wouldn’t exist had things not occurred differently.

The argument that any combination of anything results in successful life is invalid.

The argument that any random mutations result in successful life is invalid.

 

[ricmat]

No, I’m saying the argument put forth by IDers is invalid-
The argument is that some things that are crucial to life as we know it are very unlikely to have arisen on their own correct?

The exact methodology for calculating relative odds for the formation of proteins, DNA, and a basic one cell structure are outlined in the book. Take a look at it, and then comment about it.

And. Here we are at post 75 or so, arguing about Signature in the Cell, and apparently I’m the only one to have read it. Why is that? Does the thread title say it all?

 

[rossum]

I was reading this article apologeticspress.org/articles/2575 and what struck me was the following:

Borel’s law of probability states that the occurrence of any event, where the chances are beyond one in one followed by 50 zeroes, is an event that we can state with certainty never will happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place

Oh dear, another misapplication of Borel’s Law. You are being mislead.

Take a normal pack of 52 cards. Shuffle them. Look at the new order of the cards. There are 52 possibilities for the top card, 51 for the next card, 50 for the next and so on. The total number of possible ways to shuffle a pack of cards is 52 x 51 x 50 x … x 3 x 2 x 1 = 52 factorial = 52! = 8.06e+67. That is 8 followed by 67 zeros, well beyond the limit set in Borel’s Law. The chance of a shuffled pack of cards being in that particular order is beyond the limit set in Borel’s Law. So, either it is impossible to shuffle a pack of cards or Borel’s Law is not applicable to all situations.

In this case, it is that Borel’s Law is not applicable to all situations. Your source not only needs to state Borel’s Law, it also needs to show that evolution is one of the cases where Borel’s Law applies rather than one of the cases where the Law does not apply. Your source fails to do that, hence my description of it as misleading.

Almost impossible is another way to say it.

Do you find it impossible to shuffle a pack of cards?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Oh dear, another misapplication of Borel’s Law. You are being mislead.

Take a normal pack of 52 cards. Shuffle them. Look at the new order of the cards. There are 52 possibilities for the top card, 51 for the next card, 50 for the next and so on. The total number of possible ways to shuffle a pack of cards is 52 x 51 x 50 x … x 3 x 2 x 1 = 52 factorial = 52! = 8.06e+67. That is 8 followed by 67 zeros, well beyond the limit set in Borel’s Law. The chance of a shuffled pack of cards being in that particular order is beyond the limit set in Borel’s Law. So, either it is impossible to shuffle a pack of cards or Borel’s Law is not applicable to all situations.

In this case, it is that Borel’s Law is not applicable to all situations. Your source not only needs to state Borel’s Law, it also needs to show that evolution is one of the cases where Borel’s Law applies rather than one of the cases where the Law does not apply. Your source fails to do that, hence my description of it as misleading.

Do you find it impossible to shuffle a pack of cards?

rossum

Let’s shuffle a deck of 2000.

 

[ricmat]

Oh dear, another misapplication of Borel’s Law. You are being mislead.

Take a normal pack of 52 cards. Shuffle them. Look at the new order of the cards. There are 52 possibilities for the top card, 51 for the next card, 50 for the next and so on. The total number of possible ways to shuffle a pack of cards is 52 x 51 x 50 x … x 3 x 2 x 1 = 52 factorial = 52! = 8.06e+67. That is 8 followed by 67 zeros, well beyond the limit set in Borel’s Law. The chance of a shuffled pack of cards being in that particular order is beyond the limit set in Borel’s Law. So, either it is impossible to shuffle a pack of cards or Borel’s Law is not applicable to all situations.

In this case, it is that Borel’s Law is not applicable to all situations. Your source not only needs to state Borel’s Law, it also needs to show that evolution is one of the cases where Borel’s Law applies rather than one of the cases where the Law does not apply. Your source fails to do that, hence my description of it as misleading.

Do you find it impossible to shuffle a pack of cards?

rossum

Try specifying the card order. Then shuffle and deal the cards. Say it takes you 60 seconds to shuffle and deal the cards. How long would it take on average to deal the specified order?

And no, not all orders are the same.

 

[tjm190]

The argument that any combination of anything results in successful life is invalid.

The argument that any random mutations result in successful life is invalid.

Nobody is making either claim- let’s say we discovered that life had formed on another planet. Would you expect that life to have the exact same chemical make up as life on Earth? What if we found 1000?

 

[tjm190]

Let’s shuffle a deck of 2000.

Same result